So what exactly are the grounds for being able to enforce a covenant. The fact that one already exists and its just a rubber stamping exercise to remind everyone that it exists? Surely if it exists it exists and if thats enough then it will be enforced but what exactly does enforcement mean- an injunction? A closure order? A charge against the property? Is it as cut and dried as it seems?

To me this still comes across very clearly as a personal and petty vendetta against some individuals. Jason mentioned that no complaints were received by Piplings. I would have thought that that gave them a pretty good reference. Piplings are accused of not taking the steps to prevent litigation but if the obvious steps had been followed they should have been given the opportunity to deal with any nuisance. That that didnt happen speaks volumes. There is also on record a written statement from another close neighbour who says she doesnt know the nursery is there half the time.

The other issue is surely whether it can be proven that the nursery is likely to be more inappropriate than a Drs surgery or a solicitor. I think of my drs surgery. It contains a few clinics and is always packed. Parking would inevitably be required. Such a business would probably result in a CPZ up there. All sort of people end up there, all shapes and sizes, all social classes, some nice, some not. The same at a solicitors office with warring couples, stressed individuals, etc. Both of these businesses are likely to have significantly more foot and vehicular traffic than Piplings.

To me this area already contains a primary school, a world famous museum, at least one artists studio, about a dozen childminders, the headquarters of Cummin Up, our MP, various home based businesses including childminders, accountants, an antiques business, jewellry makers, musicians, piano teachers, baking businesses, gardening businesses and many more. Its even featured in a car advertisement. I think the imposition of this covenant will threaten them also by definition and any denial that it wont is simply wishful thinking; and I think this particular action against Piplings remains vindictive and vexatious. I do hope that for the sake of this community, Piplings survives and that local residents work towards bringing the TLRA into the 21st century.

Roz says "The other issue is surely whether it can be proven that the nursery is likely to be more inappropriate than a Drs surgery or a solicitor. I think of my drs surgery. It contains a few clinics and is always packed. Parking would inevitably be required. ".

I suspect this is a good example of where covenants become out of date over time. There would have been hardly any cars back in the 1930's and and a drs surgery would probably have just been a consulting room with a single GP. The intention of the covenenat at that time, I assume would be to keep the area quiet and business free - with the exception of those 2 professional services.

In those days doctors made house calls!

Attendance at TLERA SGM

In order to be admitted to the upcoming TLERA SGM next week, you need to have a personally addressed invitation, with voting slip.

These have been delivered ONLY to addresses that have current membership of TLERA. If you have paid your subscription for 2011/12 and have not yet received your invitation, please contact membership@tewkesburylodge.org.uk to check the status of your membership.

If your subscription for this year has not been paid, but you would still like to attend the SGM next week, then please also email membership@tewkesburylodge.org.uk for details of how to pay your subscription fee and then get an invitation to the meeting.

Both Friends of Piplings and TLERA would like to see as large a cross-section of the community attend as possible, so that we can gauge the true feelings of all those involved. As has been said several times on this thread, trial by forum is no good for any outcome - so if you are able to make the meeting, please do if you possible can!

Here is the SGM invite printed on blue paper, personally addressed to the member(s).

The TLERA re-statement on the first page, of its own position, without offering the same opportunity to the nursery, is interesting with its bolded ultimatum....

Its interpretation (or invention) of clauses in its own constitution is also very interesting...

What do you think?


  SGM Invite.pdf (Size: 163.88 KB / Downloads: 398)

This post was last modified: 02-03-2012 07:07 PM by piplingtoo.

i'm surprised that Alex Feakes is an independent observer as I thought he lived on the Estate? Perhaps I'm wrong there but I am convinced he moved to Canonbie Road.

I cant comment on the constitution as I dont know enough about it but it is what it is and there should be little room for interpretation.

There is a lot of reference to what the committee thinks but the committee should only be representing the views of its members really so it ' thoughts' if collective 'thought ' is possible isnt really that relevant to all of this. I think it goes without saying that there should be a further item on the agenda addressing the committees mandatory powers in general to avoid any further undemocratic decisions.

The change of a committee isnt really disastrous provided there are other people able and willing to take on the roles. Members should have that opportunity in any case at AGM.s

It should be an interesting meeting but hopefully productive in easing the bad feeling and getting a way forward.

