To avoid any confusion, as part of the planning application review, the local authority sent officers to the address to check the objectors claims of noise and traffic nuisance, and found both to be negligible (to paraphrase the full report which is on the Lewisham planning website).

This tallies with my experience of regularly walking past the address and not being aware of the presence of the nursery until this issue cropped up.

We are talking about pre-school toddlers...

As an observer from the green valley of Perry Vale, with no children of nursery age and with no agenda on this issue whatsoever,
can I just say how entertaining I've found this thread.

Keep up the good work one and all!

My post is not without merit though, as it should re-enable the 'last' post function. (Note to mod - mod function can return zero.)

I'm with Perryman - both geographically and philiosophically. Fascinating and highly entertaining. I sometimes worry that the air up on The Hill must be a bit oxygen-deficient. It's the only explanation for some of the posts here.

We shall fight in the nurseries, we shall fight on the planning commitees, we shall fight in the parks and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!

gingernuts wrote: This thread started as a debate around a planning application in SE23.

Started as a planning application discussion, yes, but once that application was granted???

TLERA, committee and street reps, have decided that they know best, that they are the experts. The planning department passed the application, as Les has pointed out, there was even a planning application review: noise, etc, was negligible.

So you want to keep objecting? pursuing a couple trying to run a decent business that contributes positively to the community? You want to continue the witchhunt? You know best, at whatever cost to Piplings?

To the objectors, your opportunity passed and now you appear detached and ridiculous. The objector's failure to accept the situation and get on with their lives and more pertinently the manner with which the they have maintained their objections: hideously pompous.

To those of us that are more reasonable and better adjusted, the objectors now present themselves as suitable for derision. Which is probably, in part, why some will enjoy this thread. Schadenfreude, not at the genuine and unnecessary suffering of piplings, but at the "pricking" of certain objector's pomposity.

If the objectors still think that they should not be subject to derision, maybe they should stop and consider that it is people's livelihoods and lives that they are setting out to destroy, long after our democratically elected council finalised their decision.

TLERA committee undemocratically decided to pursue this witchhunt, buoyed on the back of certain members apparent egos. I for one will be voting NO in the confidence vote on Thursday night, though we still await for how the count is to be fairly adjudicated, or are TLERA appointing Putin to undertake the count?

I also give TLERA committee another point to consider: If they continue to offer their backing for this and it goes to court, those pursuing the legal case against piplings, including the committee, could be liable for pipling's legal costs, even if they were to win their case against piplings. As Courts do not look favourably on failures to negotiate and find an alternative dispute resolution. TLERA committee's part in this, if provable, may make them liable for part of piplings apparent £70K legal bill.

The thoughtless objectors to the wonderful Nursery have been clear in their terror campaign. I think that friendly like-minded people of the area will agree in great numbers that there is no real foundation to any objection for the Nursery to continue. Only then will rejoice in the fact we can continue our lives in peace, with friendship, and to grow old together in our communities.

'Terror campaign' ???!!!!

So they're dropping bombs on people?

More unhelpful and hysterical hyperbole which does nothing to foster good community relations either.

A bit of perspective needed by both sides in this dispute I think, to be fair.

Morning Thunder, I wish it was possible to "like" posts on here, Facebook-style - "it is a nursery not a chemical weapons factory" had us in stitches here!

For me, this whole debate boils down to the simple question: is the nursery causing a nuisance, or isn't it? If it was, I would be the first to support the neighbours in trying to do something about it - I still shudder at the memory of a year living in a small flat below some 3am drum'n'bass loving neighbours, and know well what misery real nuisance can cause.

But there doesn't seem to be any evidence of nuisance with this nursery at all. Having been at home during the working week for the first time since coming across this debate, I have wandered past 5 Liphook Crescent at various times of day this week, and it really is the case that you wouldn't have a clue the nursery was there if you didn't know (which I didn't, until I came across this thread). You see perhaps 1 or 2 cars on the street within a 30 metre radius (very possibly unconnected with the nursery), and could otherwise hear a pin drop. The idea that this is the "thin end of the wedge" and that if the nursery is allowed Sainsbury's will soon be popping up on the Triangle is just risible.

Despite all that, I do think it is a shame we are talking about a vote of no confidence in the TLERA committee. While like many others I think they have got it wrong on this one, I don't doubt that TLERA does a good job on many others and is generally a force for good for the community. I wonder if some sort of compromise is possible, e.g. they admit they misjudged the mood and back down on Piplings, in return for the confidence motion being dropped?

It'll be an interesting meeting...

I too am disappointed that the residents association have continued their campaign and propaganda against the nursery (referring even to the invite to the SGM and the latest newsletter circulated in the last week).

Even though it has been very clear for some time, that many (including myself) have asked them directly to stop and help mediate and bring this matter to a close for the wider community benefit, they continue to be very focussed, one sided, and place at risk not only the nursery, but also potentially other local businesses and simply, continuing to divide the community.

Some of us are aware that they have very recently been researching deeds and covenants on another road in the estate. This is to potentially prevent a redevelopment of an existing house if planning permission is granted. The situation is slightly different but does this sound like a case of deja vu?

How can one have confidence in those involved in this kind of action continuing as representatives acting on behalf of this community? Many friends and other residents living on the hill we have spoken with have frankly had enough of all of this.

