The covenant states that the new owners would do nothing to cause a nuisance or annoyance to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land.

Some people seem to find the filming of their children a nuisance.

"it would have to be demonstrated that the business was having a significant detrimental impact on the neighbours such as noise, traffic and congestion, before the court would enforce such a covenant by an injunction"

Please could you tell us what evidence the neighbours/TLERA have that proves the nursery is having a detrimental impact on the neighbours?

Were these concerns not monitored by the council before panning was approved? they can't have been as bad as your making out!

Most of the residents that I have spoken to were unaware the nursery was even there! some of these properties practically backed onto the nursery.

One resident that I spoke who's house backs onto the nursery told me that they would not approve of any nursery opening up on the hill due to the noise that would be generated by the children. When I informed them that the nursery had been open for the past 2 years they seemed surprised! they thought we were seeking planning to open one. Surely this proves my point that the level of noise that is being claimed to be generated has been greatly exaggerated?

I woud like a general meeting to be held by the TLERA to see if we could not all come to some agreement with the owners of Piplings and the neighbours, there must be a way of dealing with this with out going through the courts.

TLERA why did you not contact all members of the association before backing actions against the nursery using this outdated covenant?

There is also a music teacher who gives lessons up from the nursery, should we be stopping her from working from home. Cars dropping the children of and collecting from lessons, noise!!! etc... how far do we go with this, lets not forget that Piplings have got planning permission and the neighbours concerns were taken into account at the time.

congestion? really! lets be honest...

Congestion?

I assume that parents leave and collect their children only once a day.

When I worked in the legal profession before the days of the computer/wordprocessor if I visited another solicitor's office I could hear the noise from the typewriters half way down the street before I got there!

This post was last modified: 30-01-2012 09:56 AM by Sherwood.

I saw the Piplings leaflet at the weekend and was glad the Tewkesbury Lodge letter followed to address the balance in the name of fairness.

I found it quite uncomfortable that 'friends of Pilings' have been obtaining support for their cause by frightening home workers, people who are probably in many cases a lone trader or whose core business is run outside the home (such as painters, plumbers, garders etc). Their homes still being classified as residential, with neighbours knowing that if these businesses ever became a nuisance there would be legal redress.

The key issue here is less about whether you are a home worker, or even whether the Piplings could run a great little nursery in Forest Hill, but more about the protection provided by the covenant when the council can't be trusted to do the right 'democratic' thing – (how many initial objections?) - covenants are the place of last resort and incidentially what protects much of the open park land we enjoy in Forest Hill - preventing councils and government bodies from selling off or building roads etc though parks and allotment areas.

Should Piplings sell up and move on, a less desirable proposition could be put forward by the new owners and just waved through. ‘Oh, but this is unlikely’ I hear you say. Not so, once a precedent has been set it is so much easier to make amendments. This should concern anyone who lives on the estate.

Then what next – weekend operation? Change of hours, an application for a new frontage - (remove windows and main entrance to provide easier access for the disabled), neon lights advertising the business? A change of use from Nursery to primary school? Change of use to small boarding school, to hotel? The house next door then puts an application in for change of use to a private gym and a few exercise classes. Why shouldnt this be allowed? Next door to that, a jam making factory with small shop at the front. Hey presto the estate is changed forever.

Had the Piplings retained the status of their home as residential and took in a few children as a small childminding concern, I doubt if anyone would have complained, but this operation is a full blown business, clearly a nuisance for the neighbours and no longer a residential property, in what has been for many years a very quiet street.

Gingernuts, I think you are wrong on a number of points:

If the nursery ceases operation the entire house reverts to a single dwellinghouse (one of the planning conditions). Any further change would need to go to a planning committee, even a doctor's surgery would require planning permission.

Of course not, but then I don't think there are any restrictions on external lighting on residential properties. There are possibly more restrictions on external illumination for business purposes, so you are probably best off with a nursery which has no external signs of use as a nursery.

Again no basis in reality, but you might be aware that other properties in Liphook have been altered to allow easier access for the disabled residents. I don't think this is something you would really want to legislate against, nor is there anything about it in the covenant.

would also require a new planning application. Due to the restrictions placed on the owners by the existing permissions.

