Dbboy - that's the definition of NIMBY-ism, surely? So you're saying all is fine as the nursery can move down the road, out of the area, no longer disturbing anyone in the neighbourhood.
What about the effect the move will have on the children that are settled at the existing nursery, the parents who now have to add more time onto their day (and potentially off their working hours) to work a different route for the drop off/pick up, and the local residents of that area, who because of the extra cars taking children from their local nursery (where they walked) to one further afield, will see an increase of traffic on Forest Hill Road, and more difficult parking in streets where it is already much much worse than we have on the hill?
Not to mention the effect on East Dulwich parents who thought they would have a 24 space nursery to use, when in fact now it may have to be used by Forest Hill children.
On balance, the threatened closure (as Pipling said, its not over yet) of this resource affects the community to a much greater degree than the level of perceived nuisance to the one household which is complaining essentially about the noise of small children playing in the back garden (seriously!?)
Yesterday when I got home from work I like a lot of others found a letter /poster delivered by Piplings. I had a look at the website and carried on as usual not thinking much more about it.
This afternoon at about 5pm, I've had a Piplings "supporter" with his very young son on a scooter and daugher in tow trying to find out my opinion and see if I wanted to sign a petiton to keep Piplings. I was further informed that apparently a lot of people remain unaware about the issue especially the elderly.
I was also told it has cost Piplings £60,000 in legal fees so far and it is one neighbour only who has taken legal action. I do feel sorry for Piplings being in debt for this amount. But if you are in business you access the potential risks, take precautions and if something like this starts to happen, talk, talk and talk again to your neighbours to resolve the issue before solicitors and judges get involved. You know it's then going to be damn costly.
So what happened to the group of neighbours quoted as having taken legal action? The story gets more and more twisted and I now don't know what is fact and fiction in the information put in the public domain so far.
However ddboy your comment could be applied to many businesses on the estate some of whom have been operating for years.One of Mr P;s major businesses has just hit the rocks. Mr P seems as capable as the rest of us mere mortals in making mistakes and getting their fingers burnt. That doesnt mean we should sit back and be smug about the mistakes that others may make. And it certainly doesnt excuse the anti child position of many, not all, on the estate.
Roz - I wasn't being smug about others mistakes, just expressing what I'd have done using 8 years direct business exprerience which has seen both deep troughs over that time as well as peaks.
As dbboy says, only one neighbour is bringing the legal action, supported, in kind and financially, by the TLERA road representative and the committee of TLERA.
Some other neighbours were initially objecting to the nursery at planning stages, but it has become clear that several of these neighbours have changed their minds since the nursery has been up and running, as they realised that it has no impact on the quiet residential nature of the street.
The family running the nursery did have extensive talks with neighbours, and at no point then or since have objections been raised directly to them. The one neighbour they didn't talk to admittedly was the one bringing the action, but that was because after 5 attempts, the neighbour was never at home to be informed. The family also requested a meeting with the TLERA committee before the planning application was made to explain their plans and solutions in place to reduce any potential impact - this request was refused by TLERA. I'm not sure what else they could have done to minimise risks.
So now it seems to be one neighbour against the nursery, with over 130 local residents supporting the nursery - as shown by the support on the e-petition set up by Friends of Piplings. (if you haven't seen it take a look at friendsofpiplings.org)
The nursery was up and running for about 7 months before the application for planning permission went in front of a planning committee so neighbours had plenty of opportunity to assess the impact it was having on the area.
The legal action is not, and has not, been supported financially by the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate Residents' Association. The Association does not have that sort of money!
The attached news sheet is being delivered to all homes on the Estate and gives a lot more facts. It's a long read but anyone who wants to understand why the Association has taken the actions it has will, I am sure, be keen to read it.
Straighttalk says "The association's profile in the case has heightened since the owners of the nursery chose to go to the Lands Chamber to have the covenant altered."
Evidence posted on this thread taken from TLERA's own minutes show that TLERA choose to dig up the covenant to use this as a reason why Piplings should close. Did they not expect a reaction? The reaction from Piplings to have the covenant altered seems understandable. Perhaps TLERA should have considered all their members that are in effect breaking the covenant before they decided to use this argument against Piplings.
