Piplings,
You should not have published a document with people's names and addresses on. What do you wish to get out of this?
As someone else said, councillors are politicians who make mistakes. I wonder why the other two councillors objected and abstained. What were their reasons?
The whole truth has not been told on this forum for us to support such a warfare. Let's leave everything in the hands of the law.

The objections of the neighbours in question are already in the public domain.

The involvement of the TLERA committee in all this I would imagine is a matter of public interest.

I'm trying to understand Andrew Reid's sentence in the email to some of the TLERA committee and others (from post #600):

"Do we have a tame solicitor who would do some research for us?"

Does "tame Solicitor" mean someone who is easy to control?
Quick to litigate?

Not much on the interweb to give clarity to this term.

It feels like a rather dispiriting term.

My reading of this sentence was that they wanted someone who would do the research as a favour i.e. for little or no fees

Orange - I don't think there is any question of the councillors having made a mistake in granting planning permission - if that is your assertion. They simply took a balance of view of the benefits of the development versus the impacts, and having investigated the impacts, granted approval. That is how the planning process works.

No evidence of real nuisance has been presented or found by council officers - it has been just stated by the objectors. Indeed if the objectors had real evidence of nuisance they would have recourse to civil action, like any other nuisance case. There isn't evidence and so TLERA and the objectors have resorted to the covenant approach.

And that is the reason that I find TLERA's approach unfair and misguided.

The residents association have previously stated that they are not involved in the legal case against Mr. Lee and are only 'observing' or 'monitoring' the case for its implications for the community.

Unfortunately the documents on post #600 highlight that this is not true and Executive Committee members are evidently active parties in the legal action.

I look forward to seeing how this can be justified in this evenings meeting.

For Cellar Door

In Brisbane, Australia in the 1990’s a Prosecutor told a jury that amongst other things, mortgage fraudsters needed "a tame solicitor” who could compliantly misuse his authority to ensure their illegal scheme would secure funds from a bank. That solicitor was dis-barred by Australia’s Law Society.

Whilst it is absolutely clear that there is no comparison with the term’s use in the TLERA email in Piplings case nor can it be seen to be applicable to the appointed solicitors, it is probable that the epithet's use in the email does not have a positive spin (dependent upon from what position you view it) and is possibly pejorative.

In UK business-speak the word “tame” can be applied to any number of professionals who may present themselves in a co-operative light in a given situation.

Thank you very much for your opinion, opinion!

And also thank you very much for that “tame solicitor” action in Australia, jgdoherty.

Yesterday, orange said in post #582 that this is, “…better than EastEnders!”.

I know what orange means.

But these shenanigans now appear more and more like the 1988 film Dangerous Liasons.

How poor little Cécile de Volanges (Uma Thurman), in 1760’s France, is used as a pawn in a scheming game of love and revenge. Corsets, thrusting cleavages, deceitful eyes. The scheming is done by whispering behind fluttering fans.



Cut to some them in the TLERA Committee and the whispering is not done behind fluttering fans but closed drapes and twitching curtains.

French and Saunders did it better though in their 1990 spoof.

Only problem being that in Dangerous Laisons the bad guys are damned sexy and the good guys more than a little drippy. If anyone on the TLERA even remotely resembles John Malkovitch, they've got my vote (or they would if I had any interests in this debate beyond the voyeuristic).

In all seriousness, I hope tonight's meeting is productive and helps shed light on what is really going on up on The Hill.

I would imagine that there me some fluttering fans up there this evening. Also lots of smoke and an abundance of mirrors.

I think the sarcastic reference to 'where else?' at the top of that email probably speaks louder than its content.

It's suddenly gone quiet...

Yes I was just wondering what on earth happened at that meeting last night...

118 households supported the TLRA in the confidence motion, 12 households were against.

How would you/anyone who attended summarise the rest of the discussion?

In a word - horrible. Whilst Piplings did at last get a chance to talk to the community, and the fact of the vote got c200 people in a room (which is unheard of for anything other than the fireworks to get that many neighbours together, so one good thing). It was obvious that residents with young families found the timing of the meeting difficult, being so near to children's bedtimes, and whilst some did come, it was later.

But I felt there was a real sense of 'rent-a-mob' on the side of the objectors - jeering, sneering and generally being unpleasant. And some of the key players in all this, who I've never seen before, despite going to the nursery regularly, are shockingly angry and vicious people.

Many who attended do feel supportive to the nursery, and sat quietly and listened to what all parties had to say.

The vote was a confusion of the whole meeting really. The subject voted upon didn't relate to what had been discussed. I never expected the committee to lose the vote of confidence (especially with the persuasive previso that if they did they would all resign). But what I trust is that the whole business has made the committee reflect on its mandate, on quite how one-sided it should be in disputes between neighbours, and perhaps, just perhaps, we will see some more fresh faces as officers come the AGM in the summer.

I hope this review of proceedings helps. I'm sure there are other views, but this is how I felt about the whole thing.

Was there any indication of what comes next? Is it likely to be just a continuation of what was happening before (i.e. purely a legal battle over the covenant)?

Yes the 'Rent a mob' terrified me as well, but then I've always been terrified of gatherings of old people, it usually means you are at a funeral or wedding.

I actually felt that it gave those who live on the estate (the majority of whom I would say are more mature both in age and outlook than many of those who have posted on the subject on this forum) the chance to show their feelings.

There were indeed deep intakes of breath and sighs when some comments were made by those representing both Piplings and the association.

The main thing the meeting made me consider was how different generations view property ownership. The biggest sigh of the evening came when someone raised the subject that perhaps house prices on the estate would go down if covenants are enforced.

The majority of the more mature attendees clearly could not give a hoot about the price of their property which I found refreshing given the importance that the younger generation, of which I hope I would still be considered a member of, place on the price of property.

It must be remembered that last nights meeting/vote has no impact on the ongoing legal action.

I'd be interested to hear a bit more about their objections.
The majority on these forums keep saying there are no grounds for objecting and that the business doesn't generate noise or traffic/parking problems.

What did those residents of the estate - who haven't been heard until now - have to say about these issues?

Still no valid reasons as to noise/nuisance. These questions were asked repeatedly, and repeatedly side-stepped.

The neighbour taking the action did get given 2 minutes to explain, but that two minutes was taken up with vitriol and ranting, the only salient point of which I took away was that they feel they are overlooked from the garden because their garden is slightly lower than the nursery (by under-5's? Really? There must be some really tall kids there).

And as I said, as this is the ONLY time I have ever seen these neighbours, the fact that the nursery is open only during working hours really can't impact their lives. As far as I'm aware, they work for a living during the times the nursery is open.