I've read this with interest.

So those are those who objected strongly to Dominoes prejudiced against pizzas?? Or the noise and disruption possibly resulting from this business?

By the same token, are those directly affected by the nursery really anti children, or anti disruption/disturbance which is possibly being caused by a business catering for children?

Until we know exactly what the impact has been on those living directly next door, I think it is unfair to assume some child-hating motive is afoot, along with some other sweeping assumptions being made here.

And if it is true that the nursery started operating before they were actually granted planning permission then that does weaken their argument in my view, no matter how good this business is.

I prefer to have the full facts from ALL parties affected by this directly before condemning anyone so decisively.

Yes, so lets have the full facts then please as none have been put forward.

I am new to this Forum and havent read all the previous postings on the subject but have been occasionally involved in the objecting process.

My observations would be:

1 The objectors are sincere

2 Before they set up the business the owners should have checked the legality of the venture with a lawyer. If they did so I assume they are now either suing the lawyer or agreeing with their opinion that it faced issues. I hope they have seen a lawyer before opening the new nursery.

3 I attended the planning meeting. The Planning Committee seemed to recommend all the proposals put forward that evening as they all complied with the Lewisham UDP. This application complied as the UDP states that residential properties should be kept as residential properties with very few exceptions one of which was where they are converted to nurseries (as long as their residential use is retained). I was told that once permission was given it was indefinite.
It was local Lewisham councillors present at the meeting who approved the application. The inclusion of the nursery clause in the Lewisham UDP is not standard in all council UDP's, and I think the application may have failed without this clause(?). The process did not in general change my view on the suitability of local government for its purpose.

4 The Nursery must have been a success for Piplings financially. They are opening a second nursery in a £1.5m property. If they have operated the current nursery for 2 years in contravention of the covenant and this has allowed them to open a new business on the back of this success then the only losers are the parents who now need to find new childcare for their children.

If you want the facts, these have now all been explained to the chairman of the Tewkesbury Lodge Residents Association. A representative from the parents of the nursery met with him yesterday.

The leaflet 'Piplings Nursery - the facts' circulated by TLERA states their current position and some of the background based on their opinion - as at Saturday - but is not all fact. There are a number of errors that have since been identified. The nursery owners were in no way consulted on their 'position'.

I suggest that you email the chairman and request a Special General Meeting of the Residents Association. This will enable those most affected by this ongoing matter to fully understand the facts of this matter.

Let us all hope that this is resolved and closed for the benefit of the community at the earliest opportunity.

Ok fair comments, I just think there was some very emotive language being used about the objectors. I know people are upset, but that doesn't mean to say there may not be solid reasons for the next door neighbours to take this action. And just to add I have no personal interest either way in this business or the resident's association and I live elsewhere in FH.

Still, I can't help but see the irony when people get infuriated about businesses that might dare to open near them (ie Dominoes) but seem to assume the protestors in this case have no right to object or express similar concerns about noise, increase in traffic, changing the nature of the local area etc.

I know there's a great demand for nurseries in the area but in a way that is a separate issue from the right of individuals to enforce a covenant if they feel they have genuine grounds for concern. I also still wonder why the business began operating before they had full planning permission to do so.

Jason states "The leaflet 'Piplings Nursery - the facts' circulated by TLERA states their current position and some of the background based on their opinion - as at Saturday - but is not all fact. There are a number of errors that have since been identified. The nursery owners were in no way consulted on their 'position'."

I suggest that the nursery owners consult a solicitor who is an expert in defamation. There could be one living and practising in the area! Otherwise I can give them the Lord Chancellor's Defamation Protocol that applies for free. No win no fee also applies in this area.

I have no objection to anyone insisting on enforcing a covenant because that was the deal when they bought their house. But i do object to inaccurate statements and scaremongering.

I suspect that like most things Piplings started small before considerations or awareness of covenants arose.

How many people actually have seen or read their title deeds? I keep mine in the Bank.

Seeformiles, don't you think phrases like '30 children screaming continuously' are a bit emotive too? I simply fail to recognise the nursery from the descriptions given here.