This house is still their home as well as being a nursery. Both a childminder and a nursery would constitute a business and could be closed down by the same restrictive covenant. Other businesses on the estate may well find themselves falling foul of the same covenant that fails to distinguish between any type of business, other than doctors and solicitors. I believe these professions were singled out not because of the traffic generated (although noise may be a consideration) but because they were nice middle-class professions.

I am also pleased that TLERA finally explained to their members what their position was, but I was disappointed to read some of the points they made, some of which I did not feel were fair or truthful (i.e. if you allow this then Sainsbury's will be allowed to build on the Triangle).

Michael,
You have missed the point and are quite naive in your response.

"If the nursery ceases operation the entire house reverts to a single dwellinghouse (one of the planning conditions). Any further change would need to go to a planning committee, even a doctor's surgery would require planning permission."

I said if the business had new owners - not if the business ceased operation. This is typical of how the argument gets twisted.

Again, your other responses are typical of trying to devalue the other position by not understanding or refusing to understand the power of setting a legal precedent.

And actually, if you think about it, it wouldnt be too surprising if the Council had the power to sell off the Triangle to a property developer, they would have done it by now (despite local opposition). And surprise surprise authority for a small Sainsbury's local is granted several years later - as it's better than having a constant building site opposite the park due to the developers changing their minds as to what will build. That's a wonderful legacy for our grandchildren!

In the extremely unlikely event that the council granted planning application for a supermarket to build a "local" on the triangle, I'm sure they would insist on car parking facilities. Which would make it an awfully small shop!

We still dont have a response to exactly what kind of disruption the nursery causes. I think several of us have asked the question but no answer seems to be forthcoming.

Let me put my own answer therefore. Correct me if I'm wrong.

When I have walked through the estate many times to drop my own child off to the childminder, I rarely ever saw a soul but occasionally parents taking their children to one of the two local schools. I rarely ever saw a car go up and hardly ever met anyone in the street. I was always amazed how quiet it was.

My view is that the disruption that Piplings cause has that scenario as a starting point. The presence of a few additional cars and pedestrians to and from the nursery is considered disruptive relative to almost complete silence. However that is hardly considered unreasonable disruption unless you are the TLRA but as an absolute it hardly registers on the Richter Scale.

Roz, I think the disturbance has already been explained. It's easy for you to dismiss it as I assume you don't live next door. It's also not just about what you see today, but the impact this decision might have on the future of the area.

TLERA indicate that other businesses on the estate have nothing to fear, as long as they are not causing a nuisance. But in fact, this action is being brought against the nursery on the breach of covenant on the business aspect only . Therefore evidence showing lack of noise/nuisance from the nursery is not relevant in the case and cannot be submitted. This would be the case for any business run on the estate. The simple question is, "Do you run a business from your home?" and if the answer is yes, then you breach the covenant and the judge can choose to injunct.

TLERA also suggest that no-one need worry as other neighbours wouldn't go to the expense of injuncting, just because there is a business next door. Again this isn't true as the neighbour can act with a conditional fee agreement (like "no win, no fee") significantly reducing any costs on their part, whilst the business in question must pay costs all the way through.

The owner of Piplings is a sole trader, and much of the property remains residential (with sole residential use evenings and weekends). This is not so different to all the other sole trader businesses running in the area. Some others (music teachers etc) could be seen to cause more disturbance as their busiest hours are evenings and weekends.

Frankly, if my neighbour started up a music business as a teacher and the sound of a drum kit thundered through the walls every evening and every weekend, day on day I would be complaining - wouldnt you?

Please put some perspective on this - if your business is not causing a disturbance and you are considerate to your neighbours then I can't see what problem you have. You still want protection when the business from Hell opens next door to you!

That's just Piplings point. Their business does not cause disturbance, and they are considerate to their neighbours.

Whilst I was standing outside the nursery today with some other mums, a mum and child came past 3 times. Finally she had to stop and ask us if we knew where Piplings was. We replied, right here! At that time, all the children were playing in the garden, no sound could be heard, and there was more congestion caused by the builders' vehicles parked along the road from a renovation further up (which I have nothing against, have done the same to my house. Just stating a fact).

