"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. " and your evidence for this is...?

As a disinterested observer, I find the vitriol and generalisations aimed at protestors quite shocking. How objecting to a particular use of property can necessarily be translated into child hating beats me and as an approaching 60 year old I am disturbed by some of the ageist comments being expressed. If the objectors were not of a certain age, what would the accusations be?

I don't have children and therefore in the eyes of some I probably have no right to an opinion on the matter, but surely an attempt to understand the 'opposition's' views might be considered?

Anecdotally, in my experience (I am of course not generalising), when a neighbour initiates some development that disturbs the status quo (more often related to building works) emotions run high and relations can be soured. I speak from both sides of such events.

In close urban environments, there will always be compromises and we all (whatever our ages) should be considered and considerate, but then I will probably be labelled an idiot or (worse) a woolly liberal.

I'm intrigued by the comment from the TLERA chairman that:

"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 someone clarify what has happened here? Either they have been forced to do this by a court order, or they haven't. And can the TLERA chairman clarify whether they did actually provide financial and other support to this action (as a subsequent poster suggested) or not?

The evidence about children and parents being harassed has come from a few sources on this website. I cant verify them as I wasnt there either but I am sure the person who took the video can also vouch for this.

The anti -child conclusion is a fair one given the actions taken and the motivations behind it. There are several businesses already operating from residential homes on this estate. I do know that as I have been their customers or have made enquiries about their products and services. I can without any real effort count 9 of these such businesses. I suspect that is the tip of a very large iceberg. So why were these ventures not targeted and only Piplings. All the signs were and are that this was a mischievous campaign directed at one business.

You already have one person on the thread concerned about their impending house purchase in this area. I think that speaks volumes. No one wants to move somewhere where they think their children are going to be harangued for being children. We have thought about taking our kids to Madeira where we spent a lovely holiday once but from all the travel guides saying how kids arent really all that welcome there on the tourist trail, we wouldnt touch it with a barge pole. Why go somewhere where there is a risk that you might not be welcome.

I dont actually know whether the objectors where of a certain age. I was responding to someone talking about rights to pootle around their garden in their retirement.

Its not so much the oppositions views that are causing concern in themselves,but the lengths gone to by a group purporting to represent the interests of the residents when it seems that it did not represent their views. That however is for the members of the TLRA to sort out. It is I think acceptable for people to exercise their democratic right to protest but the behind the scenes actions here by this group seems a step too far in destroying this viable and much wanted business.

Well said Roz....

We are some of the neighbours who are acting against Piplings nursery on Liphook Crescent. We would like to put our case forward to present some kind of balance.
First, we want to say that Tlera has not helped us financially with the case regarding the covenant but has offered moral support and some assistance on research. The association's profile in the case has heightened since the owners of the nursery chose to go to the Lands Chamber to have the covenant altered.
You may think the covenant is outdated but it provides security to know that we can't suddenly end up with a number of businesses operating throughout the estate. Many people may run businesses from a computer in their homes but unlike a nursery these have little impact and do not disturb
their neighbours.
We chose to buy into a quiet residential area but since April 2010, we have been living near a commercial operation. The nursery is open five days a week, 51 weeks a year - that's longer than a school year. It runs from 8am to 6pm - that's longer than many shops on the high street. A house the size of the nursery could have four to five children. That is quite different from eight, 12, 16, even potentially
24 children plus three to four carers supervising playtime in the garden, twice a day, every day, whatever the weather. It is a total inconvenience, exactly the reason such covenants are in place and need to be protected.
Despite the legal case/land tribunal hearings being weeks away, we have learned that Piplings is to close. We would like to know whether the nursery has actually handed out a formal letter of closure or is it all just word-of-mouth as it is still being advertised on the website. Is it just a ploy to stir up emotions and set neighbour against neighbour and parents against residents?
But parents need not worry. The owners of Piplings have already started another nursery for 24 children at The Elms, just off
Forest Hill Road with Peckham Rye Park to the rear. We understand it offers facilities that are in no way inferior to those of Liphook Crescent with a huge, rear-walled garden for the children to play in and no neighbours to disturb.
A new Ofsted approved pre-school opposite Fairlawn school is also opening in late February.

Thanks for joining the discussion StraightTalk. To help us understand your position, what is the 'total inconvenience' that the nursery is causing?

Straightalking, its great to hear from someone who is at the heart of this and for you to give your perspective.

Some interesting points have come out of posting over the last few days,

1. The TLERA appear to have acted with the best intentions, but may have over stepped the letter of their remit on this occassion (these things happen, lessons are learnt for next time)
2. We are fortunate to live in a country where due process exists to enable affected parties to raise concerns/issues, and for appropriate rulings to be given (for or against) by official bodies that can enforce them.
3. The nursery management seem to have taken it upon themselves to close the business, in advance of any ruling.