I agree with Roz, the constitution is what it is (see the web site) and given members only pay £5 per househld a year and the work the committee do is voluntary, finding alternative members who have the time and passion to actively fight against over development on the estate, may be difficult. It would be interesting if the 17 who happily put their names to the SGM demand would be just as happy to run the committee (which means not only ensuring the newletter is printed, edited, delivered, web site up and running, summer parties, halloween, fireworks nights organised, all street have reps, membership funds managed, AGMs arranged- but also fighting against inappropriate development that blights peoples lives!). If the current committee resign, the TLRA could become inaffective or just not function. Be careful what you wish for.

No-where does it state in the constitution that there can be only 1 vote per household. So why do the TLERA Committee state on the SGM invite that only 1 vote per household is allowed? They've invented this!


We have the term “member” who in a number of places is clearly referred to as an individual:
No member shall have the power to vote at any meeting of the Society if his or her subscription is in arrears at the time. Junior members shall be those aged less than 18 years at the time their subscription is due; and they shall not be entitled to vote at any meeting of the Society.


Corporate members are allowed, not stated as needing to be based or originating in the defined area of TLE, and are allowed to vote at all meetings:
Corporate members shall be such societies, associations, educational institutions or businesses as are interested in actively furthering the purposes of the Society. A corporate member shall appoint a representative to vote on its behalf at all meetings but before such representative exercises his or her right to vote the corporate member shall give particulars in writing to the Honorary Secretary of such representative.


More support for more than 1 MEMBER per household:
Membership You are invited to become a member of TLERA. A single annual subscription of £5 per household is charged, regardless of the number of adults in the household. As a member, you will be represented on a day to day basis by your Road Representative and by a Committee elected at the Annual General Meeting. You will be kept in touch with what is happening on and around the Estate, through newsletters, social events and leaflets. Renewal envelopes have now been distributed to every household, please return them to your road representative. If you've lost the original, any with your name and address will do.


A household defined as one or more members….
4. SUBSCRIPTIONS
The subscription shall be:-
For each Household of one or more full members per annum £3.00
Corporate members per annum £10.00
i.e. Each household contains 1 or more MEMBERS.


And this states MEMBERS not HOUSEHOLDS:
Special General Meetings of the Society shall be held at the written request of fifteen or more members whose subscriptions are fully paid-up.

Here is the constitution:


  Constitution of the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate Residents Association.pdf (Size: 198.22 KB / Downloads: 447)

My point is that they appear to be acting outside the stated constitution, with invented conditions. I suspect they believe they would get a more favourable voting outcome if its based on Households rather than Members.

So husbands and wives or partners of differing opinions only get 1 vote?

The resident's association is greater than its committee.

There are many fine professional people across the hill who are perfectly capable of carrying out the roles of the current committee members if those members really do insist on resigning. It's not the responsibility of those who are concerned about matters enough to request an SGM, to staff the positions - that's just daft.

The presence of the Resident's Association is very important and it must persist and we both are supportive of it - however it must be fair, open & representative - something we both feel the committees of the last 2 years have been anything but, in our experience.

This post was last modified: 02-03-2012 09:31 PM by piplingtoo.

I'm sure that any councillor would be fair minded even if they lived on the estate, but I understand that Alex has moved from Canonbie Road in the last couple of years.

I don't understand why the committee has adopted such a confrontational stance. The SGM is great opportunity for the executive to understand the consensus view from the membership (people surely?) and move on accordingly.

Instead the committee has chosen to release a newsletter which is highly partial in its content, and issued an ultimatum that if they are found to have acted wrongly then they will all fall on their swords and "TLERA and THE ESTATE will be at risk". Ahem.

I don't know which way the meeting will go, but if mistakes have been made, then we can be big enough to accept that and make changes, and not get melodramatic about it. Most supporters of the nursery are also supporters of the work of the committee in general - its just their approach to this issue that needs challenging.

I think your right about Cllr Feakes, he was also chair at the local meeting re the planning permission for Piplings on 14/09/10.

Nothing like someone with their eye on the votes of political elections to add a little impartiality!

On that subject, considering the mistrust that this has generated, who is doing the count and verifying the secret ballot re the confidence vote?

Concerning the vote of confidence in the committee, I was surprised that the blue slips didn't come with only a yes box, as it appears that the committee like to do the thinking for us.

Zimbabwe on the Hill it seems

This concern has been more than a little dis-concerting to me.

And unusually so.

Particularly, to my mind because I, as a 45 year old, have no plans to either create or foster/adopt children.

I'm rather more aware, from reading this thread, on the supposed end-game strategy of the covenant holders.

