Comments

DAMESATHOME@YAHOO.CO.UK
send the Dame your information, discretion assured.
Comments are welcome but do not necessarily reflect the view of the Dame.
Offensive/inappropriate comments will be deleted and the poster banned.

Monday, 25 January 2016

FAIRHOLME'S 'WILD WEST' BASEMENT IN STANDARD

ILLEGAL BASEMENT

The Evening Standard runs a story on the awful Fairholme and his very controversial basement

Read it HERE

39 comments:

  1. My Mate The Builder25 January 2016 at 17:55

    Mr Fairholme has been caught with his pants down. The Councillors are unlikely to be taken in by his excuse "I did not know what was being built. Now that I know that the basement is too big I am taking steps to put it right".

    Where were you born, mate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kensington Resident25 January 2016 at 17:58

      This guy deserves an Oscar for the size of his porkies

      Delete
  2. Basement builder Cranbrook fell out with Fairholme because they refused to build a non approved basement.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The guy is tough. He locked the Cranbrook builders out of the site and the police had to be called to handle an altercation between Fairholme and the workmen. About a dozen people squaring up and shouting one morning in Abingdon Villas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The gentlefolk of Kensington do not need this kind of trash living close by

      Delete
  4. Incredible how these City guys think they can do whatever takes their fancy. To hell with the rest of the world

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Dame's Investigator25 January 2016 at 18:38

      The Managing Director of Cranbook Basements wrote to Fairholme in August last year (the letter is public record)to say

      "we will have no part in this flagrant disregard of of legal requirements"

      "this manipulative behaviour is neither productive or helpful"

      "please confirm that the plans issued to Cranbrook have received planning permission from RBKC"

      Says it all.

      Delete
    2. Follower of Fairholme25 January 2016 at 18:41

      "I did not know what was going on".

      Really??????

      Delete
    3. The Dames Investigator26 January 2016 at 14:24

      Mr Fairholme's claim that he did not know what was going on is bullshit. He is a hands on owner who has made 23 planning applications trying to push the boundaries of his basement application.

      He knew EXACTLY what was going on.

      Delete
  5. Kensington has suffered dreadfully following the arrival of this type of person

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not only Kensington. The whole world.....

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sounds like he doesn't need a planning consultant. Sounds like he needs a psychiatrist. New line of service offering for Savills perhaps? They seem to be willing to do anything for money......

    ReplyDelete
  8. The reptile deserves to be monstered

    ReplyDelete
  9. Greed, greed and more greed. It's the reason the rotten borough is the only one in London where the value of residential property reduced last year [FT 16/1/16].

    Who wants to buy a house that will be surrounded by multiple building sites for years on end? And when the work is finished, all the neighbouring houses will be subject to ongoing subsidence and increased flood risk. Answer. No one.

    Due to these mindless basement diggers Kensington, Chelsea and Knightsbridge are no longer attractive places to live. So the super rich take their money elsewhere and house prices drop.

    ReplyDelete
  10. RBKC will pay dearly for their misdeeds....

    ReplyDelete
  11. Only if and when residents vote en masse for A.N. Other.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The retrospective planning application has been withdrawn from the Planning Meeting tonight. No reason has been given.

    Dame, do you know what is going on??

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Dames Investigator26 January 2016 at 14:42

    It was established by the Council this afternoon that there is a discrepancy between the plans presented to the Council by the owner and the actual size of the basement that has been dug. The Council is deciding what to do next.

    In the meantime it is not considered appropriate to present the Recommendation for Retrospective Approval to the Planning Committee tonight. Therefore the item has been withdrawn from the Agenda

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is WORSE THAN APPALLING. A cover up.

      Does the Council not recognise that they cannot manipulate the system in this way? If there is a dishonest application then it should be exposed in the Committee and the consequences determined.

      In a democracy this kind of thing cannot just be removed to "behind closed doors"

      Heads must roll.

      Delete
    2. I am speechless

      Delete
    3. Goes to show the power of the press. Story exposed in the Evening Standard last night followed by collapse of the stout party

      Delete
  14. If there is a discrepancy between the plans given to the Council and what has actually been dug, then the solution is simple.

