A reasonable summary and some fair points. It should be noted that we still know little about the 'fact' that some neighbours have found the nursery to have a negative effect on their quality of life.

By the letter of the covenant none of your scenarios are permitted - which seems ludicrous in most residential areas, especially in London.

Planning permission surrounding commercial activities and 'dwellinghouses' may be needed if:

• the house will no longer be used mainly as a private residence. This is the key test - has it become business premises first and a home second?
• the business activities will lead to increased traffic or parking in a residential area.
• the business involves any unusual activities for a residential area.
• the business may disturb your neighbours at unreasonable hours or create other forms of nuisance, such as noise or smells.
• you need to make major structural changes to your property, altering or extending it.
  

On this basis I'd suggest (3) would definitely need a planning application, (4) probably wouldn't, (5) would depend on the number of cars (either way, they cannot be advertised for sale on the highway) and I'm not sure on (1) and (2). I cant see why 1-2 wouldn't be granted permission, nor 3 if we're talking about 3 B&B bedrooms. 4 exists in so many instances around the country and 5 wouldn't be allowed in a commercial sense but you can buy and sell cars privately so there would be trouble taking action against it if there were never more than a small number in the street and they didn't have for sale notices in them.

Bottom line, all of those scenarios exist in very similar or the same form in residential areas throughout the country and in the majority of cases without significant conflict. Mainly because it is about balance, the LPA would not allow a residential area to become commercial by allowing every planning application.

Thanks for setting this up.
Already today there have been 55 people supporting the nursery by signing the petition. That is more than signed the petition against planning permission!

Many people on the forum have asked how they can show their support and this seems like a perfect way to show your support for the owners, staff, and parents of Piplings.

What is incredible is that people are putting their names on the petition rather than being anonymous.

One of the reason that I moved of this area was because of the childcare and schools. Surely property value of family sized homes near such great parks can only benefit from an outstanding nursery.

I also think it is great that people are adding their names ot the petition and not chosing anonimity, as it shows they have the courage of their conviction.

Yes but the nursery is closing regardless so a petition is likely to make little difference now.

Roz - This is not a closed case yet. The neighbours can still change their mind and drop their action against the nursery.

Onetreehill said

How should I know? I have nothing to do with this action, but felt it was necessary to present the other side of the arguement, which I can sympathise with. Incidentially, the Elms seems like the perfect location for this kind of business and I wish Piplings all the best for the future.

TLERA have totally failed to communicate with the general membership about this case. They have only communicated with people who objected to the planning application (or signed the petition at that time?). One of TLERA's strength is in the fact that it represents around 300 households. But we have all (except for the favoured few) been kept in the dark. If TLERA ceased support for the action by the neighbour of Piplings, there could still be a chance of saving the nursery, or at least allow it to reopen after a short closure.

I would support the call for an EGM and/or a proper consultation by TLERA of the FULL membership to see if there is a mandate for the Association to involve itself in this neighbour v neighbour activity.

Yes but the nursery has gone!

Roz, the nursery isn't gone yet. Yes, parents have been given notice of the closure, but we are all aware that its not quite a done deal, and are hoping very much that the massive support that is being reflected so far goes someway to supporting the cause.

Or do you mean you've gone to find it and can't?

All
If you are supportive of the nursery, please sign the petition at:
http://www.friendsofpiplings.org

If you have concern about the role of TLERA in this matter (and are a TLERA member), please email chairman@tewkesburylodge.org.uk and request a Special General Meeting at the earliest opportunity. With 15 or more requests a meeting will be called inviting all members.

Thankyou, from one of a growing number of friends of Piplings.

I often work in schools and nurseries. I do not find the noise levels to be a problem. Nurseries in particular are much quieter than schools. The national curriculum does impose more outside activity these days.

There seems to be agreat reliance on the number of objectors to the original planning application. However, there are always objections made to almost every planning application. Lewisham would not be able to build any new schools if a few objectors had their way. My point is that people have been given the opportunity to make their objections known. The planning authority, obviously considered them before awarding planning permission. The planning application process is over. As with any process, if you do not like the final decision you should still accept it.

Personally, I do not agree with other posters that the covenant is definitely still enforceable. There is a process for overturning old and obsolete restrictive covenants.

Sherwood said

[Personally, I do not agree with other posters that the covenant is definitely still enforceable. There is a process for overturning old and obsolete restrictive covenants.]

You are quite right. I have just looked into this and it there is no guarantee that the covenant will be upheld. Indeed the fact that Lewisham granted planning permission will probably help the cause of the nursery.

If the owners of the business knew of the covenant's existence, it is a shame that they did not think about seeking its release via the Lands Tribunal before opening their business. If they had done that then perhaps this thread wouldn't be so long.

Bang on Sherwood, but for an outdated covenant this situation wouldn't exist.

152047: I think the reason this wasn't considered by the owners was that they bought the house years before beginning their childcare business and that business already existed in a smaller form before requiring planning permission to expand. I'd say it is natural to think, "do I need planning permission", but far from it to think, "do I need to check for restrictive covenants on my property".

This post was last modified: 27-01-2012 10:14 PM by IWereAbsolutelyFuming.

Let's be straight about this. There are currently around 50 businesses based in houses within the TLERA area. Some of them you would hardly know were there. Others, such as music teachers, are more visible - or rather audible. I'm not suggesting that anyone should try to close these businesses down by use of the restrictive covenant. What I am saying is: when there are 12 children playing in a garden, well-supervised by qualified adults, during 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon, why is the covenant being used to target this?

I sometimes thing that it would have been helpful if the covenant could have included unattended burglar alarms, car alarms, barking dogs, builders who start work very early in the morning, etc. But we live in London, and that is part of life.

Some people find the noise that chidlren make is a problem. But that's what children do. And if we stopped having children, then we might as well give up on the planet now.

So if they hadn't expanded their business and applied for planning permission would they still be in breach of their covenant for just running a childminding business? What exactly is the difference?

To quote an earlier posting, its not being lost just moving to bigger premises.

The owners of Piplings have already started another nursery for 24 children at The Elms, just off Forest Hill Road with Peckham Rye Park to the rear. We understand it offers facilities that are in no way inferior to those of Liphook Crescent with a huge, rear-walled garden for the children to play in and no neighbours to disturb.

This post was last modified: 27-01-2012 11:03 PM by dbboy.

The East Dulwich nursery was meant to be additional. Had this not been the case at least two members of staff would not be losing their jobs next month. And as I posted in response earlier, moving nursery places to East Dulwich is not good news for families in Forest Hill, especially mine.

FACT: The nursery has not closed. We are in the final desperate stages before closure is forced.We would love more than anything not to close.
FACT: If the nursery closes, it is not moving. You cannot just move a nursery into another existing nursery. There are some spaces that have been reserved by not taking any more East Dulwich clients so some children will be able to attend the other nursery, some won't. For some parents it will be a real struggle to walk all the way there from the other side of Forest Hill.Some staff will have a new job at the other nursery, but some will lose their jobs if the nursery closes.

FACT: Roz, you are correct. Childminders in the area are in breach of the covenant. Size/type of business is irrelevant. There is a simple test. Is it a dentist surgery? Is it a doctor's surgery? Is it a solicitor's practice? If the answer is no then there is a breach.