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.

Friday, 1 April 2016

ALICE IN WONDERLAND IS ALIVE AND WELL AND LIVING IN ABINGDON VILLAS

The Council does not understand how to administer the planning process. 
It is a highly tuned box ticking bureaucracy.
FAIRHOLME PUTS ONE
OVER ON COUNCIL!

As part of the retrospective approval for the illegal basement at 32 Abingdon Villas, the Council required the owner, Mr Fairholme, to appoint a Chartered Engineer to make sure that corrective measures are taken. 



The box tickers do not understand that this engineer will have no teeth if he is appointed by Mr Fairholme, paid by Mr Fairholme and reports to Mr Fairholme. 
A joke? Of course. But the box gets ticked.

It gets worse......

Mr Fairholme has appointed Pringeur-James as the engineer to take corrective action. 
The very same firm that oversaw the building of the illegal basement!

33 comments:

  1. Follower of Phelps1 April 2016 at 12:11

    You could not make it up!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Now this is a story that warms my heart. My make believe world is thriving in Kensington

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is very hard to believe that enforcement is not more rigorous in the Royal Borough. This sounds like a game of children's touch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Savills would like it to be known that we have parted company with Mr Stephen Fairholme.

      Delete
  4. My Mate The Builder1 April 2016 at 12:46

    Awesome. This is a cool dude

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Out of Pocket Surveyor1 April 2016 at 14:17

      I hope that you never have to try and get your money from Mr Fairholme

      Delete
    2. Mr Fairholme, residents, the Dame and the hornets should not underestimate the determination and ferocity (when required) of the Council's Chief Enforcement Officer, Luke Perkins

      Delete
    3. Surely you jest:http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/luke-perkins-during-mr-gay-uk-2006-grand-final-at-the-new-news-photo/120960278#

      Delete
    4. Resident of The Royal Borough3 April 2016 at 09:11

      19.15 has made one's Sunday morning a joy

      Delete
  5. Retired Chief Executive1 April 2016 at 14:13

    There are some very strange stories about behaviour, rules and operating practice in the Planning Department that come up from time on this website.

    There is a new Planning Director, Mr Graham Stallwood, and it is open to him to request a Governance review of his department. This should be carried out by an external person to ensure objectivity. Mr Stallwood has more freedom now to question practice and tradition than he will ever have again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What a shambles. A huge expensive shambles. What is the point of the Planning Department?

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is unbelievable. Not only did they build an illegal basement, but starting building it before the necessary Cmtp and tree protection had been discharged. The reason given (or excuse) for why it was at the last minute withdrawn from the original planning meeting it was to be heard at was because the planning officers report had incorrectly stated in planning history that one of the many previous planning applications had been granted when in fact it had been refused). I don't understand why fairholme is not being hit with a large fine. It really makes you wonder how many other basements are being built larger and deeper than approved. Does anyone from the councils planning department go and actually check. Without residents, councillors like Mackover and the Dame, this particular case would never have got the attention that was needed so well done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Department does not have the resources to inspect basements

      Delete
    2. I can appreciate this however what this means us that planning and basement construction is totally unregulated after the permission has been granted, as enrforcements only come about due to reports by neighbours, so are usually for CMTP or obvious extensions etc. so basically you have no idea whether the basements are bigger, deeper, and whether other conditions such as water pumps, 1 meter of top soil etc have been adhered to. Shouldn't it be a condition of planning, that a building inspector or independent surveyor at the applicants expense signs off on these as a final discharge of conditions to the council. Are you going to check that Mr. Fairholme has actually carried out the corrective work to his basement or leave it up to residents and neighbours or just take the word of Mr Fairholme and his reappointed Engineer. Again to reiterate, the flouting of planning permission would never have come to light without other residents, and their persistence and their seems to be no mention in the officers reports recommending retrospective permission about the fact that Cranbrook would not continue without the proper planning permission or that the Neighbours surveyors were denied entry, or that not all the conditions had been discharged before building began. So even with this most obvious abuse of the planning process officers were still happy to recommend it.

      Delete
  8. Box-ticking bozos! As for....'The Department does not have the resources to inspect basements' (see above).... it finds the resources to fund flop opera, a dud PR department, flash cars, insane vanity projects such as 'London's Champs Elysées' aka Exhibition Rd etc etc. Fining basement bandits, big time, would fund inspectors.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Given the date of publication, please tell me this is only an April Fool's joke!?

    ReplyDelete
  10. No despite the date it is no joke.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I deal with construction contracts every day. As crazy as it sounds for this case, it actually is legally correct for the owner to have the engineer report directly to him. This is because it is the owner that is ultimately legally liable for what happens on site. It is also because in most cases the infractions are done by the builders rather than the owner. The facts of this particular case are just odd insofar as the owner sounds insane. If the Council did their jobs right, they would take action and both the owner AND the engineer would be in deep trouble. The Council enforcement officers are being weak and failing their constituents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Dame's Adviser2 April 2016 at 19:19

      Thank you 18:18
      It would benefit the blog to have more similarly sensible comments such as this. It enlivens and educates readers

      Delete
  12. Mr Fairholme continues with his lawlessness. He is now building a first floor construction at the rear of the building that was already turned down by the Council during one of his 24 Planning Applications for this project. I have informed neighbours, The Scarsdale Association (ESSA) and the Kensington Society. The Council does not answer the telephone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plan No 1010682 in PP/12/04575 appears to have been falsified.

      Delete
    2. Enforcement officers should be around there first thing tommorrow morning. I see that the council has refused to discharge the condition of the appointment or (reappointment) of the chartered engineer). The whole site should be shut down until this is all sorted properly. The council has to stop pussyfooting around and send a clear message about this. Fairholme may be an extreme example, but am sure others have also been allowed to get away with things, it has to stop.

      Delete
  13. Mr Fairholme does not like the Chairman of ESSA, Anthony Walker. He rings his doorbell late at night and shouts abuse through the intercom. Mr Fairholme is also investigating neighbours for possible tax evasion. He has accused one of running a business from their home. He has also harassed another neighbour for running up and down the stairs and making a noise. And he barged into a neighbouring block of flats and shouted at startled residents for opposing his basement plans.

    A neighbour from Hell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Running up and down stairs and making a noise! What about the noise of digging a basement?

      Delete
    2. As they used to say at Merrills, Fairholme is confused and conflicted. Mr Fairholme sued Merrills for paying him a bonus of £325k that was "too small".

      Delete
    3. After Fairholme sued his employer he found that word gets around and he became unemployable. An expensive mistake. Sounds as though he is going to have to sell his new basement too - you cannot coexist with neighbours that you have managed to turn against you.

      Some people do not understand how the world works.

      Delete
  14. Fly On The Wall3 April 2016 at 15:35

    There is also the small question of excrement that was pushed through a neighbour's letterbox late one night.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Stephen Fairhome likes to be noticed. Just like failed ex Leader Cllr Cockell and his Council Bentley "RBKC!", Stephen Fairholme drives around in "SF5", a rather less successful VW Golf.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Unknown people with personal number plates on small cars is pretentious.

    Prat.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    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.