So have 15 members called for a meeting? Isn't it time that the TLERA organisers who have been involved in this admit that a mistake has been made and attempt to make it right?
Straightalk - is it really, such a massive inconvenience to live by a nursery? Which is well run and isn't causing a problem for other residents? Can't a meeting be held and a compromise found? FYI I live beside a school here in Forest Hill, and have never felt it an inconvenience, not once. So I really can't understand the issue.
Having skim - read this the last paragraph says that other businesses need not fear anything happening to their operations if they are not making a nuisance. So has Piplings proved to be a nuisance in that respect, and if so what evidence of such is available?
I believe that many people have asked for such evidence but none has actually been supplied.
Does the TLRS condone the filming of parents and children using this nursery as seems to be happening?
So it seems from this leaflet that the massive inconvenience and change to the estate is:
1) sound of children playing "almost continuous" (Didn't PIplings agree to only having set hours for outdoor play)
2)Cars parked across driveways (not sure if this is hearsay or true but if true people the guilty party can stop)
3) staff smoking outside (who made you God)
For Piplings
1) Outstanding in all ofsted areas.
2) Many happy customers
3) Local employer
Yes local nurseries might be able to offer a 3 year old one day a week but that doesn't meet most parents needs. Plus, sadly some local nurseries just aren't that good. We need to have local competition at a high standard to raise the bar.
I'm sure the TLERA do good work too but over the years everything I've seen and heard about them makes me glad I dont have to deal directly with them. There were/are probably some valid complaints by neighbours about parking, smoking staff (valid grounds for complaint if those staff are trespassing on their property that is) and some noise. But that is undermined by the scare-mongering and exaggeration in that circular. They also sound like issues that weren't significant and could probably have been addressed by talking to the owners.
Ladywotlunches - DO NOT misuse what I said and add something onto the end of it. As dbboy says, only one neighbour is bringing the legal action, supported,
"in kind and financially, by the TLERA road representative and the committee of TLERA". I DIDN'T say this, STOP twisting what I siad.
This is the 2nd time you have twisted my words.
This post was last modified: 29-01-2012 04:47 PM by dbboy.
I attended the local meeting, called by the council to discuss the objections to the application (more than a year ago). That was the first the owners heard about staff smoking outside peoples' houses. Although this is not against the law, the owner asked all staff to stop smoking outside neighbours houses. I would be surprised if this problem had reoccurred since then - not that it should be grounds for shutting down the nursery. If other concerns had been raised with the nursery then I am sure there would have been a solution to these, but no such approaches have been made, instead neighbours are filming children arriving at the nursery when their parents park perfectly legally and sensibly.
There are usually ways to deal with these issue outside of legal proceedings, it is unfortunate that TLERA has made no attempt to help neighbours/members work together for a mutually acceptable solution.
As a parent of a child at Piplings Nursery, and local resident, I feel I have to respond to the ‘facts’ noted in the TLERA newsletter posted this afternoon:
With regards to Nursery places in the area:
I visited 2 other nurseries in the local area when I was pregnant with my daughter who is now coming up to 2 years old. I put my name on the waiting lists and at several stages during my pregnancy and maternity leave contacted them to check progress on her place. I was informed I was ‘no. 51 on the list’, or told ‘it’s not likely a place will come up for at least a year, probably longer..’.
Thankfully in the meantime I contacted and visited Piplings and was offered a place for when I returned to full time work in May last year. We immediately signed up.
This was an easy decision to make. On visiting the nursery it was way above the standard of others in the local area. An opinion clearly echoed by other parents and more importantly the Ofsted inspection later that year. Outstanding in all 17 areas.
On receiving the devasting news two weeks ago that we were facing losing Piplings Forest Hill I contacted the other nurseries again in order to keep our options open (Piplings East Dulwich is further away for us), and was informed by one that my daughter was still not at the top of the list, despite having been on it for 2 years. The other had not kept my daughter on their list despite me requesting them to.
