So far we have a rogue's gallery of evil old women cold shouldering innocent children, cold hearted monsters recoiling from the sound of children's laughter and now child-hating teachers.

A shame these silly comments are obscuring some important issues that need to be clarified. I still want to know why the nursery began operating before it had planning permission to do so, but the answer hasn't been made clear. Unless I've missed it somewhere.

Jason - it is not for you to suggest the content of a TLERA meeting, that is for the TLERA committee to decide.

Furthermore it is not your place and frankly not any of your business to collate names and addresses of people wishing to attend a TLERA meeting. The TLERA do not need you to do their job for them.

If it was you last Saturday attempting to collect signatures for your Piplings petition, you should be ashamed of yourself for the foul language you used.

Piplings - do you know one of your supporters use's abusive language to promote your cause. A very good reason not to give you any support what so ever.

This post was last modified: 03-02-2012 10:10 PM by dbboy.

Perhaps not my business nor my place but I find it curious that a residents association can be so bureaucratic that only the committee can decide on the content of an EGM. Surely these things are comprised of residents; resident members should surely be able to take the initiative as and when to get important things discussed especially when raising urgent matters. I am rather glad I dont belong to such a body. Sometimes these things are forces for good, but mostly they end up behaving like, well, this.

It is IMO - I am neither a member, a road rep or committee member, just a local resident expressing my opinion. I am entitled to express this here.

So enough people (15 min) have contacted their residents association to ask for a meeting as is their right, they have individually been told " they must all sign a single statement together requesting the SGM, giving the reasons for the meeting." Jason is now trying to co-ordinate the members calling for the meeting which seems like a fairly useful act.

Dboy, this seems very much like Jason's business as he is a member of the residents association and he is asking for a meeting.

Also there is no mention on the TLERA website that all 15 members need to sign a single statement "Special General Meetings of the Society shall be held at the written request of fifteen or more members whose subscriptions are fully paid-up."


I also see that "The Committee shall give at least 7 days’ notice to members of all Meetings of the Society." Did I read that the court hearing is on the 17th of Feb?

I suggest that Jason gets his skates on! Could the TLERA actually be requesting that members sign a single statement prior to a meeting as a means of stalling so that no meeting can take place prior to the court hearing?

So just to be clear:

- The TLERA is emailing people saying that to hold a special general meeting their constitution requires a written request signed by 15 households, including a statement regarding the purpose or subject of the meeting;

- Yet their own constitution published here: http://www.tewkesburylodge.org.uk/agm.htm simply says at article 5 that "Special General Meetings of the Society shall be held at the written request of fifteen or more members whose subscriptions are fully paid up". It makes no mention of this being signed (email is writing), or of the need for a statement regarding the purpose of the meeting.

A little strange?

Perhaps, seeing as they are asking for the purpose of the meeting, the Pipilings supporters should point to article 15, which allows for the TLERA to be wound up upon a vote of 2/3rds of the membership at an SGM, and the funds distributed to one or more charitable institutions with similar objectives - the Pro-Pipilings TLERA, perhaps...?

It would also be interesting to know which of their permitted objects in article 2 the TLERA thinks its support for the closure of the nursery falls in, because it isn't clear to me.

Enough is enough, I have asked admin to delete my Se23.com account as people here are so nasty. I thought SE23 was a nice place to live, how wrong was I. Piplings is succeeding in gradually splitting the community.

This post was last modified: 04-02-2012 12:30 AM by dbboy.