I thought there were only 24 'screaming' children. Where have the other 6 come from?

I don't know but they keep being mentioned. Perhaps the staff scream too, having been driven insane by these bizarre screaming children?

They're screaming for a fag apparently

The arguments put forth by objectors seem unfair to me.

Gingernuts has raised "rubbish" and "litter" - this just sounds made up, I don't think there is any issue with the street outside Piplings becoming a tipping ground because it's a nursery. Certainly don't think ofsted would rate an establishment outstanding if it couldn't safely dispose of rubbish.

Staff smoking - Given that the owner asked staff not to smoke, I suspect that it hasn't been an issue for months. (even if it was an issue, surely a minor irritant not a major inconvenience).

Parking - It is a public street, people are allowed to park. There aren't that may children, some will be siblings, some parents will walk. On average probably less parking per day than a doctors or solicitors, perhaps as much as a tutor or music teacher.

Setting a precedent for Sainsbury's on the triangle and the business from hell moving in. There are still planning laws in place to avoid this. On the other hand it appears that a precedence has been set for using the covenant against a business you want to close down. So TLERA say this wont be used against you as long as you aren't causing a nuisance to your neighbours. I think this thread demonstrates how subjective the word "nuisance" is, so here's hoping you haven't annoyed your neighbour if you run a business from home on the estate.

Finally the noise inconvenience to neighbours. This is the only argument I have heard that seems to me to have any potential merit. No one on this thread appears to have heard noise coming from the nursery though. So if the objectors haven't heard the noise, why are they so against the nursery. According to an earlier post neighbours with gardens backing onto the nursery didn't know it existed so it's hardly believable that there is constant screaming coming from the garden.

Here's hoping that common ground can be found between the two parties and I especially hope that means Piplings can stay open.

http://friendsofpiplings.wordpress.com/

Just to say that at the nursery my children currently attend, I have never seen anyone standing outside smoking at all. I dont think you can be a smoker and do a job like that as the smell stays on your clothes and you can compromise the health of your children that way especially if any have tendencies to breathing difficulties.

I was once sent a trainee from Lewisham College on a home placement for a few months. We both filled in copious forms and had a long chat with her and and her supervisor before she started. There was so much emphasis on health and safety on both sides. She was a smoker and I only found out on her first day when she asked to go outside into the front garden- so much for health and safety then.
I was really desperate for help but dispensed with her albeit free services on the spot as a result. One of my children had just been hospitalised with bronchiolitis and had just come home- there was no way that I would entertain a smoker in close proximity to her and I dont think any respectable nurseries would do either. Unfortunately smokers do carry the smell of cigarettes around with them and it never goes away. I work with a few smokers in my office and really detest it when they all come back in from a fag break as the place reeks for ages afterwards. I doubt whether someone whose nursery is based in their home would take on a smoker either for that reason either.

The South London Press have run with the story in today's issue. Its on page 13, or if you haven't got a copy, read on the Friends of Piplings site SLP story

I read the article in the SLP with interest. If their 'whole livelihood is at risk' as Lee claims, how come they nevertheless can still afford to live at the £1million mansion the Elms on the edge of Peckham Park and open a new business there? Curious.

Legal fees are excessively high. I assume they are referring to the cost of defending the court action, i.e. £70,000.

Indeed, the planning consent has only just been granted (it might have been refused and they should have planned for that situation). They are currently operating from the Elms - how does this action put their whole livelihood at risk?

Possibly because there have been allegations of nuisance, which could also apply to the Elms even without a covenant.

Do they live at The Elms then Manor? I was under the impression they lived in Liphook Crescent.

They have not lived in Liphook Crescent for months.

If the essence of the case is an objection to the noise nuisance associated with the nursery, and the nursery is operating, can't the case be settled simply by carrying out a noise survey at the neighbours property? This would at least resolve the problem of others not 'getting' the problem. If the kids are really generating 120dB for 12 hours a day, then fair enough, but it seems a bit unlikely even for 5 year olds.