So what we appear to have is a neighbour(s) registering a concern, via the appriopriate channels, and a business acting prior to a ruling being given. I'm aware emotions will always run high, and that it is never as simple as this.

A further consideration is that given the nursery owners are/were already looking at an alternative, and that they have closed before the ruling - are they just using this as an opportunity to restructure their business whilst "blaming" the closure on the neighbours - thereby maintaining the good will of their clients. A consideration surely?

This post was last modified: 27-01-2012 12:38 PM by wayfarer.

It is exactly the same covenant that can be applied to any business, other than a doctor or solicitor. The covenant makes no mention of noise or traffic, in fact as has been pointed out, a doctor or dentist would certainly generate more journeys.
The planning authority were happy that the nursery met all conditions for such a business set up in a residential neighbourhood.
I know that children playing outside can generate a level of noise that you would hear if you had windows open. The planning permission was granted on condition that the hours spent in the garden are limited, certainly not before 10am or after 5pm, and with a break for lunch. This was considered a reasonable condition to protect neighbours from excessive noise.

I can confirm that, as a parent, I have been given notice that my daughter's nursery place will no longer be available in three weeks time. I do not understand the exact details of the court case in December or the land tribunal hearings, but I have little doubt that if the covenant is presented to a court, that the nursery will need to close immediately.

The new nursery in East Dulwich is lovely but it already has some children attending, so there will probably not be room for all children. Additional running costs also mean it will cost us more. It is a 30-40 minute walk for my wife each way, twice a day. It was much more convenient to walk up the road (10-15 minutes) to the street where my parents live. The Fairlawn nursery is for children over 2 only, and is not for such long hours.
My wife and I (and many other parents) have some very difficult life choices to make in the next couple of weeks. I can assure you that this is no less stressful than the sound of my daughter happily playing with her friends!

If action against the nursery is stopped then not only will it help me personally, but it will increase your house value. There are many parents who would happily pay above the odds for a beautiful detached house close to one of the best nurseries in the area.

I would like to think that it should be possible for the nursery to continue to operate and for neighbours to discuss their concerns with the owners (which has never happened), rather than using the 1937 covenant to terminate all childcare activity on the site. Perhaps there is a number of children on the site that would be acceptable to both sides - 8, 12, 16, whatever? I don't think the forum is a good place to negotiate over such details, but if there is a way that the nursery would be acceptable to you, I am sure that the owners would be interested in listening. If there is anything I can do to help neighbours work out their differences I would be happy to assist.

Straight Talk,
Like many other parents I fail to see the argument from your point of view:
You object to the commercial operation: Well they would have not got a planning permission to run a distribution centre with deliveries running throughout the day. The company I worked for had its doors open from 7am to 6pm with lorries, fork lift truck, building style containers for rubbish ect. That would be unacceptable in a residential road and would not get a planning permission as such. You do have a planning law that protects the area and that planning assessed the nursery not being in such category.
So we are talking about a nursery:
My girls’ nursery (15 children) is based in one room and is part of a block of flats. They had provisional premises for a term until residents saw the impact on their lives. That was many years ago. As Piplings have gold star rating, I would have thought that impact on the local community would be minimal. They know how to settle children, sometimes better than parents having plenty of experience. While children are so little, nurseries have very low ratio of children to staff.
So just how much do children bother you? How many houses can hear the constant noise? Is it really constant? What is the problem?
Open 51 weeks a year with hours that allow parents to work- well yes. Is your enjoyment of life really that affected? What would make you happy? I am sure that Piplings would try their best to address any of your reasonable concerns.
As for facilities further afield, great, but we still need more provision locally. Everyone wants parents to stop using cars, or parking in their street. Guess what, if we had local nurseries we would prefer to walk, as it is rather time consuming to get a kid in a car find a parking space, then rush of to catch a train.
Finally it is your action which has led Piplings to actions that they think may help them. Had it not been for your attack on their business, they would be concentrating on running a nursery.

Using the argument that a facility like Piplings will devalue the surrounding houses is very wrong.

Any estate agent selling a house or flat close to any decent nursery or school will shout the fact from the roof tops. There is a direct link between the increase of house prices closer to good schools and nurserys and as Piplings has an Excelent mark from OFSTED this would ring true.

Just dont take my word for it, Mrs LDRZ is an estate agent and she backs this up.

I heartily applaud Michael’s offer.

We wanted to support the application, but were advised that the fact that we had a grandchild who might wish to attend, would mean that our support could be ignored. I understand that some of those who originally objected to the application have since changed their minds, as they have seen how well run and unobtrusive it is.