I am a TLRA member but (to my shame) I have never been active. However, the unpleasantness on this forum has spurred me to decide I should do more.
I understand that TLRA was set up 51 years ago to look after the interests of the residents on the estate.
Fury against TLRA has now been expressed. Why? TLRA seems to me to have done exactly what it was set up to do. It received a large number of objections to the nursery from residents and none from supporters -- so it supported the objectors.
What has TLRA done wrong?
There is also anger that TLRA did not consult everyone on the estate. But, in the 8 years I have lived here, I have never been consulted about any of the cases where TLRA was opposing planning applications. Why should Westwood Park residents be consulted about things happening in Liphook – and vice versa?
We need to be consulted about things that concern us directly, not those several roads away. Obviously TLRA parents who use the nursery are directly concerned, but it was the responsibility of the nursery to inform them that they had been given places in a set-up which did not comply with the existing law, not TLRA’s -first to find out who they were and then consult their opinions. Why did those parents not lobby TLRA at the planning stage? (I realise the covenant was brought in later, but everyone must have known about the planning application, which was heard long after the nursery opened.)
I can well understand that parents are angry that their nursery has decided to close (at the moment there is no court order to close it.) Of course it is deeply upsetting for parents and children to lose a place where they are happy and settled.
But why direct this anger at the TLRA committee, who have acted exactly in accordance with their remit?
Let us also remember that the committee, and the road reps, are all volunteers who must spend huge amounts of unpaid time in organising and delivering things for the benefit of the community on the hill.
I, for one, am very grateful to them.
Surely the people who have caused all this are the people who set up a business and offered places in a nursery without doing the basic checks that any sane person would do.
Not the TLRA committee.

Saddened - my basic problem with the action of the association is that it should take into account the interests of all members - not just the few objectors to the proposal. The estate is family friendly and also supports a number of home businesses - the interests of those members were ignored.

There were local objectors, and only one formal supporter to the application - but that is absolutely normal - have you ever written to support an application that benefits you? The planning process took into account the benefits of the enterprise to the community balanced against the far fetched allegations of nuisance (noise?smoking?! parking!?!?) and over-ruled the objectors.

My issue is that the association has spent money supporting an action which may (we don't know) not be supported by the majority and brings the area into disrepute. This is my only interest in this case. Of course the consensus opinion could be established if the association would call a meeting promptly - rather than apparently using delaying tactics.

This post was last modified: 04-02-2012 12:06 PM by Les.

Have a hissy fit and leave if you wish. Whats 'nasty' and what is splitting the community is not the supporters of Piplings but the persistent and almost virulent activity of some residents and the clearly undemocratic residents association against a viable business which has done nothing more than most people do which is to not be aware of an outdated covenant on their property. Most people havent a clue about theirs. As others have said , the intention of these covenants were to protect the interests of the builders during the construction phase lest it impact on initial sales.

Whats nasty is the attitude of people who are fairly well off retirees who forget that they were young once with families and now find reason to object to the presence of and facilities for young children, and who are rich enough with money and time to pursue petty legal actions.

Whats nasty is the fact that people are taking photos of children arriving at the nursery without their parents consent. Try that with me and you'll find yourself without a working camera. Its outrageous that people and innocent children are being treated in this way.

Thousands of people breach residential leases all the time. It now seems that the people taking action against Piplings are themselves running a business from their property but no one can do anything as no breach has taken place due to the sequence of construction. A bit rich dont you think?

Les your convenience is another persons nuisance
I would say they only people who can judge whether it is a nuisance are the near neighbours; within 2 or 3 houses. For these people in relative terms the increase in nuisances experienced (screaming children, parking, traffic, etc) must range from % 1000’s to % infinity. Is this not this the relevant measure for them?

Isn’t a residential property with no residents and a business actually a commercial property? This is a different scenario to someone running a small business from where they still live.

I don’t know when and who at Lewisham council decided that Nurseries were appropriate uses of residential properties, the UDP allows for this change of use and for all kinds of “local community services” so who knows what the local politicians, who approve the applications, and don’t live on the estate, will allow. To me it seems fair that as a local resident you have the power of a RC to prevent this.

it is a common misconception that you need to obtain consent to take someones picture especially in a public place. Copyright law also allows the photographer to use the images in almost any way they see fit. If you disagree with this law then take it up with the government.
If the business uses childrens imagery to publicise a business or its plight then why should the protesters not be allowed to take photos in defence of their case.

My understanding from Pipling's earlier posts is that
a) they are residents of the property in question
b) their time is currently split between Liphook Crescent (their home), and the living quarters at the new nursery branch while they set it up - not as a permanent move
c) they would be spending more time at their family home if the atmosphere in the street towards them personally, and their young children, was not currently so frosty - and who can blame them for wanting to keep their kids out of something that is not their (the kids, I mean) fault/problem!

