@ Glasshalffull

Thank you for your explanation. Perfectly understood and well received. I have taken my medication and am now quite calm and content with life.

Well, yes, nice to look at, but don't rock the boat


Loncdl post 639, great suggestion

This post was last modified: 09-03-2012 03:38 PM by Brujo.

Planning permission was given for 'The change of use of the ground and first floors of 5 Liphook Crescent SE23, from residential (Use Class C3) to a nursery (Use Class D1).'
The remainder of the house (part of 1st floor and 2nd floor) remain residential (whether occupied or not).

And one of the conditions of granting that application was:
'Upon the nursery use ceasing to operate, this permission shall expire and the property shall be returned for use as a single family dwellinghouse.'

Rock the boat, I actually think that most of the housing stock is not that nice to look at (apologies if that offends anyone) , but it's a nice place to live.

Has the possibility of using Louise House as a nursery been investigated?

Is Piplings registered with Company's House as business? Do they pay VAT? Do they pay the council commercial rates or domestic ones? What happens if they succeed to have the covenant taken out and they want to sell the house or the business. Will next occupants be free to start any large business they want? think this is the major problem.What happens if they sell their home with the covenant out.
Anybody can buy tha plot of land and do what they like.

Loncdl - nice suggestion, but perhaps in the first instance TLERA should work to resolve the situation as it is now - perhaps there is a middle ground acceptable to both parties. Finding new premises would need significant funds - which may well not be available with all the legal fees paid out so far.

Orange - other reason for the neighbours to resolve amicably now, rather than risking the covenant being changed. Any resolution would I imagine be like the planning permission, something that expires with the sale of the property.

Glasshalffull - Louise House would provide a very different type of nursery setting, much more 'institutional'. Childcare in domestic premises was set up to allow the kind of 'home from home' care the children get at Piplings now.

This post was last modified: 09-03-2012 03:53 PM by ladywotlunches.

Restrictive covenants are separate from planning control and cannot be taken into account when making planning decisions as they are not enforced by the planning authority

No, just like they wouldn't be in any other residential property either in or out of the TLE.

No they cant. Covenant or not, planning control would still apply to anything not covered by permitted development.

I think Michael's interjection on the building's classification at #643 is timely and hugely informative.

From that information it could be concluded that planning officers and councillors on the planning committee were absolutely in tune with the sensibilities of the situation presented to them. This may be evidence that they did clearly understand and considered the thin end of the wedge argument and were not prepared to open the doors to No 5 becoming anything other than a small well run nursery (and most certainly not that infamously and locally feared chemical weapons factory) by endorsing a very well crafted qualification.

It substantially undercuts the ground of one of the mainstays of the protesters' arguments about the thin end of the wedge both for this property and any other where change of use applications may be being considered.

Perhaps some of the criticisms levelled at the planning authority's members and officers have been significantly misplaced. Furthermore I believe in a much earlier thread that it had been explained that a planning authority cannot take any cognisance of RC's whilst making their planning decisions.

This post was last modified: 09-03-2012 04:17 PM by jgdoherty.

The reason for the planning condition

is so that a future occupant can use the whole house as a residential dwelling house without having to apply for planning permission to change the part with nursery (Class D1) use back to residential. At least that is how it was explained to me by a planning officer.

Hope this helps clarify Michael's post.

This post was last modified: 09-03-2012 05:55 PM by andrewr.

And to further clarify my post, the return to dwellinghouse is important to prevent the D1 permission entitling the owner to make use of the space for other uses, including as a place of worship.

All houses in Lewisham are covered by the same planning rules designed to allow sensible use of property, rather than keeping all buildings stuck in the 1930s, when covenants were the only protection available to property developers and home owners. In fact if the owner wished to set up a doctor's surgery (which is an allowed profession according to the covenant), they would still require planning permission, and even the existing planning permission would not be good enough, despite both nurseries and surgeries being classed as D1.

And it would be extraordinary for a B6 business to be allowed in a residential area, even if it were producing vital chemical weapons capabilities.

After last night's meeting I decided to take no further part in this argument. But there are still inaccuracies and misunderstandings being posted.

The application to the Lands Tribunal, of which I have a copy, is asking for the restrictive covenant to be moderated for no 5 Liphook "so as to permit the use of the ground and first floors of the house (with use of the garden) as a day nursery in accordance with the planning permission issued ..... for not more than 12 children at any one time (including children of any family resident at the house) between 8.00 am and 6.00 pm on Mondays to Fridays inclusive but not on Good Friday or Christmas Day in any year."

Personally, as a near neighbour and a beneficiary of the covenant, I have told the Lees's lawyer that I have no objection to this moderation. But that is not the argument. Some of the postings here, and some of the statements made last night and by members of the TLERA committee, have implied that the entire restrictive covenant would be removed from the house, thus allowing goodness only knows what future uses of the building. This must be corrected.

