I echo the comments of hoona. I wonder if we could look at the slightly larger picture, and that is of a shortage of good Nurseries in Forest Hill and bordering areas. We live in East Dulwich and when my wife was expecting, we searched hard for a good Nursery. We looked around about 15-20 of them, but quickly realised that the few good Nurseries in Forest Hill and bordering areas had closed their waiting lists 'for the foreseeable future.' We joined some other waiting lists, yet we surprised at the poor levels of care, and so we strongly considered a move from the area. It was clear that the other Nurseries we saw had either unmotivated workers looking after bored-looking children, or small rooms full of children, or nearly no outdoor space, or a weekly diet of frozen food 'burgers for lunch'. Through word of mouth, we found out about the 'amazing' Piplins Nursery. Their wonderful detached home and family approach is the way all Nurseries should be run. Due to their depth of skills and experience they have created something beyond Montessouri and other modern concepts in child development....Perhaps one day people will be buying a book published by them entitled 'How to create the most blissful Nursery'. The people that run it are warm, clever people. Our son loves going there, it's difficult to drag him away at times, and is developing quickly into a wonderfully rounded little man, and full of confidence.

As a resident of the local area who looked round and was very impressed by the nursery, I would also very much support those who are horrified by this decision, and am likewise delighted to sign any petition/support any action etc.

It does seem to raise very important issues regarding the residents' association - most of the people posting on this thread are residents of the Tewkesbury Lodge, yet most of them seem to be opposed to the line it has taken. As a member of the residents' association (albeit quite a recent one), I'm really not aware of any consultation processes or mechanisms to ensure they represent general local opinion/the views of members. They don't seem to use this forum, which would be one obvious channel, to try and broaden consultation. Is there any way we can achieve a more representative and interactive voice for local residents?

Most organisations make provision for an extraordinary meeting. I suggest that you call one and take a vote.

Curious to know how many members of the TLERA there are and how many actually want to see the closure of Piplings. I'm not a member (wrong side of the tracks in Forest Hill) but if I was I'd be asking.

I think the membership is quite large - bonfire night at Horniman School was residents association members only, and it was very full, with very many of those present families with young children! I don't think the association committee can have any idea what the members think, I don't think they've made any attempt to find out. They would, I suppose, argue that this is a legal issue not one of democracy, and this makes it hard to challenge. However, the argument that it is a legal matter is pretty spurious given their choice to unearth and pursue an obscure and otherwise unenforced statute.

From the constitution.

"Special General Meetings of the Society shall be held at the written request of fifteen or more members whose subscriptions are fully paid-up.
Twenty members personally present shall constitute a quorum for a Meeting of the Society. The Committee shall give at least 7 days’ notice to members of all Meetings of the Society."

I am very willing to write requesting such a meeting - would others do the same and does anyone have the right email address to hand?

Thanks for offering to request a meeting. I would also happily join in the request, but as a parent at the nursery I didn't want to push too hard in case I'm seen as being "self-interested".

I would imagine a message to Dave Lowe, the Chairman would be the place to start. How do we know when 15 people have requested said meeting (other than relying on TLERA to tell us?). Perhaps, if you have written to request the meeting, confirm your support via a message here?

chairman's address is: chairman@tewkesburylodge.org.uk

I am a member of the TLERA, and would like to attend such a meeting. As I mentioned above, I applaud much of the work of the association, but I think this narrow-minded action is misguided and I suspect contrary to the interests of the majority of members. I've not seen any attempt to consult members on the matter, and would like to seek clarification if the action has been pursued in the name of the association.

This was reported on the East Dulwich Forum:

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/...430,page=2

This post was last modified: 26-01-2012 09:22 AM by michael.

Wow, given the world we live in today that's one brave/stupid adult filming a child not related or known to them...

If an extraordinary general meeting is called, and the terms of the covernant are upheld (and in essence it should be) resulting in the nursery closing. May I suggest that a second EGM follows quickly after to discuss the covernant itself.

By upholding the terms of the covernant, every other business operating under its terms must be closed as well. There can not be one rule for one, and one rule for another.

(I am not a member of the association)

Whilst filming in such a manner is somewhat unusual please note that filming in a public place is NOT against the law.

