Although I did not know previously, I have now been informed that Piplings did ask for mediation to resolve the complaints of neighbours back in Feb 2011. This suggestion was refused by the neighbours. They did ask again in August 2011 but the offer was again rejected.

Whatever the issues were, there was (and still is) a better way to deal with this. I'm pleased to find out that Piplings did want to take a sensible and neighbourly approach to resolving the problem. It seems outrageous that rather than pursuing a dialogue to see if some of these issues could be resolved, the neighbours chose to enforce a 1930s covenant that could equally be applied to 50 other businesses on the hill.

The 200+ signatures on the Piplings petition indicate the scale of support for the nursery. My wife has sent a request for an extraordinary meeting to the TLERA chair. I hope the meeting will promptly establish how much of the support exists within the association, and whether the commitee has acted in the best interests of the majority.

From today's Evening Standard.....

Neighbours may force nursery to shut using 1938 rule

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/a...38-rule.do

I have just registered on this forum in order to reply - and, before going any further, I had to agree to this:
By registering on this discussion system you agree that you will not post any material which is knowingly false, inaccurate, abusive, hateful, harassing, sexually orientated, threatening or invasive of a person's privacy, or any other material which may violate any applicable laws.
So everyone agreed to that...? Yet many messages I have read on this topic are false and inaccurate (whether knowingly or not), abusive, threatening or invasive of people's privacy.
Someone mentioned hope for the future. There can only be an unpleasant future on the hill if people don't stop inflaming the situation.

What else are these people going to do against TLRA residents? Getting everybody to throw eggs against one another?The whole thing is becoming a vindictive affair.
They are using every possible free platform to instigate hate and venom in a very pleasant community and divide it. The article on the Evening Standard says it all!
I would not send my children to be looked after by people like that.
I also heard that they have another nursery in East Dulwich. So they have three nurseries! Business must be booming to expand in a period of recession. Are we all manipulated by circumstances and giving them a free platform to advertise their business?
I sympathise with families having to find alternative arrangments suddenly. It is an unexpected problem for working mothers, but I have been told there are 11 nurseries in the area, all prepared to take in more children. If the nursery is a commercial business of such dimensions to accommodate 24 children, (plus the 3 children of the owners, plus the owners themselves, plus staff. It is a bit crowded, isn'it?), then it should not be run from a residential home, but from premises with more capacity and facilities than an ordinary house.

Orange - How have you decided that the property is inappropriate? Have you read the OFSTED report? It's one of the best I've seen. Hence the reaction of the parents being forced to seek other arrangements (I'm not one by the way).

Orange - Piplings have no need to advertise their business. The waiting lists at the few GOOD (or better) nurseries in Forest Hill is evidence enough.
I suggest you read back through the earlier posts from local parents to realise how incorrect your comments are about the need for this outstanding nursery to remain open

No, I have not read it as I have just come across the issue today, having not read the forum for sometimes. 24 children are many little heads!. How many toilets available, how many tables, where do they eat? What about supply vans outside the house, delivering goods constantly? Would this not be a problem for residents in the area?

Oh well, I should have expected that reaction. I dont know why the assumption has been made that I live next door? I guess it suits people to believe that it's impossible for someone who is not directly impacted to have an alternative view on the SE23 forum! If I admitted that I am indeed a stay at home father, who's wife is the breadwinner, that really is no ones business, but I accept the apology - thank you. The point I have made all along is that I sympathise with the neighbours next door who do not want to live next to a nursery. I can also sympathise with the Piplings - who have every right to challenge the covenant, but the neighours have every right to enforce it and the reaction of some people on this forum to individual views is frankly beyond belief.

Just to emphasise - I have no interest in the nursery, other than being a resident on the same estate - but the OFSTED report speaks for itself and illustrates why such a facility should be welcomed. Orange - I hope this helps to answer your concerns.

http://www.piplingsnursery.com/resources...Report.pdf

This post was last modified: 02-02-2012 07:37 PM by Les.

I've just used the link to the Evening Standard report, which included this:

If their case succeeds it is feared it would set a precedent affecting up to 100 other home-run firms, such as music teachers, child-minders and consultants.

I don't think such people need to worry at all. You would need to be causing a lot of disturbance:
1.) for neighbours to spend the considerable sum of money needed to bring court action and
2.) for the court to uphold the neighbours' complaints.

I'm not taking sides in this - just pointing out the truth of the matter.

What exactly is the disturbance?

1. the council have accessed the noise and parking concerns
2. Ofsted have awarded it outstanding, if there were concerns that the house could not accommodate 24 children don't you think this would have been picked up by someone?

