The obvious weakness in your justification for supporting the objectors to the nursery, is that the TLERA should represent the interests of all members, not necessarily the minority that chooses to object. I don't presume to know the views of all of your membership - but presumably you have better information.

My view is that the approach of enacting arcane covenant restrictions on the use of property on the estate opens a pandora's box for all those that run businesses, or work, from home, and so is potentially against the interests of many members.

The argument that the nursery could set a precedent for all manner of undesirable businesses on the estate isn't supported by the fact that all planning applications are judged on their merits and are subject to Lewisham's policies.

I understand that there is a move to trigger a special general meeting about this - I look forward to this if only to understand the majority opinion in the membership.

This post was last modified: 26-01-2012 04:45 PM by Les.

It's a good job everyone doesn't act in this way. Quite aside from the idea that this assumes that those who didn't write to support the application tacitly agreed to this action, this rather questions where the TLRA sees itself in relation to the wider area.

It is hard to see the justification for this action and I think it brings shame to the whole neighbourhood. There is a massive shortage of quality childcare locally and given that young famillies are a significant demographic then this leaves us all poorer, whether you have children or not.

It is rather ironic that the TLRA seem to have a Trade Directory planned:
http://www.tewkesburylodge.org.uk/pdf/tr...y_2005.pdf

I can't see that being too popular now.

This post was last modified: 26-01-2012 05:56 PM by lacb.

To be fair, with the exception of the directory that appears to be an old link (document appears to relate back to 2005). The site looks preety good, and provides some good information.

SE23.com could take a few pointers

Also if you look at their mission statement and why the Association exists in the first place, you would understand that it exists to conserve the neighbourhood, the purpose of it is to retain the character of the estate - if you support that then join, if not - dont.

I don't have a gripe about that and my remark about the directory was missing a smilie. You wouldn't want to be a home worker there who'd upset your neighbour. :-)

My main point is that we are not talking about the People's Republic of Tewkesbury Lodge, this society like many others, is a part of a wider community too. It just feels to me like a stab in the foot on their part and it does no credit to Forest Hill either.

This post was last modified: 26-01-2012 06:36 PM by lacb.

We had a place at Piplings and were very much looking forward to being part of the nursery. We are however now using the East Dulwich branch, at some financial loss. But as important, we are due to be moving on to the Estate and now we're really not sure we want to. It seems to be full of rather unpleasant people. We will be very near the Liphook Crescent house, and we have three children. I will be nervous when they are out in the garden that a neighbour will complain. I am seriously considering withdrawing from the purchase. So maybe the Resident's Association should think about the effect this is having.

I see they had 27 members who opposed the nursery. I don't know how many members they have in total but presumably the majority of their members did NOT oppose the nursery. Why then take the part of the 27? Or not at least consult the whole membership on the issue?

STB76, do move in, it's a really lovely neighbourhood full of nice families, lively children, terrific schools and lots of interesting people, many of them artists and entrepreneurs, quite a few of them, ironically, probably running businesses from home. The stuff on this thread really doesn't give you any indication of what the area is like. The problem is that the residents' association doesn't seem to be very representative of the general body of residents, as surely it should be. Yes, there were complaints, but it's also a very important local amenity, relevant to the interest of the wider community, and they do not seem to have taken this into account. The website was down for a long time and the residents association don't seem to be making use of the various other mechanisms, like this forum, that could be used to consult a wider group of local residents.

Im not surprised people feel the way you do but It's a shame if you don't move in . As iG has said Forest Hill is a great place to live with some really good schools. I hope this all serves as a lesson and that the people who live on the estate take control of their residents association and become active in it to ensure that any actions are in the best interests of all residents
And the wider community, I do think what often happens is that people don't widely participate and the
More extreme interests take over.
My daughter used to go to a childminder on the estate for some time. I feel really concerned now as to whether someone was takIng photos of us arriving and leaving then keeping a record of it In order to complain. They did close quite quickly so I wonder if someone had been getting at them too? . Personally if I found someone making a recording of my child and didn't stop when asked Id take the camera off them as well as calling the police. I think from a safeguarding point of view people should notify the authorities of this weird obsessive behaviour.
I have read the responses of tlra and am not convinced that they can justify their position. What's been happening here is not healthy at all.

