Gingernuts... who is 'self interested' here? The parents of the children at the nursery or the next door neighbours protecting the price of their house?
In this current climate we should be applauding any new successful business, not driving it into the ground. Especially as this one is run by a young mother, trying to do the best for her children.
You need to live in the real world - not the gilded parapet of Liphook Crescent.

I don't actually disagree with part of Gingernuts comment - people do have the right to protest and exercise what rights they have however what seems to have happened here was an engineered action initiated and stirred up by people who aren't necessarily affected by the business for dubious reasons of their own. This case must have cost thousands to set up and pursue. Pursued with a vengeance obviously.

I originally said in an earlier post that I would be worried if a business of this nature was proposed next door to me. That remains true but I would hope I would look into the facts of the matter before opposing it however I do think that a childcare business by its very nature isnt a 'toxic' neighbour by any accounts. I would much prefer this to a doctors surgery or even a solicitors office. There is more traffic generated by those two uses than would ever be generated by a small nursery. Unlike a lot of people it would seem, I don't find the presence of small children objectionable.

Most historical covenants were there to protect neighbourhoods but time moves on and many of these become obselete or ridiculous. There are still many covenants in existence which require households to contribute to the upkeep of their local church - I have come across this- its considered 'exotic' in legal terms but if someone chose to enforce it it would cause problems for many communities. All in all, its expected that people act reasonably and in good faith, not however pursue vexatious litigation as seems to be the case here.

I don't have any involvement with the TLRA but would imagine that as a resident run organisation, decisions should be openly and democratically made, but that doesnt seem to be the case here.

Gingernuts; yes I'm a parent but, no, I'm not self interested...well not about this anyway. If either of my kids went to this nursery there really would be grounds for noise complaints.

I just find in incredibly difficult to understand what level of nuisance could come from such a small nursery that would justify pursuing an action like this. The owner of the nursery has put her details in the public domain in order to establish her business so I see no reason why the details of those who want to disestablish it shouldn't be acknowledged either.

Gingernuts,
Not self-interested, just another parent. It means I value the service even if I don't use it.
I too live in a house that has restrictive covenant of not doing a business from the premises. Now the modern technology means that someone can earn a living behind a computer screen, and one's neighbours would be none the wiser whether one's use of computer was commercial. Therefore one is breaking the covenant, but there is no impact on neighbours, the very reason for the existence of covenant in the first place. Now all those mothers who are child-minders in the area are self-employed businesses. Should we insist they all cease their trading too! (I am sure that for most of us the same covenants apply and one can always argue noise when children are about) As I understand, prior to opening as a nursery, Piplings operated as child-minders. The difference is now few more children. Not heavy machinery noise, not frequent visitors during the day, not piles of commercial waste that modern packaging produces... No, someone has objection to children being cared for!

So welcome to Forest Hill, the place where your children are not welcome!

So do forgive me that I take it personally that someone's children are not welcome. Shame on you and anyone else who puts their enjoyment before the wellbeing of future generations.

The Piplings will have to consider alternative sources of income. i suggest renting rooms to rock musicians. This will not be covered by the covenant, but will probably generate much more noise at all hours of the day and night!

I applaud a lot of the work of the TLRA, but if the details on this forum can be trusted, they are very wide of the mark here, if indeed the action is sanctioned by the whole group rather than a few individuals.

I agree with the need to preserve the character of the estate but that isn't the same as closing down much needed businesses to avoid the horror of having a few children and associated parents 'disturbing the peace'.

In a similar vein, I remember the ridiculous scare stories propagated in the this forum and by the TLRA about the TETRA radio mast, when there is zero hard evidence of any harm.

Good point Les.
In the case of TETRA there was a long campaign by roughly the same individuals.
AndrewR accepted that despite being involved in TLERA opposition, the more recent evidence suggests that their well founded concerns were nothing more than scare stories. I hope that TLERA takes a similarly grown up approach to the complete nonsense about traffic chaos and 24 screaming babies drowning out passing aeroplanes across the whole of the estate!

