Tiggywinkle, if you look back on this thread to earlier in the year, you will see a post made by the owner advising that she already runs a playgroup at the property not a nursery so apologies for misleading you and adding fuel to your fire of trying to do your hardest to pour trouble on this person and her attempts to grow her business. You clearly are so obsessed with this that you are trying to explore every avenue of wrecking her life. How do you know that they don't have fire retardent doors, or even if they need them. Certain regulations are only triggered by certain levels and types of activity.
I conclude that you are no more interested in child welfare than Freddy Kruger as if you were you would be more supportive of legitimate attempts to set up a much needed high quality facility for the children of Forest Hill.

so sorry to touch a nerve! who is freddie kruger? we know bob the builder! I was just thinking about my little tiggywinkles!! tiggywinkle

Tiggywinkle.
Seems I am not the only one insulted by Roz.

Personally would not like a nursery next door , but agree they have to go somewhere.

Yeah, stick 'em next to factories and on roundabouts and other places where the evil blighters cant ruin our days with their uncontrollable criminal activity and intolerable noise.

Brian, you are Steve Coogan trying out a character on an unsuspecting forum and I claim my £5.

Brian,glad I'm not alone,you will notice I was'nt the one to bring ofsted into the discussion,but when I checked it out,(and it came out negative),all hell brakes loose!I think poor Roz has some anger control problems. tiggywinkle (mrs).

Actually I rarely get angry with idiots but I do think pointing out the illogicality of their actions and thoughts is extremely important.

Hello, the nursery has been running as a business since April and my daughter attends. I'd like to assure you that OFSTED are aware of the nursery as we pay by childcare vouchers and to enable us to do that we had to have their OFSTED registration number. The premises have been seen by OFSTED but they haven't been to inspect the premises since it has been running as a nursery. I think they normally try and do this within 3 months of a nursery opening but obviously they haven't got round to inspecting the nursery yet. I have obviously been inside the premises on numerous occasions and they are safe and children well looked after.

Oh and have double checked with OFSTED and they are fully aware of the nursery and they are registered with them. As a previous poster pointed out it would be pretty much impossible to run a nursery without extensive checks.[

OH DEAR,OH DEAR ,WHAT TO DO? THE PEOPLE FROM THE NURSERY SAID THE AMOUNT OF CARS WOULD BE 'MINIMAL', NAUGHTY NAUGHTY!', IT'S BEEN LIKE SAINSBURYS CAR PARK THE PAST WEEK OR SO,ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE UNLUCKY ENOUGH TO LIVE BY.POOR PEOPLE! TIGGYWINKLE (MRS).

This planning application is going to committee on 11th November and I'm pleased to say that the officers are recommending approval of the application.

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/...ov2010.PDF

OH DEARY ME! NOT MUCH POINT HAVING A COMMITTE MEETING,IF AS YOU SAY THEY HAVE ALREADY MADE THERE MINDS UP!MOST UNDEMOCRATIC,AND WILL BE COMPLAINING TO COUNCIL ABOUT THIER OVERHANDED ATTITUDE! TIGGYWINKLE (MRS)

This does seem to be a very divisive issue. I have read the application and indeed there have been very many objectors not just Mrs Tiggywinkle.
It is dificult as can see the postion of the applicant and the objectors.
With so many objections not sure The Council with agree to it , after all they are the servants of the voters.
I do appreciate nurseries have to go somewhere. However pre school children can be very noisy at times.
I hope sorted out amicably.

Pipling - just wanted to say good luck with your plans, if I was looking for a nursery you sound like exactly the sort of person I would want in charge of it.

Indeed, good luck with the application. Its disappointing that so many people object to the noise of children laughing and enjoying life, but judging by the recent buggy debate, not surprising. Forest Hill is becoming Nappy Valley 2 due to the excellent schools and reasonable house prices and it does seem that many of the long term residents of this area have a problem with that.

I lived opposite Christchurch school for years; I heard the children playing and arriving and leaving school. To me it was a nice sound and evidence of life and fun. I'd love to see the evidence of 'false/ overrepresentation of demand having waited for over 3 years myself to secure a nursery place. The list of objections is just really 'we don't want it here so we are throwing the book at it'. Shame.

What was the view of the Forest Hill Society on all of this?

Below is an extract from the published list of objections. I have been a little naughty and have added my own amendments for my own amusement. Guess where they are.

