Saddened,

You have accused me and others who have pointed out that Piplings are not the only business on the estate who are breaking the covenant of scaremongering. Yet you do not consider the content of TLERA newsletter to be scaremongering "Does this mean that if the application had been for a Sainsbury’s Local on the Triangle, they might well have granted it?!". "the thin edge of the wedge"

You freely admit that you are not bothered by noise or litter, so apparently there is no disturbance to you from the nursery. However you cannot support Piplings on the basis that they "didn't go through the necessary process to open in accordance of the law" the law which states that no business except doctors or solicitors is acceptable. You do however accept the other businesses which break the covenant should be free to practice regardless of the law.

I cannot fathom your logic.

Thank you AMFM for publishing the Laws which are up for debate and pointing out that really each business on the estate would have to fight it's own corner regarding these laws, if pushed to do so. (I suppose if an unhappy neighbour or competitor saw fit to take them to court - apparently there's a lawyer who'll take these cases on a no win no fee basis).

I do think that Piplings should have sorted out their position with regards to the covenant before opening their business, but like plenty of other businesses on the estate, they didn't. Should they be punished for this? Should they have to shut? Lose their business? Staff lose their jobs? Children lose their home form home environment?

Here's hoping that the SGM will see a resolution of this issue before the court case. Perhaps if the majority vote to see Piplings and the good work it does flourish then the court case will be dropped. It's a big person who can say i was wrong, let's sort this amicably. That is an attitude I would like to see rewarded.