STB76, 27 people objected to the council application - these were not necessarily members of the Association. I find it odd that anyone would withdraw from a house purchase based on the fact that residents have legitimately objected to the distruption (I assume cars, rubbish, noise in general) caused by running a business in a residential area, when they are perfectly within their rights and the law, to do so. You could do worse than live next door to people who care about their home and environment and who dont particularly want to hear the piercing sound of screaming kids 5 days a week (oops -sorry, the delightful laughter of 30 children next door).

You say you are now using the Dulwich nursery at some financial loss - I assume this is an issue for you, or you wouldnt have mentioned it - pity the neighbours whose properties have been devalued because of this.

I find it incredible that people believe that for the greater good (i.e. child care facilities), people with nice homes should make futher sacrifices (not enough that they have huge mortgages), and those that dont comply must therefore be nasty, anti social, anti child, unpleasant, quote 'they are harrassing parents and fightening childen'. What a joke. You shouldnt believe the stuff you read on websites unless you know it to be true.

Gingernuts, your comments alone are enough to put me off. I lived next door to a large school for several years and didn't experience anywhere near the disruption or inconvenience you are ascribing to a small nursery. I went into the nursery. There were fewer than 20 children there, a fair proportion of which were babies who were therefore rarely in the garden.

Can't you see that the way you are describing the nursery makes it sound like a place where people with children would be wary to live? If my children each have a friend round to play, that's six kids in the garden making a noise-probably the same number as Piplings had at any one time. So why wouldn't I worry that someone might complain about them?

I personally would never object to a nursery next door to me. I currently live near a hostel which has never caused the slightest trouble. I would be very surprised if the nursery I saw in action affected house prices in any way.

Thanks to others for your replies. We are thinking carefully about this move. And I am embarrassed at my misplaced apostrophe.

This post was last modified: 26-01-2012 08:17 PM by STB76.

I do wonder, reading all this stuff, how Horniman School ever got built. Presumably in those days the residents' association must have been a bit more in touch with what a flourishing community actually needs?

STB76, did you move next to a school or did you live in a quiet residential street to become simply over-joyed by the council's approval of a planning application to build a school next to you? and then over the moon when you realised that the value of your property had devalued over night?

If kids run riot with their friends in the back garden screaming and making a general nuisance of themselves, I dare say any neighbour would be less than thrilled, whereever you live. If on the other hand you are a respectful parent, I cant see that you'll have a problem at all. Also not to forget most kids go to school and grow up, so there is a differnce between childen palying in a private garden in the summer making a bit of noise for a brief period of time and a permanent playground of potentially 30 kids every weekday for the rest of your life. If I was an elderly retired person, looking forward to my twilight years, poodling around in the garden, the last thing I'd want is to be next to a school if I didnt have to be. Is that not impossible to understand?

Some clarifications:

To respond to Gingernuts:
The people who own the nursery have lived in the house for over 12 years. They have only in the last 2-3 years decided to open a nursery when Ofsted changed the rules that enabled people to provide this type of childcare from their own home.

To respond to the Chairman of TLERA:
I think your carefully worded post hides the real truth of TLERA's involvement with this case.

1. TLERA contributed £200 towards the cost of a surveyor (minuted in the published TLERA minutes on 7th December 2010. - extract below:

Planning Appiications
Tony mentioned that he had received the bill from Anthony Keen and noted the TLERA donation of £200 towards the costs.
Andrew gave an update regarding the application for 5 Liphook Crescent. At the Lewisham Planning meeting on 11 November 2010 the planning committee approved the application for a nursery at the property. . . . Following the Lewisham meeting, Andrew stated that he had spoken to a resident of Liphook Crescent, who was a lawyer.
Following some discussion and investigation on the matter he stated that, in his opinion, he thought that the covenants contained with the title deeds would be enforceable under current civil law by a neighbour of the property in question.
It was suggested that an article be included in the next newsletter on the subject of covenants.

TLERA then contributed c.£60.00 towards the title searches for houses in Liphook Crescent to search for the house that has the Covenant that is beneficial over the nursery (September 2011).

I hereby request an Extraordinary Committee Meeting of TLERA and request support from 14 other members to carry this request. From this meeting I hope we can gain a full and open account of exactly what has happened here. If you agree, please post on this thread and email chairman@tewkesburylodge.org.uk

The covenant may be legally enforceable, the question here is whether TLERA and the residents concerned have acted morally in the best interests of the local community.