It does however show that the individual filming is acting in a somewhat irrational manner and by continuing to do so and by persisting to the point where they "cause offence and/or harrasment" then an offence MAY be deemed to have been commited.

But remember that the opposite is also true - If as a group you seek to overturn the covenant then you need to appreciate that you could have someone set up a business next door to you - and it might be more disruptive than (say) a bit of software development.

Agred, you can't have it both ways

In the 1930s there were few rules governing planning. Today we have clear planning rules that allow nurseries such as Piplings, but would not allow Dominos Pizza to open in a house on Liphook Crescent or any other similarly residential road. Roads without such restrictive covenants do not suddenly get shops springing up, so there is really little need for the provision in the covenant.

In the 21st century there is little need for this type of restrictive covenant on houses in a fully developed area with no empty plots. The covenant was primarily designed to protect the developer, it just happens that there is no time limit on the provision.

Here is the relevant section of the deeds/covenant that applies to many of the houses within TLERA:

Well yes times change and the business of a nursery isn't that very different from that of a Doctor or Dentist.

However, if you buy a house which clearly states you can't do certain things why on earth should you expect to be able to do one of those prohibited things? You may say that the covenant is out of date but clearly, 75 years after it was put in place, some local residents think it is still relevant.

Looking at the wording it would also suggest that every house in the immediate area has the right to enforce the covenant. I am not a member of the TLERA, I don't live on the estate and I don't know the ins and outs of why they took this action but ultimately it looks like any neighbour who didn't want a nursery in that street could have taken action. If that is right any one neighbour can still enforce the covenant whatever happens at any extraordinary meeting.

As for the filming again I don't know the facts but if a neighbour has obtained a court order to enforce the covenant perhaps I can speculate and suggest that they might be trying to gather evidence relating to compliance or non-compliance with the court order?

Amongst all of the righteous criticism flying about I see no comment about the wisdom of opening the business at that location in the first place. Do the owners of the business have any responsibity in this matter whatsoever?

As for the good folk of Forest Hill being able to rely on Lewisham's Planning Department to ensure a fair and proper outcome in every planning matter well, I almost dropped my cocoa when I read that.

I asked the question if the Piplings purchased the house for the specific purpose of opening a nursery and if so I would have expected their solictor to have advised them of the restrictions.

I didn't get an answer, so I presume they knew full well that they would have to challenge some existing laws and get the neighbours on side.

It's curious that the council had 27 objections to the change of use from a residential property to a nursey and only 1 in favour when the application was put in last year. Yet the permission was still granted. Therefore be thankful that these covenents are in place. It could be a hotel or a wine bar next time and it could be next door to you.

As Chairman of the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate Residents’ Association, I am correcting some of the misunderstandings and sometimes misleading comments posted regarding Piplings Nursery.

The Association is not the party taking legal action, nor is it in any way financially supporting the case against the nursery. The Association is, however, taking an interest in the outcome of the proceedings, given the far-reaching and longer term impact on the overall character of the neighbourhood. The quiet and residential nature of the Estate is something which, throughout its existence, we have consistently campaigned to maintain for the benefit of all residents.

Our position with respect to this issue has been consistent throughout. When the planning application for a nursery to accommodate 24 children was submitted to Lewisham Council, they received 27 letters of objection from residents opposing the granting of planning permission along with a petition of 44 names, mostly from neighbours directly affected by the application. Only 1 letter of support was sent from someone who lives outside of the Estate. Therefore, based on this evidence, the Association believed that it had a clear remit to oppose the application. However, planning permission was granted in spite of clear local opposition. The activities of this business (so far as we are aware, the first of its kind on the Estate to require planning permission) has since resulted in the Association receiving numerous complaints on the unacceptable level of nuisance and disruption to neighbours. Acquiescence to this business could be used as justification to open other, even more disruptive businesses on this otherwise exclusively residential Estate. This would clearly be detrimental to all of the Estate’s residents.

Finally, it should be noted that there is currently no injunction awarded by the courts to force the closure of the nursery. It appears a decision has been made by the nursery’s management and was recently announced verbally to parents of children at the nursery. The implementation of such a decision is a matter between the proprietors and their clients.

Can we ask what the complaints from residents relate to please?