However the situation is resolved, I really hope that lasting damage to community relations doesn't result from some of the language being used here. That would be a real shame.

If the residents' group decide to back down, fair enough. But I hope they do so because it has been found categorically that the objections to the nursery are groundless, not because they feel unduly pressured and in fear of being treated like total outcasts for continuing.

Added in the interests of balance only, not because I'm interested in taking sides.

Thanks for your comment Loncdl.

I am uploading a number of time lapse videos that I made in the second half of last year to demonstrate how empty the claims of nursery-created traffic congestion/parking issues are.

https://www.youtube.com/user/PiplingsNursery

The camera is aimed towards the F*s house, whose black car can be seen parked outside it as it always, always is, in order to show how clear the road is around them. Opposite you can see our road reps, the B*s house with their pale blue car often parked in the street.

You may see my own silver car parked directly outside my house in the bottom frame of the picture. NONE of the cars you can see belong to staff. We only have 1 or very rarely 2 staff driving to work and they park some way away.

The videos start at the time specified and go on roughly for about an hour and a half, compressed into a few minutes due to the time-lapse, and cover the drop off times between 8 and 9am and pick up times between 5 and 6pm.

You may see cars passing down the street as brief flashes, whereas parents parking can clearly be seen.

I hope you find them interesting and look forward to any comments or observations. There are 5 there now and more to come in the next 24hrs - but I think you will get the idea pretty quickly.

This post was last modified: 07-03-2012 12:45 AM by pipling.

I agree with morning thunder. It is quite possible to win a case and not be awarded costs. Furthermore, you can win and have costs awarded against you! This is the principle in the Lord Chancellor's Defamation Protocol, which is clearly designed to direct people to setlling thier differences by other methods before taking legal action. if they do not, they may suffer the consequences.

Sherwood, you're right that a party can win and not get its costs, or indeed that it can win and have a costs award against it (although not sure how the defamation protocol applies to this case) but do you know for sure that no settlement offers have been made in one direction or the other? If not, then that's a great shame and rather foolish. If nthing else, a well formulated settlement offer, even if rejected, can offer huge protection on costs if and/or when the case gets to trial.

Settlement offers are by their very nature supposed to be kept confidential and out of the public domain so for all we know, attempts have been made at negotiation and/or some form of ADR but for whatever reason, have failed. Unfortunately, in these kinds of cases, the parties can become horribly entrenched in their respective positions and it becomes about a principle and not losing face rather than finding a solution. There must be an acceptable middle ground to all this - if one has been suggested and rejected, well, as Sherwood says, a costs order against the rejecting party may be looming over the horizon.

There are so many excellent, thoughtful posts on this thread that have really helped me to understand this matter.

What has emerged in my mind is that some of the behaviours of the street rep on Liphook Crescent and others have displayed a magnificent lack of political awareness. The behind the scenes machinations of the street rep and others I feel really are unravelling their position as the spotlight is turned on them. I, now also feel, that there is a rising up of good British style common sense that will find an equitable solution.

With this in mind, morning thunder, your post #565 has made my heart glow.

AMFM, thank you very much for providing excellent signposts along the way. Myself, as a legal nincompoop, have found your writing about legal terms and current thinking most easy to understand.

Grrr, people who refuse to park on their own driveway...don't get me started on that one or I'll start living up to my name.

I don't get the impression that this is about the TLERA committee misjudging opinion of members, it seems more about sticking hard and fast to the associations principle of protecting the residential nature of the estate. To me, they are taking an unnecessarily inflexible approach to achieving their aim. But we've been round and round this and if the committee and neighbours aren't willing to get together with Piplings to settle things out of court then it will purely come down to the covenant issue.

I sought legal advice from a barrister. he told me that restrictive covenants are difficult to enforce. Also, as we know, they can be removed.

Can anybody make me understanding this? I don't know if the nursery is still functioning. Is it still going on? If not have children been accommodated somewhere else? Has any parent lost money in this dispute? If the nursery is still open, why this vitriolic campaign on the forum (and on the East Dulwich one) still going on against the residents in the area? What is the purpose? So many unpleasant comments have come from the nursery supporters. Some of these very bullying and abusive. Is this the good example we are giving to our children?
If there is a legal dispute going on, why commenting it publicly? Normally, solicitors advise not to talk about it, just in case it turns against you and jeopardise the case. Why stirring more problems?
Is it correct to show on You Tube other's people's houses?
Both sides may have their personal reasons to dispute the case (documents are easily available from the council to give us an idea how the situation has developed), but why involving the entire nation (radio slots, press, etc. etc.)? Please leave this dispute to be private and stop the warfare! It beggars belief!

Nobody can make you understand anything.

You have to want to understand.

I'm not sure by the use of your rhetorical devices and your subsequent messages, similar to your other colourful namesake gingernuts, that you really want to understand.

Well said, Cellar Door.

Does anyone other than me find it oh-so-curious that TLERA have arranged an SGM for all members for tomorrow night, yet they have not put even a whisper of it on their website?

http://tewkesburylodge.org.uk/index.htm

Slap-bang on their homepage is their so-called "Piplings Nursery - The Facts", full of sly propaganda and misinformation.

Perhaps I should trust that they did honourably mailshot all TLERA members their blue invites. But unfortunately they do have a proven history of convenient pick-and-choose who they like to keep informed...