I look forward to TLERA accepting that a nursery is an asset for the community rather than a problem, and that this is actually a great location for a quiet nursery set in a residential house.

Ah, but don't forget that these people believe that the best environment to nurture small children is not a home but 'commercial premises'.

At my own request, the names I mentioned in post #98 have been removed by the forum administrator.

Am I the only person to think that some of the posts on this thread have been somewhat hysterical and even vindictive?

If you buy a property that is subject to a restrictive covenant and you chose to ignore that covenant then that is your look out. If the owners of the nursery were badly advised that is unfortunate but you can't expect the neighbours to give up their rights just to keep the customers of the nursery happy.

All the guff about the poor children is an irrelevant emotional smokescreen. Leave the kids out of an argument that is and has always been between "grown ups".

Which posts are vindictive exactly? The ones setting out to destroy a viable business from day 1 through a vitriolic hate campaign by the residents association or the ones complaining about it?

Just want to register my support for Piplings. Do I need to declare that I'm a parent of a nursery attending toddler. Not Piplings, but a nursery that I love and I am really happy to leave my precious little person at everyday. I would be distraught to take her out of her home from home and I don't know how you would find a space at short notice given the waiting lists at local nurseries. I can empathise with the parents. The fact that Piplings got outstanding in every single ofsted area coupled with the testimonials on this thread from parents shows the quality of care afforded to the children. It is so sad that a quality loving environment is not available to these families. For what? I am struggling to understand what the unacceptable levels of disturbance are?

So objectors, why not show yourselves, I'm sure that you reading, let us know why you ruined a local business that was judged outstanding, that employed local staff and have satisfied local customers?

Personally I like to think I have a live and live approach to life, sounds to me that you objectors have a me me me,self entitled and selfish approach.

152047,

No, you are not alone; gingernuts most likely shares some of your views.

Selfish = person who is concerned with their own interests, needs, and wishes while ignoring those of others. The law may be on their side, but morally the community has spoken. And we called shame on them because they are selfish. That is not vindictive or hysterical, but a reasoned response.

BTW my neighbour is clearly in breach of his covenant as he has erected a shed in the garden. It bothers me so much that I ask you to fund my legal case and force him to bring it down, so that my view of a lovely tree is restored. The law would be on my side. Do you see how petty and outdated covenants can be!

This seems an extraordinary decision. Are the Piplings owners planning an appeal? From what I've researched online, there is a right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal if you can show that a restrictive covenant confers no "practical benefit of substantial value". Surely a case for that here? What legal advice / representation have the owners had?

Our house in the area includes a restrictive covenant saying we won't sell it for more than £350. I think we can probably all agree this is now somewhat out-of-date...

I am not a great fan of P J O'Rourke but he once wrote:

"There's a whiff of the lynch mob or the lemming migration about any overlarge concentration of like-thinking individuals, no matter how virtuous their cause."

Certainly not...I'm happy to give you the full 350 quid for your house

152047: whatever the tone of the responses to this they are largely driven by the disbelief that people could be bothered to take such action. I'm still waiting to hear quite what impact the nursery had on the Tewkesbury Estate that justified killing the business.

An example of an old covenant:

"The Corbett estate which was built by a Scottish Presbyterian family. There is a covenant on a lot of the land which prevents alcohol being sold, which is why there are no local pubs."

Disaster!

152947 "you can't expect the neighbours to give up their rights just to keep the customers of the nursery happy." Please let us know the rights that the nursery forced neighbours to give up?

You might think there is a whiff of a lynch mob in people expressing support for Piplings, I think there is a very strong odour of lynch mob coming from the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate Residents Association.

MrsR,

I don't believe that there is a whiff of lynch mob about the residents association at all, and that is one of the core issues here - there don't appear to be enough supporters of this action to create a mob.

It strikes me that it is purely a case of a small minority number of people, using the perceived "respectability" of a resident's association to advance their personal opinions. To the detriment of a specific local business, and without the knowledge of those they should pretend to represent.

What wayfarer said, and in just 3 short lines. A great summation!