"We wanted to support the application, but were advised that the fact that we had a grandchild who might wish to attend, would mean that our support could be ignored."

Sorry, that's bonkers - that's like saying you can't support the application for Domino's because you might buy a pizza.

Many many thanks to all those who have taken the time to post messages of support.

As parents of children who attend Piplings, we feel very strongly about the nursery and would be devastated if this valuable community resource has to close – not just because it would be difficult to find alternative childcare in an area where it is sorely lacking but because Piplings offers something so very special.

Please visit our website at http://www.friendsofpiplings.org for further information and to sign our petition.

Thank you again for your support, it means a great deal to us.

Friends of Piplings

Hi - can someone call me about this for a story we are running in South London Press. Has the nursery closed? Why exactly and who exactly are opposed to the nursery in this location? We need both sides of the argument - 020 8710 6478

Straighttalk - As a parent, I for one am very glad to see that Piplings have had the consideration and forethought to advise parents that the nursery may have to close well in advance of it becoming a legal necessity. They have managed by doing this to accommodate several children and staff at their other branch (which was NOT meant to be a replacement, but to increase the provision of childcare in the area, which is sorely lacking despite your suggestions to the contrary).

Prior to moving to the hill, we lived in a house in East Dulwich directly opposite a (much less well run) nursery. We had no children when we moved in (or imminent plans), but it didn't put us off at all. In the 6 years we lived there, despite parking in the road in general being much worse than it is round here, we never had a problem that, or with parents, or the noise of children, and co-existed happily. When we moved out to a larger property with a more (we thought) family friendly attitude, we sold to a single lady who again saw no problem with a nursery in the vicinity, and it certainly didn't affect our sale price!! I truly cannot see what valid objection you can have against Piplings now you have seen it up and running.

Dear Wayfarer, I am not Bonkers (and rather object to the epithet - I expected better from this forum). My support from the planning application would have carried very little weight, as I was an interested party.

I was refering to the advice you were given rather than you personally. Apologies for any mis-understanding

I think that the battle lines have become somewhat entrenched but at least some facts are beginning to emerge.

To summarise on one side we have the owners of the business, the parents using the nursery and various other supporters.

On the other we have some neighbours who want to enforce a restrictive covenant that does not allow this type of business.

Some people are unhappy about the role played by the local residents' association.

It seems fairly common ground that the nursery operated to a high standard, there is a shortage of nursery spaces locally and some of the neighbours found the activities of the nursery had a negative impact on the quality of their lives.

It also seems agreed that the restrictive covenant is valid and enforceable.

Now let's put forward some alternative situations which are all hypothetical.

1) I run a charity for autistic and other disabled children who normally have to attend a special school. My charity provides care for those children during the school holidays allowing the parents some respite and/or to go to work. Some of these children can be very disruptive and difficult to manage. Should I be allowed to provide those facilities from a house in Liphook Crescent?

2) I run a charity for young offenders who have come from troubled homes. I provide a youth club type facility. Should I be allowed to provide that service from a house in Liphook Crescent?

3) I notice the lack of hotel accommodation in the area and decide that I want to run a bed and breakfast business from my house in Liphook Crescent. Should I be allowed to do this?

4) I live in Liphook Crescent and I am made unemployed. I decide to set up a removal business from my home. It is just me and my van which I park on the street. Should I be allowed to do this?

5) I am employed as a mechanic in a garage. To help with my income I buy and sell second hand cars. I park the cars I am selling outside my house in Liphook Crescent. Should I be allowed to do this?

All of these activities would provide a service to the local community. However, if you allowed all of them then you would soon change the character of Liphook Crescent.

If you say a nursery should be allowed why shouldn't all of these other activities?

It is not unreasonable for someone to buy a house or a flat based on the character of a street. If they do this it is not unreasonable for them to want to maintain that character. If they have a legal right that help to maintain that character it is not unreasonable for them to enforce those rights.

We live in a democracy so let's all have our own opinions and express them but let's also respect the opinions of others. Trial by blogger is not very edifying.

152047 - This is such a red herring. All of the scenarios you listed would require planning permission, I believe. Planning law exists (and came into being after the covenants we are talking about, essentially to make such covenants unneccessary) to ensure that neighbourhoods retain their character. I'm not sure how many of the hypotheticals (if any) would get planning permission.

But Piplings DOES have planning permission! All objections were taken into account, the planning department have made careful studies of the effect this nursery has on the area, and concludes that it is in no way detrimental to its surroundings.

I agree trial by blogger is redundant in this case. But I do feel that the nursery has so far been denied any right to reply (and has not been given a fair hearing by its residents association - as the owners are residents themselves). Friends of Piplings are seeking to redress the balance, and show the strength of support in the community for this fantastic nursery.