>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.<

Roz, with respect, only those who live next door are really in a position to judge the level of nuisance - that is the point. Also other types of businesses may not have a comparable impact, so I would imagine there's scope in law to judge each case on its merits.

I'm not saying the nursery is a nuisance, I simply don't know because it's not affecting me directly. Therefore I prefer not to jump to any conclusions about the parties involved, as some have done here. I don't think it helps.

However I would say that simply passing by the building or even living opposite may not afford a true indication of the level of noise that living next door might. Thirty occupants in a residential building (I believe that's the total of children plus staff? ) may well be affecting those living closest and I do respect their right to do something about it if it's having a detrimental affect on their lives.

That's not to say it isn't a loss to local parents, well of course it is. But it's possible the building itself or the immediate area isn't fit for purpose. Hopefully those with more knowledge of the law and these kind of disputes will make a fair ruling if it goes to appeal.

This post was last modified: 06-02-2012 03:19 PM by seeformiles.