So without this demonstrable nuisance it really would seem to be the case that your business is at risk if it is registered and operating at a Tewkesbury Lodge Estate address and you fall out with a neighbour who can claim the benefit of the covenant.

Yes. Although according to TLERA, no-one should worry as the neighbour would have to have serious misgivings about the business, enough to risk 'substantial amounts of money' in order to contest it.

But that's not true. As we have seen in this case, it is only the business that is footing the legal bill. Objectors freely carry on with a no win, no fee agreement. And there is a 'tame' local barrister who will happily take on such work, it seems.

If I ran a business not 'on the list' on the estate, I'd be getting very nervous right now.

Whether there is a noise nuisance or not has no influence on the legal action. The legal action is about the restrictive covenant.

There is obviously a lot of emotion on both sides of this disagreement, but I didn't witness vitriol and ranting by the neighbour who is taking the action.

Another interesting point was that N.o. 5 Liphook Crescent (Piplings nursery) has not been lived in since Oct 2011. The reason given for this was that Mr & Mrs Lee had found the situation that has arisen very stressful and so had moved out. This makes me wonder whether they will ever feel able to return as even if they are successful in changing the covenant on the property the feelings of neighbours will not have changed.

I did want to ask whether the planning permission granted for the nursery means that the property is now considered a commercial premises rather than residential?

Thanks LadyWotLunches,
I'm not taking sides, but just interested to see the range of opinions.

However, could it be the near neighbours are close to retirement and is that maybe why they're concerned? In which case the business could affect them while in their garden. Maybe they're concerned about a future impact? I take your point that 5 year olds would hardly be able to overlook their garden, but what about the staff?

I'm not assuming this is the case, just trying to get to the substance of the objections. If there really is little substance then fair enough.

Did anyone ask the question as to how much money the neighbours had had to spend on attempting to enforce the covenant?

Really sad that what appeared to have been a good opportunity to hear and understand both sides of the argument seems to have failed.

Whatever the rights and wrongs on both sides and whatever my opinions on the matter I was looking forward to hearing the objectors' side of things in more detail. Even if they'd just said, "do you know what, we just want to continue to enjoy the benefit of the covenant in its purest form and dont want or need to demonstrate nuisance to enforce it", I could respect the honesty and at least understand what was driving this.

Whilst the meeting was fairly well structured, it never looked like being an open forum for considered debate. Minds were made up long before the meeting.

I was surprised by the demographics – mostly over 60 and well over 95% caucasian. People can’t help who they are, I’m just saying I presumed it would be more like the rest of SE23 than a leafy shire.

Reference to a future fight against a Horniman alcohol licence and a previous incident, a Jerk Chicken Festival received a healthy level of murmuring and tutting. Personally, I can’t think of anything better than a festival of jerk chicken.

The F’s barrister pleading for two minutes of (unscheduled) time for his client to put his side of the story was unnecessary. This probably backfired when Mr. F proceeded to pop up and say he considered ‘people chatting’ on the pavement to be a major nuisance.

The attitude of the TLERA committee can be diluted to one moment, when the advertising blurb from a 1930s brochure for the TLE was read out, saying how the area would be preserved in a magic bubble, safe from the modern world and all its troubles.

Nearly all missed the irony of the meeting taking place in a school.

As regards the neighbour, I personally witnessed a completely outrageous response to a neighbourly question that my husband asked of him after the meeting. His reaction to that, to me showed the type of person he is. The question was completely unrelated to the case.

Whilst the Lees haven't been permanently living at the house for a few months, and who can blame them with all this going on around the front door, No 5 is their main home, and I know that they would love to be back there, for various reasons.

That they aren't there all the time, doesn't make it not their home. What about all the people who have a 'winter home' in Spain or somewhere. Does that make them non-residents? Or just lucky

On the commercial/residential distinction. There is no 'combined' use in planning terms, so it has to be listed as commercial. But as Emma said, the use is classed by Ofsted as 'Childcare on Domestic Premises' - ie, residential.

Glasshalffull,

a noise nuisance or threat of disruption/noise may have triggered the decision to enforce a restrictive covenant in the first place, so in that respect it is significant.

crikey, the TLERA are gonna hate those new musical installations in the Horniman Gardens then.

@ Glasshalfull

Your post is ageist and offensive.

I have lived in the TLERA area for many years starting from when I was of an age more acceptable to yourself to the present time. I suppose I do not now fall into the age group around which you feel comfortable. So be it. Is that my fault or the fault of others more mature, certainly in mind, than yourself. Be sure that one day the older people at the funerals that terrify you so will be at that to celebrate the passing your good self.