This means that it is "someone running a ... business from where they still live"

(Please note: I have omitted the word "small" from the quote, as I am making no judgement about the size of it, but it's hardly a chain the size of the Townsend Montessori one, or Pitta Patta, which has permission for 48 children at once, rather than the 24 at Piplings, and is also on a quiet residential street)

Thank you for explaining, Les. I do not agree though, that the interests of the “families and home businesses” were ignored by TLRA.
Since Piplings delivered their “I support Piplings” posters I have looked, when passing, to see how many are displayed in windows. I have only counted 4, along most (but not all) of the roads on the hill. Of course, that does not prove anything, but it does give some indication that not everyone on the hill is giving public support for Piplings. Perhaps many do not feel “ignored by TLRA”.... ...?
Even though I love hearing children play, have no problems at all with people parking outside my house (as they do for the school and every Horniman event) and am perfectly happy for anyone to smoke in the road - I could not support Piplings now because:
1. I think businesses should go through the necessary processes to open in accordance with the law, rather than starting up and hoping to get things passed afterwards.
2. Some of their supporters’ posts on this forum have been untrue (all this silly stuff about every other business now being under threat) and downright unpleasant.
3. A nursery for 24 children, with the required number of adults making it over 30 people - in a house and garden built for a family, is simply too big. (Why on earth could they not have stuck at fewer in this residential area, leaving their other premises for their bigger nurseries?)
It is not TLRA which is “bringing the area into disrepute.” It is the people involved in 1 and 2 above.
In answer to your question about whether I have ever written in support of an application – yes, on every occasion that I have been asked to support something that seemed reasonable. I haven’t written when the people wanting my support have not bothered to introduce themselves and ask me for it – as in this case.
Lastly, I’m not sure what these “delaying tactics” are. I wonder how quickly it is possible to book a venue and organise a meeting of several hundred people. As for the money TLRA has spent – I think I read on this forum that it was around £260. That seems to me a reasonable amount of money to spend on a group of 40-or-so residents who asked for TLRA support. And since I pay only £5 per year for my whole household’s subscription - I’m happy with that.

I think the balance of support and objectors to the nursery in the estate can only be ascertained by a meeting. So the sooner the better. The delay I refer to is the insistence on a signed letter with 15 inked signatures, went it is evident that a meeting is needed from the activity on this forum, the 200+ signatures on the supporters website and no doubt correspondence with the committee. It is a matter of doubt that needs resolution.

There is a credible threat to home businesses, because raising the arcane matter of restrictive covenants gives a route to court for any neighbour with a grudge, and there is a risk the technicality will be supported by the court and costs awarded accordingly. There is no need to prove nuisance in this case.

This post was last modified: 04-02-2012 02:00 PM by Les.

The fact that someone has exercised the right to invoke a covenant makes it easier for others to do so and harder for people to say they forgot it was there. Now everyone knows that these covenants exist and might choose to invoke others. I have to say I would still like someone to explain to me why its not ok for Piplings to run a business and its ok for next door to do so. The concept of nuisance or not is not relevant to this- its purely whether a covenant exists or not, and if not, is it in law not unfair for this rule to be applied to some properties by the covenant beneficiaries, and not to others who don't have a covenant in their title.

The position remains that all businesses subject to such an RC remain vulnerable to similar actions which can be brought about at any time by the relevant benficiaries as and when they feel like doing so. Sorry if that appears 'silly'.

In respect of people taking photos of kids, I am aware that there is no copyright of images in the UK and the privacy laws are less onerous that in France for instance, however that is not the issue we are talking about here. The very act of taking someones picture like this is unnecessary and aggressive. No one has any right to invade the privacy of an innocent child in that manner and use it as 'evidence' in some crusade.

Some months ago I was in a cafe when a man at the next table sitting wiht his friends thought that my children were 'cute' and proceeded to take their photos. I asked him to stop. He continued I went over and grabbed his camera off him and made a scene. Had it not been a digital camera I would have taken out the film. He was so surprised that he had no time to put up any resistance. Yet he had had ample warning that I didnt like it. He left the cafe shortly afterwards hopefully having learnt his lesson.
There are certain issues that worry parents and taking unwelcome photos is one of them. It isnt wise at all from a safeguarding point of view to let people do this. Its a personal decision for parents but most would probably want to know where they are to end up and the intention behind taking them in the first place.

What do you mean there is no copyright of images in the UK - there is.

I very much doubt your actions were legal. As you were on private property your best course of action would be to ask the owners to tell the people to stop - they are entitled to ask that (though they are not entitled to delete the photos).