    No retrospective approval!

    What is this Council playing at? Who is taking back handers? Who is masterminding the cover up?

    ReplyDelete
  15. We live in a World of make believe

    ReplyDelete
  16. Retired Chief Executive26 January 2016 at 15:04

    This is a serious error of political judgement by RBKC.

    The owner was scheduled to present his case tonight to the Planning Committee after objectors spoke against his retrospective basement application. And the press had arranged to attend.

    The owner should have been asked to explain the reason why he submitted dishonest plans for his basement and the Chairman would then have had two decision options:
    (i) to refuse the application
    (ii) to adjourn the case for further consideration

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is essential in a democracy to get the facts on the public record. There is still no public record that Mr Fairholme's drawings are dishonest. It is essential for the Council to communicate this if the story is true.

      Delete
  17. This sort of thing happens all the time, but without the publicity.

    Watch for immediate and strong RBKC enforcement against this illegitimate basement. If there's no sign of it, the scenario is likely to be the following:

    There will be another attempt to obtain planning permission. The best time will be over Easter or the summer holidays, when most of the current objectors are likely to be away. When this occurs, all concerned will do their best to avoid public objections. This is so the case can be "buried" by so-called delegated powers. In the event of RBKC receiving less than 3 objections to the next application, officers will be free to grant whatever planning permission they wish, no matter how dubious the application.

    If RBKC does act in the public interest in this case, it will be a sign that a corner has been turned. In that case, much of the thanks for such a change of policy will be due to the Dame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The site is riddled with illegal practices. Water is being pumped illegally into the sewers because of the flooding and Thames Water has issued an enforcement notice.

      Delete
  18. It is quite incredible that matters have reached this advanced stage and NOT A SINGLE FINE or refused permission has occurred.

    Truly the Wild West. If you have money in Kensington you can do anything

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Council has an enforcement notice in operation but digging has continued at a furious pace in recent weeks. A large skip was removed last week AND the week before

      Delete
    2. The police had to be called when Fairholme fired Cranbrook basements and locked the workers out of the site. Confiscating their tools and equipment. There was a near riot in the street, Abingdon Villas

      Delete
  19. Given the press interest in this story it is important for the Royal Borough to issue a press release immediately explaining why the retrospective planning application was withdrawn at the 11th hour

    ReplyDelete
  20. What is going on?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thank goodness I do not live next door to Fairholme. Sharing a Party Wall with this man must be a nightmare.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Fairholme needs to be MONSTERED

    ReplyDelete
  23. There must be some red faces over at Savills. Getting close and personal with Officers in "fix it" meetings using dishonest plans.

    ReplyDelete
  24. When I was a boy Savills would never have been involved in this kind of thing

    ReplyDelete
  25. This does not sound above board. To approve a basement retrospectively is a VERY big deal, if for no other reason that it is highly unusual. Approve this would have involved considerable time by officers, site visits and the direct involvement of Graham Stallwood. Are we really to believe no one noticed until hours before the planning meeting that the plans weren't accurate? Is it not the duty of officers to confirm whether information provided is accurate, particularly when neighbours have raised alarms? Feels there is more to this story than we are being led to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Submitting false information to a public official is a criminal act. Mr. Stallwood needs to publicly commit to investigate what was submitted and by whom and to make the results of that available to the public. If the facts are as represented, either Mr. Fairholme, Savills or a planning officer must answer to the justice system. This is certainly not the only case where false information has been provided. No doubt there are a few builders and owners shaking in their boots right now. Thank you Mr. Fairholme for bringing this problem to the front and centre.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The issue is not simply Savills part in it, but a system that positively encourages private agreements between developers and officers. Will any officers be named and held to account over this disgraceful matter?

    ReplyDelete

Comments are your responsibility. Anyone posting inappropriate comments shall have their comment removed and will be banned from posting in future. Your IP address may also be recorded and reported. Persistent abuse shall mean comments will be severely restricted in future.