Their motives are quite foggy to me, though.

gingernuts, as the creator of this thread, remind me of how you fit into this concern?

This post was last modified: 03-03-2012 07:23 PM by Cellar Door.

Secret ballot?

How do they operate at an AGM?
Or do they not hold annual general meetings?

AGM's are held, but personally I find that the date is announced in a newsletter that arrives either with far too short notice to attend, or after the fact.

I'm also sure that if the current committee does feel it has no choice but to resign, due to a vote of no confidence, that there are more than enough people to put in the work required to fulfil the committee's responsibilities.

The work that is done now could be made to run much more efficiently - the newsletter is quarterly and if contributions from local residents were accepted (rather than just written by the committee) it would release some of the workload; the website could be updated and made more relevant in about 2 days (the time it took to create the Friends of Piplings site which is much more up to date than TLERA, which still has a newsletter from about 2006 as the 'latest news'). Membership could be collected more efficiently (I know a lot about this side in particular), and the events are relatively low key and everyone chips in - other than the Fireworks night which I can see would take a substantial amount of organising but could still be done.

So, in conclusion, if residents feel that they still want an association to represent them fairly, they should not feel concerned that the resignation of the current committee will mean the end of TLERA - it could in fact be the beginning of something much more representative of the neighbourhood.

The Association has always considered membership based on one household (house)and not on individual persons. It has been like this for decades, even before Piplings owners moved to the area, so why should this be changed? To allow Friends of Piplings to vote individually to get their point through? The 17 members who requested the General Meeting were individual number of persons or 17 household memberships?
Piplings have committed errors since the beginning. If you look at their application to the Council, they indicated clearly in black and white that they did not consulted their neighbours. Only on a declaration it was stated that they contacted neighbours in the range of 50 metres. The Council received 27 objections (if you see the documents, all neighbours opposed it) one application, one letter in favour, which came from someone living outside the area. You can see all this on the documents published by the Council. You can also see where staff came from, where children attending the nursery came from. You can google on the Associations consulted and the Councillors in favour and against it. After that, the council had more objecting letters and local meetings were organised, but somehow the local community wishes were ignored. I am asking myself why?? Nobody spoke of the covenant then?
Since then Piplings have conducted a campaign of hate against people living on the estate, denigrating the area. When is it going to stop? with the TLRA Meeting or the Court?? At the moment Piplings have a beautiful place, the Elm, where they can run their business without objections. The Elm has a better garden, more space and security gates. Why don't they accommodate/give priority to children of 5 Liphook Crescent nursery at the new place? Is it a matter of having the convenience of a nursery on your doorsteps?
I don't think it is correct for some people who have not bother to pay their membership for ages, to pay it now it now because they got interests to defend!

This post was last modified: 05-03-2012 11:20 AM by orange.

Orange, TLERA themselves have indicated that they are accepting late membership payments from those in support of the closure of the nursery as well. They are at least in this matter allowing both points of view to be fairly represented.

And as to having a nursery on the doorstep, yes, it IS one of the major factors in choosing a provider. For us, moving to The ElmS site would involve substantially more travelling time and the use of a car (which it doesn't at Forest Hill) - which isn't better for anyone. Travelling time to pick up and drop off children, when you work, is crucial in making any decision on childcare. Using The Elms site in any debate on this is a complete red herring. That site isn't there as a replacement, its is there to add valuable additional childcare spaces in a wider area that is crying out for them.

There is a simple reason for this that I believe has been explained on a couple of occasions; when the application was submitted, Emma had not spoken to neighbours, after the application was submitted she did (and apparently there were no objections when discussing it with her face to face). So there was no error made, just the honest answering of a question in the planning application.

Whether one likes it or not, planning decisions are not made by a vote of the neighbours, they are made by considering relevant planning policies. The planning officers recommended approval after hearing residents' concerns at the public meeting, and the councillors on the planning committee agreed with the decision.

I think this is entirely unfair and possibly completely the opposite of what has happened. If you consider some of the posts that needed to be removed from this site, the videoing of children, and intimidation of parents, you will see that the hate has been flowing undoubtedly towards Piplings.

Unfortunately paying membership involves the need for them to be accepted by the street rep. Philip and Emma were members of TLERA but were effectively disallowed from membership. Getting their membership allowed again took a lot of effort and the intervention of other residents in the street. Despite the objections from the street rep, their membership has now been confirmed by TLERA.

This is just one example of how Philip and Emma have been badly treated by TLERA - and yet you assume that they must be in the wrong, it is simply not like that.