This post was last modified: 26-01-2012 09:34 PM by Jason.

STB76 - you raise an interesting point about TLERA not having consulted residents as a whole.

A recent planning application on Canonbie road also attracted a similar number of objections, and TLERA supported this objection. TLERA's objection letter was posted on the homepage of the TLERA website (and I think may even have been in the most recent newsletter - that was a while ago now).

Why then was the objection to the nursery planning application not advertised in the same way?

Gingernuts - I know it to be true that a neighbour harassed parents and frightened their child, yesterday morning. I know the names of all individuals concerned, but I won't be posting them here. Also, why do you keep referring to '30 children'? This is a nursery we are talking about, not a school. It has less than 20 children on even the busiest days - some of which are young babies which will not be tearing around the garden. And as part of the planning considerations for the neighbours - garden time is restricted to a couple of hours per day.

There are nurseries, and there is Piplings. I would invite anyone to take a trip past, any time of day, and see if you can tell it is there (on foot though please, we wouldn't want to upset the neighbours with extra traffic on their public highway).

This post was last modified: 26-01-2012 10:00 PM by ladywotlunches.

How can a comparison be made between the matter in hand and the planning application for 51 - 53 Canonbie. Two separate issues and entirely different.

Please take care when quoting what people may or may not have said, people making such statements could end up in some very HOT water. [/align]

I do think Gingernuts post is very enlightening. Some elderly people might want to pootle around their garden indeed and have a quiet life but do they necessarily have an absolute right to do it to the exclusion of all other interests that there are in life. I have always felt that this issue was about some elderly retirees wanting this sort of life versus young families and other elderly retirees wanting to live in a mixed community and to have childcare fairly close to where they live. If people want a quiet life then shouldn they really find a sheltered scheme somewhere where children may visit but not stay overnight?

The anti child stance isnt exclusive to Tewkesbury Lodge. The nursery at Lammas Green had a hard time from the estates elderly residents when it changed ownership and wanted longer hours. Restrictions were placed on the nursery by the residents which meant that families had to walk around the long way to get into the nursery rather than come in through the adjacent gate which would have been more convenient in unclement weather. Objections were also raised at parents collecting children sitting on the grass and feeding their younger children. You might think that the green itself would be a great outdoor place to play but the nursery can actually only use this twice a year for specially arranged events. All this bearing in mind that the residents actually benefitted financially from the nursery income by way of rent for the community hall. As a parent of a child there I felt that my children were entertained under suffrance by the local residents.
Other nurseries seeking to expand also faced some very unreasonable objections, fortunately to no avail.

In all, nurseries tend to have younger, happy, compliant children compared to schools. They spend some time outdoors playing happily and usually actually more co operatively than older children. They also spend lot of time indoors having snacks and having naps.
I read somewhere that being around young children was better than medication, lowered blood pressure and lengthened lives. I think its s shame therefore if people are so resistant to embracing the life and energy of the young. Fortunately I know so many older people who are happy to do so and I am lucky to live amongst them down here on the lower slopes where we have a happy mixed community.

This post was last modified: 26-01-2012 11:04 PM by roz.

Maybe the TLERA are happy to be public about their opposition to the Canonbie road application because they can fight it on the grounds of the material planning conditions pointed out by Iwereabsolutelyfuming - " 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"

As this doesn't apply to Piplings another approach was necessary.

Has anyone seen Hot Fuzz ;-)

PS to my post.
The best way to make house prices wobble is for a community to take the sort of disruptive action that has happened here. Nothing loses sales and depresses values more than the lack of goodwill, neighbour tension, and reports of people harassing visiting children. Living near to a good nursery is in fact a desirable feature for which people will pay much in the same way as they pay to live in the catchment area of a good school.

Bit late for that however.

TLERA opposes Canonbie street flats because it wants family homes - families will have children, who will play in gardens and need childcare. Just as good schools attract families so do good nurseries and Piplings is ofsted gold.

Gingernuts as Jason has pointed out money from the members of the TLERA was used to fund action against the nursery so please can you answer the question, why were ALL the members of TLERA not consulted??

I have grown up on the estate and my family were not aware that this action was being taken. We would never have apposed a nursery opening.

You seem to be unaware that the majority of most small nursery's like Piplings are actually in residential streets, where would you like the communities children to go? should we pack them off to industrial estates! were talking about very young children here its important that they are cared for in familiar setting.