This is a small modification to the restrictive covenant, and the rest of the terms of the covenant will remain active for the house.

And a few comments on the meeting. I have been a memeber of TLERA for 25 years, and am a strong supporter of the work done by the association and by this and previous committees. As such, I really hoped that last night's meeting would contain an element of peace-making. I was deeply disappointed that it didn't.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the subject, neighbour has been turned against neighbour, and I consider it the duty of the committee to address this, and initiate some mending of fences (metaphorical ones of course, the restrictive covenant means we are all responsible for mending actual fences).

The supporters of Piplings have asked again and again for evidence of the disturbance caused by the nursery. This is 2012, and it is very easy to photograph cases of inconsiderate parking, and record loud or unpleasant noise. If such evidence exists then it has not been made public. Last night was an opportunity to do so. So for that matter is this forum.

We heard again and again about the traffic. Now, I live in Liphook Crescent, and on most mornings I drive past Piplings between 7.30 and 8.00 in the morning and again between 5.30 and 6.00 in the evening. There is no other traffic. I can only assume that those parents who use their cars to deliver and collect their children have a telepathic knowledge of when I am going to be passing, so that they can avoid me seeing them. Also they must approach from Ringmore Rise and do a U-turn, because they certainly don't come past my house.

Maybe I'm just not a reliable witness?

As a much newer TLEHRA member, I'd really like to support the points above about the need for conciliation and how good it would be to see the association take on the role of peacemakers. If I'd read the thread above when I was contemplating moving to this area with a young child a couple of years ago, I'm not at all sure I would have wanted to go ahead with the move. However, I'm very glad I did, as the reality is very different from the acrimony suggested by the thread - this is a beautiful and remarkable corner of London where it seems possible to bring up children in a calm, friendly, stable and green environment where you can see the stars and hear birdsong, but also see the rest of our city spread out below us and within easy reach. I'm sure providing for the community's many young children is essential. I am also really glad to see many older people still living round here - it confirms the feeling I have that this is really a place to stay, much less transient than so many London neighbourhoods. I really do hope there will be some attempts to resolve the conflict now, it would be incredibly encouraging if the residents' association took a lead in this.

Re:Post 456 by David Lowe, Chairperson of TLERA

"It should also be noted that the letter that Jason has posted was only delivered to one household who could otherwise not be contacted."

Quite a few people posted questions about this that David did not respond to - I am now able to shed some light.

David Lowe insisted to me on Thursday night that the letter in question really was written for just one resident and it really was only delivered to just one resident. He explained that it was because they preferred to talk to everyone face to face but this particular resident could not be contacted, although they had tried a number of times.

I asked if they had managed to talk to the other 39 residents on Liphook Crescent and Ringmore Rise who had been notified of an application to the Lands Chamber. He said that yes - they had spoken to all of them personally. I asked him if these residents had, at the same visit, been given the 2nd page of the letter Jason posted an attachment of. He said yes - it had been given to all of them, personally delivered into their hands.
He still insisted that what he posted was correct (that the "letter" part of what Jason had attached was only delivered to one house) - even though the 2nd page of it had INDEED been delivered to 39 people.

I hope that makes things clear for the people that found his initial response confusing.

They have a saying in America "We don't hesitate. We litigate."

It seems we are doing the same in this country now.

Surely, some compromise could have been reached. Possibly there is a property somewhere that could be used as a nursery without objections from the neighbours.

Went past this morning with Tyson,(my brindle cross staffie),looks all closed and abandoned.Have they been stopped plying there trade? tiggywinkle (mrs).

My daughter was there today with all her friends. Sorry it wasn't causing massive disruption to the street.

When I picked up my daughter (on foot, in drizzle), she spotted me at the door, through the window - and I quite clearly saw her mouth making "it's my mummy!" shapes. Two other kids did the same sort of thing on spotting their (walking) parents.

We, standing at the door, right next to said window, could not hear a single sound, due to the apparently totally soundproof inner glazing panels.

'Tis the first of July and things remain exceeding quiet.

Has TLERA withdrawn its objection and ceased its action ?

Has the Land Tribunal sat and reached an adjudication that has been published ?

Is Piplings at risk of becoming infamous and is to be converted to a locally feared chemical weapons factory or has it been chosen as a site for the much vaunted Rapier missile to defend the Olympics ?

Is Piplings a successful and ongoing small business that does not trouble its neighbours ?

Does anyone know ?

Answers before we have to begin debating the benefits and disbenefits of Olympic Lanes please.

This post was last modified: 01-07-2012 11:48 PM by jgdoherty.