An apology might just be in order.

By the way, if that was a "rent-a-mob" I am owed some rent.

@ummango

think you may have misinterpreted glasshalffull's post...

My reflections on the meeting are:

- It was a good day for democracy in the sense of there being a good turn out. There is nothing worse than apathy. I agree with an earlier poster that the time of the meeting perhaps made it difficult for those with young families to attend. Certainly the demographic was different to that of the fireworks display.
- I thought councillor Feakes did a very good job of controlling the debate, which risked getting out of control at times.
- A key point for me is that TLERA have been very selective in pursuing the restrictive convenant approach to a business in the estate to achieve their objective. There are estimated to be 50+ businesses operating out of the estate, some arguably causing more nuisance than the nursery.
- As with the planning application, at no point was any real evidence of nuisance presented, with TLERA pointing to the "this is the thin end of the wedge" argument, which I don't accept given that planning permission would need to be sought for changes of use.
- It is bitterly ironic that the first success of TLERA was to prevent the construction of a block of flats on Horniman Drive, and supporting the construction of the Horniman School, which causes 10x as much nuisance. I'm not opposed to the school, but my point is that TLERA are selective in their targets for objection.

At the end of the day (literally), the committee won a confidence vote overwhelmingly: not a surprise given the support for TLERA's good work in general (who could argue against this). However, I hope this episode will encourage them to reflect on engagement with the membership before taking action in the future, and will encourage a new generation of representatives to stand for the next election of officers.

@ IWAF

I am referring to the opening remarks in glasshalffull's first post of today. This is not open to misinterpretation. However I am not unduly upset. Just resent having got old without noticing!

The nursery side came out of this well. Their arguments remain intact.

TLERA would now do well to quietly organise a diplomatic resolution to this specific case and then concentrate on more practical and non-partisan matters.

Perhaps then they won't be tainted by assisting the closure of one of the best nurseries in the country.

Brujo

I must have missed the 'magic bubble' comment or is this your interpretation of what was said?

The reason that most of those at the meeting were more mature is because it is difficult for younger people of all races to afford property on the estate. Could the reason that the property on the estate is considered desirable and is more expensive than most parts of SE23 be the fact that it is considered a nice place to live?

Just a thought.

ladywotlunches

Thanks for clarifying when you witnessed what you considered an outrageous response to a question by the neighbour and that it was not during the meeting.

Thank you for answering the commercial premises question. The premises now being commercial (the ofsted definition is irrelevant) could have an impact on the neighbours as they now live next door to commercial premises which if they decided to sell their properties could deter potential purchasers.

ummango

You have misinterpreted my post. The opening sentence was my effort at humour. I was at the meeting with my parents who have lived on the estate for over 40 years. I spent a wonderful childhood on the estate and have been fortunate enough to move back onto the estate. I hate ageism and feel it is the 'ism' that appears for some reason to still be acceptable. The only reason I have commented on this issue on this forum is that I felt many of the earleir posts were ageist

The meeting did exactly what was hoped. For the first time in two years Emma from Piplings was finally able to tell the Association representatives and the local community the truth about her nursery.

The outcome of the vote was never in question and was only added to the agenda because, though many have no issue with or support the nursery, lots of people wanted to be able to show their overall confidence in the work the residents association has done over many years.

I hope that this horrible issue will now be resolved amicably between both parties and everyone can move on with their lives. The Residents Association should now do what they can to help this process.

Glasshalffull

To clarify, it is NOT commercial premises. It is a house. It is domestic premises with permission to provide childcare.

Yes, it is still a home. And to discuss house prices and ability to sell on the hill is just vulgar, according to the tutting given by residents last night!

This post was last modified: 09-03-2012 03:11 PM by ladywotlunches.

The Chairman of the Association (who incidentally seems to be about 12 - is that an ageist comment in the other direction?) made a sensible statement at the end to the effect that despite the ringing vote of confidence which was never in any doubt, the TLERA had nevertheless learned from this process and would think carefully about the implications moving forward. Let's hope that's what happens. Here's one idea: how about TLERA stating publicly that they recognise that local nursery provision is a significant issue for many of the people they represent (if not the demographic at yesterday's meeting), and pledging to sit down with the Lees and see what could be done to work with them positively on finding alternative local premises for a nursery which would be deemed suitable?

Thanks Jason.

I thought that the planning permission that the nursery was granted involved a change of use.

Another question I wanted to ask.

When planning officers are considering cases do they not check if there are covenants in place?