My worry is that people who have little knowledge of nurseries in general and how they are run are assuming the worst.

Saddened, re

1) Apparently the case against Piplings is being brought on a no win no fee basis.

2) It appears the council found there was not sufficient disturbance hence planning was granted. The TLERA then raised the option to fight Piplings using the covenant. So it appears the case now whether the covenant is being breached because Piplings is not a doctors or a solicitors, surely if Piplings are guilty of breaking the covenant it's the same for anyone else who is doing so.

I know that 1 or 2 residents who are against the wonderful Nursery staying open, are grumpy teachers (who in fact don't even live in Liphook Crescent !) They are around children in the daytime, and don't see why people need to be near them in holiday time. Luckily, there are still many of us who love children, and think that they teach us a lot about the world !

What a hoot! Now we have 'grumpy teachers' who don't like children - another stereotype to add to those other child haters, boring oldies etc.

No win no fee - against Piplings? Can this be accurate ?

The no win part seems to make sense - no win therefore the legal team that takes the risk takes the hit. Although in every probability they will require insurance to underwrite their costs in such an outcome.

However, with regard to costs and with a hint of the perversity that seems to dog this entire issue, what will happen if the Covenant is upheld and thereby the case against Piplings is deemed to be won ?

To whom will the successful legal team present their bill?

To those that pursued the case against Piplings ?

Will those pursuers in turn be reliant upon the judgment being extended to include an award for costs and that they in turn will seek to secure payment from Piplings?

Is such an award for costs likely to be granted in the circumstances that appear here earlier whereby it seems Piplings may have sought arbitration on the matter and when the pursuers declined to paricipate?

Has the risk of winning been properly assessed by the pursuers and the financial consequences properly quantified ? Has sufficient regard been given by them towards an outcome whereby their case is deemed won but without an award of costs and the consequence of having to foot the legal bill themselves.

This would appear to be a gamble that could have significant financial loss for the signatories to the appointment of the legal team.

It would seem unlikely that any insurance policy could be obtained that would provide recompense for both outcomes.

But as I said at the beginning, can this be accurate ?

The thing about these 24 children, screaming or not,( I know now and again they inexplicably increase to 30) is that I am not clear whether they are actually all present at any one time. The number of children attending any childcare setting in practice will depend on their ages and staff to child ratio. A nursery may have approval to cater for 24 children, but in practice may choose to have less. Costs and charges for younger kids are less and tend to drop proportionately with age. If there are many younger children then there are likely to be less overall. My childrens nursery ( not here) has a specified number of places but does not fill them to capacity as there are fine lines of staff ratio, cost/charges, and staff presence to cater for. My childrens nursery actually chooses to have a quieter day for training and cleaning etc. Few places I think can operate at full capacity all of the time. In addition not all children turn up all of the time in any setting- many will be away during school holidays if they have older siblings, some will be ill, and others off for other reasons.

Finally, I have I believe asked so many times now for details of the actual nuisance being inflicted on the local community. Still, no answer has been given. Lots of conjecture, and maybe this and maybe that, and lots of hysteria, smoke and mirrors from the opponents of the nursery, but again, no firm facts of 'disturbance.'

I wonder why that is.

Hi JG,

I'm getting that info from post 266 on this thread Piplings says "We have to pay all our solicitor and barrister costs, unlike our neighbour who has a ‘conditional fee agreement’ for their legal costs i.e. a No-Win, No-Fee agreement i.e. no money pain! Oh and their barrister, Stephen Acton, also lives on Liphook Crescent and is a member of TLERA – favourable terms all round to our neighbours I would think."

I doubt Piplings would lie on this public forum.

You do raise interesting questions and I don't know the answers, in my naivety I thought the loser pays the winners costs. But I, thankfully, don't have experience.

Roz

The reality in this situation is that there is no nuisance.

Walk up Liphook Crescent and see for yourself. This is a peaceful nursery in a peaceful street with typically no more than 20 young children and babies being well cared for on a domestic premises.

The planning authorities could find no nuisance - so granted planning permission. The nursery have not had one complaint in the past 12 months.

The neighbours have taken them to court on a point of covenant - not on a point of nuisance.

Yes, I am up that way a lot, but have never experienced or witnessed any nuisance, or never seen or heard anything at all in fact.
Whilst the issue is the covenant, the reasons behind it are ones of alleged nuisance which has been put forward on this thread hysterically by many of the objectors but no evidence has ever been offered.

I suspect that Piplings might find this in their favour in the forthcoming court case.