TLERA's newsletter said that children were playing "just a few metres from" the neighbours windows, "all day, every day". Having been inside the nursery, its a detached house so windows aren't exactly close by anyway. On top of that, the neighbours have grown several large plants that significantly overhang the boundary, meaning that there's no chance of a child going anywhere near the neighbouring property. And as someone else said, the conditions of planning include play outside being restricted to a couple of hours either side of lunch.

This post was last modified: 30-01-2012 06:29 PM by ladywotlunches.

Gingernuts, the disturbance has not been explained. Please show me what I may have missed. But I suspect that you cannot.

I'm afraid I think this is all about not having total silence in the area but I dont think you have a right to expect that. For an active nursery it seem as if its extremely well contained already.

I suspect that all the anticipated noise and aggravation from this nursery has never actually materialised but that some people remain expectant and alert for such disturbance causing the problem- they are oversensitised.

When I approach my childrens nursery and get up close when the windows to the street are open, I often hear the sound of laughing toddlers. It makes me feel happy. I rarely hear the children screaming unless their excitement at being happy gets too much for them but generally screaming is not encouraged at nurserie as its otherwise disturbing for the other children and staff and hard to hear instructions being given.

Roz, the TLERA identified some key concerns that anyone would be unhappy about. The point you fail to understand, is that even if Piplings are considerate, the next owners of this business might not be so. The fact that the Council have legitimised a business of a significant size is something I would not be happy about if it was next to me. All those who can't understand this, I would suggest are not directly impacted every day, Mon to Fri with possible (not necessarily even happening now) noise of screaming kids, 30 cars coming and going each day (staff and customers), people smoking outside, litter, noise.

Gingernuts, you still fail to describe the problems that are happening now. In fact you even seem to concede that there are few at present but might be in future. On that basis you wish to put the current business out of business. The fact that at some point, some people might choose to smoke outside is merely conjecture. No one appears to be doing so at this current time however.

I suggest that you stop defaming what appears to be a legitimate concern and apologise to them for wrecking their lives, livelihoods, and causing considerable concern for many parents and children whose lives you are disrupting. On the disruption scale of things, you are causing more harm than anyone else at present.

What harm am I doing other than expressing an opinion. I think it sets a dangerous precendent to change a covenant and I would not like to have a business of this scale next to me. Am I not entitled to share my opinon in the same way other have on this site?

Gingernuts, the nursery operates as a sole trader. This sole trader resides at the property. I believe that if the owner decided to sell the business, she would also have to move out, which means the planning permission would be revoked.

Your point seems to be what "could" happen, rather than what is happening. If the nursery loses the case, and is forced to sell the property, the neighbours "could" equally find themselves next to some noisy new neighbours, with 3 teenage children, each having a drum kit, electric guitar and keyboard. Alternatively, they "could" find themselves next to a GP surgery - which is allowed under the terms of the covenant, and could cause a lot more nuisance.

You mentioned perspective. I think this is missing from the objectors side.. They need to look at what is actually happening, and enjoy the peace and quiet, rather than spending their lives worrying about what could happen if and when a whole series of events occur that are each very unlikely.

Not at all, it is about what is happening - an application granted for 24 child places plus staff. An approved on-site business in a residential area, setting a precendent for this and the niusance of noise to the directly impacted neighbours. Those of you who have children and see the nuresry as a good thing, obviously have their own opinion. I can see why this venture would be a good thing for them and good business for the Piplings, shame they can see why the people next door might object.

There is a fundamental question here about the role of the TLERA: is it to constrain the estate to being a unwelcoming, dull and silent museum, where children and their activities are frowned upon, or to promote a truly great place to live and work for everyone, including families.

If it's the former, then I certainly wouldn't have become a member, and it's a greater threat to our house prices than any nursery.

I particularly regret that a high quality (as measured by Ofsted) and much needed business is being forced out by this selfish action. Life is difficult enough without the Daily Mail brigade squeezing the life out of the place.