In fact the topic of finding available places at local quality childcare was one discussed almost weekly by the mothers I met during my maternity leave, often with tears and angst at the worry of finding somewhere they felt happy leaving their children when returning to work. There was a severe shortage of places, particularly as siblings usually take priority over other new starters.
I felt incredibly lucky to have found a place for my daughter at such a peaceful, small and intimate nursery.
And now we face losing this. As do other parents in the future.
I appreciate that Tewkesbury Lodge Estate is a quiet and residential area. But the nursery is not a nuisance.
On the days I drive to drop my daughter off (we walk when ever we can) I park sensibly and safely, and have NEVER blocked a neighbours drive.
I have also NEVER seen staff smoke outside the premises, and have had confirmation from the owners that staff do not smoke.
The children are not in the garden ‘almost all of the day, every day’ – as part of the planning application this was set as a maximum of 2 hours before and after lunch, and I know they are rarely out there even this amount of time.
Quality local nurseries are ‘a good thing’ as Lewisham council suggest. I am sure the suggestion in the newsletter that a Sainsbury’s Local will be next can be seen as a little ridiculous.
I really hope the members of TLERA can do what they can to halt the legal action against Piplings and be proud of having an outstanding nursery on the hill.
"Closure of the Nursery
It is understood that staff and parents of children at the
nursery have been given notice that the nursery is to close in
4 weeks time as a result of the legal action, and been advised
to find alternative facilities. This appears to be a decision
made by the proprietors. At the present time, there is no
injunction (or other court order), requiring them to close."
My guess is that this is a prudent commercial decision taken by the owners to avoid more significant legal costs. As they have applied for the restrictive covenant to be amended, they might as well wait and see what the court decides.
Many members of Lewisham Council's staff smoke outside Lewisham Town Hall. Should the Town Hall be closed down?
It would be interesting to find out more about these 11 or so local nurseries approached allegedly by TLRA. I actually cant think of 11 nurseries which could be described as 'local' to Forest Hill at least a year or so ago. There are however several pre schools which technically are also 'nurseries' as they take 2 1/2 year olds, but these operate term time only and then from 9am to 3 pm and some only do half days. Then there is Fairlawn and Eliot Bank which also have nurseries but operate on a part day term time only basis.
Piplings is a wrap around nursery which caters for the children of working parents from early morning until early evening. It would not be appropriate to compare apples with pears and I wonder if that is what the TLRA have done rather conveniently to assauge itself of guilt.
I have a daughter aged 4 `1/2 and twins of 2. I started looking at nursery places when my daughter was 3 weeks old. I was told then by several that there was a long waiting list. She stayed on that waiting list , going instead to a childminder, for one particular nursery for over 3 years until over 3 years of age and went to that nursery for a year. My twins fortunately benefitted from the sibling policy and got in at the same time.
I had looked at others, well the two that were in Forest Hill, and they said the same thing. One of these had not got a good reputation at that time and the other had just opened but was almost completely full having had another branch in East Dulwich. That was the entire choice a few years ago. To have put her name down for more would have been expensive as the registration fee was around £50 each time. You cant therefore go and try and bag every nursery in the area unless you are well off.
It was also extremely hard to find a suitable childminder for my daughter and I had to start her somewhere 5 months before I needed it in order to secure her place. Things were very tough then and I dont see how that suddenly changed in 2010.
I have to say that I drive past Piplings almost every day to and from work at what is probably peak drop off and pick off time and have never seen anyone go in or out of it, nor hang around smoking in the street.
I think the whole TLRA response is nothing more than another weak unevidenced excuse for its unfortunate and vexations actions.
I read the TLERA news sheet and it seemed pretty reasonable to me.
It also said that the nursery was opened before planning permission was granted.
Opened without planning permission and in breach of a restrictive covenant. Does that suggest any type of pattern?
If I read correctly the application to the Lands Tribunal is to allow a nursery with 12 places not the current 24. Why not seek permission for 24 places if that is a perfectly reasonable use of the property?
Search
Help