In a public space people can essentially photograph what, and who, they like. Personally if someone asked me (nicely) to stop taking photos if it was making them uncomfortable, I would, and am not sure why they didn't. Photographers currently get a raw deal and are suspected of all sorts of things for taking pictures nowdays (terrorism and various other heinous things) and we've all become very paranoid which is quite sad.

Anyway, we digress. Well I do.

This thread is very odd. I'm not quite sure what to say - I don't live near the nursery but the only conclusion I have reached is that some of the children in that nursery will have acted in a more mature fashion than a number of people have in this thread.

I am suprised that anyone would want to remove their membership of SE23.com over this.

Can I just remind everyone that although this is an emotive subject this is just the internet and I never understand anyone who throws their toys out of the pram as a result.

I could understand if it was real life and someone slapped you with the back of their glove you may well take offence and call them out but this is just bits and bytes.

Smile folks, worst things happen at sea.

S.84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 covers how and when the Upper Tribunal can discharge or modify a covenant affecting land. I have reproduced s.84(1) and (1A) below. Seems to me the battle lines are drawn around s.84(1)(aa). I can't see s.84(1)(a) applying and 84(1)(b) definitely doesn't apply. 84(1)© might apply but it's very simmilar to 84(1)(aa) apart from the public interest point. I don't know whether a public interest argument would be a runner in the case of a private nursery so my money's on the argument that there is no genuine practical benefit to the objectors that cannot be overcome by throwing some cash at them. No idea whether that's a winning argument though. I still think that Piplings have done themseleves no favours by opening for business before doing all their homework - they shoudl have made their application to the Upper Tribunal before they even went anywhere near planning applications.

s.84 Power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting land

[(1) The [Upper Tribunal] shall (without prejudice to any concurrent jurisdiction of the court) have power from time to time, on the application of any person interested in any freehold land affected by any restriction arising under covenant or otherwise as to the user thereof or the building thereon, by order wholly or partially to discharge or modify any such restriction on being satisfied—

(a) that by reason of changes in the character of the property or the neighbourhood or other circumstances of the case which the [Upper Tribunal] may deem material, the restriction ought to be deemed obsolete; or

(aa) that (in a case falling within subsection (1A) below) the continued existence thereof would impede some reasonable user of the land for public or private purposes or, as the case may be, would unless modified so impede such user; or

(b) that the persons of full age and capacity for the time being or from time to time entitled to the benefit of the restriction, whether in respect of estates in fee simple or any lesser estates or interests in the property to which the benefit of the restriction is annexed, have agreed, either expressly or by implication, by their acts or omissions, to the same being discharged or modified; or

© that the proposed discharge or modification will not injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the restriction;

and an order discharging or modifying a restriction under this subsection may direct the applicant to pay to any person entitled to the benefit of the restriction such sum by way of consideration as the Tribunal may think it just to award under one, but not both, of the following heads, that is to say, either—

(i) a sum to make up for any loss or disadvantage suffered by that person in consequence of the discharge or modification; or

(ii) a sum to make up for any effect which the restriction had, at the time when it was imposed, in reducing the consideration then received for the land affected by it.

(1A) Subsection (1)(aa) above authorises the discharge or modification of a restriction by reference to its impeding some reasonable user of land in any case in which the [Upper Tribunal] is satisfied that the restriction, in impeding that user, either—

(a) does not secure to persons entitled to the benefit of it any practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to them; or

(b) is contrary to the public interest;

and that money will be an adequate compensation for the loss or disadvantage (if any) which any such person will suffer from the discharge or modification.

(1B) In determining whether a case is one falling within subsection (1A) above, and in determining whether (in any such case or otherwise) a restriction ought to be discharged or modified, the [Upper Tribunal] shall take into account the development plan and any declared or ascertainable pattern for the grant or refusal of planning permissions in the relevant areas, as well as the period at which and context in which the restriction was created or imposed and any other material circumstances.

(1C) It is hereby declared that the power conferred by this section to modify a restriction includes power to add such further provisions restricting the user of or the building on the land affected as appear to the [Upper Tribunal] to be reasonable in view of the relaxation of the existing provisions, and as may be accepted by the applicant; and the [Upper Tribunal] may accordingly refuse to modify a restriction without some such addition.