The proposal will create a marked increase in noise and disturbance as a result
of children playing.(Really. Are there not worse sounds? What happens when resident children go out and play- does the Pied Piper appear? I have to say I've never seen children playing in the Crescent. Perhaps its not allowed under Tewkesbury Lodge standing orders?)
• Children start arriving at 7.30am and are collected at 6.30pm, which makes a
whole day, not part of the day, as the application alleges.( Most people go out to work during these hours- do they not? Unless there are any unemployed people there of course, but I don't think they are allowed either)• Detrimental to the character of the street, introducing commerce (aka children) into a peaceful
residential area, childminding in a home to a commercial nursery, which should
use appropriate commercial premises. ( yes lets send them all to Willow Way).[/i
]• Health and safety issues. ( come again? )
• Loss of value of nearby residential properties[i].(due to the sight and sound of little children having fun? Is there not a burgeoning market of families with young children trying to moving into the area due to the excellent local schools and wouldn't they just love a nursery on the doorstep?)
• Nursery staff smoking outside on the street . ( [i[i]]Probably their nerves are shot from working in Royston Vasey)[/i

Doesn't matter how many objections there are Brian, unless some of them raise significant 'material planning conditions'. These include things like:

* Loss of light or overshadowing
* Overlooking/loss of privacy
* Visual amenity (but not loss of private view)
* Adequacy of parking/loading/turning
* Highway safety
* Traffic generation
* Noise and disturbance resulting from use
* Hazardous materials
* Smells
* Loss of trees
* Effect on listed building and conservation area
* Layout and density of building
* Design, appearance and materials
* Landscaping
* Road access
* Local, strategic, regional and national planning policies
* Government circulars, orders and statutory instruments
* Disabled persons' access
* Compensation and awards of costs against the Council at public enquiries
* Proposals in the Development Plan
* Previous planning decisions (including appeal decisions)
* Nature conservation
* Archaeology

But not things like:

* The perceived loss of property value
* Private disputes between neighbours
* The loss of a view
* The impact of construction work or competition between firms
* Restrictive covenants
* Ownerships disputes over rights of way
* Fence lines etc
* Personal morals or views about the applicant.

The sound of young children enjoying themselves on the way to play-school in the morning and returning hone in the afternoon is so much better than yobbos leaving a pub/bar at closing time. Also it should be remembered that the noise is not permanent. There are school holidays and the noise in the daytime is normally just at the beginning of the day, at Break time and at the end of the school day. Let's not suffer too much from NIMBYism.

In answer to Roz's question about the view of the FH Society, the Forest Hill Society did not respond to this application. We could not see any valid grounds for objection to this application and felt the officers would be able to judge the situation fairly based on this. It is actually quite rare for the Society to write letters supporting an application (pools, park, gym, and post office conversion are the only situations that spring to mind) as the applicant can usually put the case for themselves.

I personally did respond in favour of the application as I have family living on the street and lived there for some years, so I felt I could reasonably comment on the application. I have also had the opportunity to visit the nursery and it feels like a wonderful environment for young children.

I agree with Roz. The assumption that children are hateful and a nuisance is deeply engrained in this country. I live next to Holy Trinity School, and the noise from the playground is in no way offensive.

When I was a councillor (not in Forest Hill) I had several complaints about children playing. I remember visiting one constituent who, I was told, was at the end of her tether as a result of noisy children. When I arrived, there was a group of about six children having a perfectly reasonable conversation on the communal lawn.

I assumed that I would be told that that day was not typical. But no. I had a ten minute 'do you see what I mean' diatribe. It was very clear that she had been over-sensitised to the sound and even presence of children, and was suffering stress and anguish as a result, but, short of banning children from the estate, I was not sure what could be done, as things seemd to have got beyond any reasonable hope of conciliation. I refused to take any action, because it was clear that the housing department had already written to parents demanding that they control their children. This on the basis of the complaint without seeking the other side of the argument, or even observing the situation for themselves. Several other residents assured me that the estate was not suitable for families - perhaps forgetting that the reason for their being rehoused there in the 1950s and 1960s was that they then had young children of their own.

These attitudes are probably not the only reason for the greater difficulties we seem to have in managing children and adolescents than are experienced in some other more child-friendly European countries, but they are without a doubt a factor.