>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.

"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."

seeformiles, you have raised an excellent point. If a restrctive covenant runs in equity, such a position is not normally permissible!

Hi Sherwood, I was quoting Roz.
My point was that I hoped the law could judge each business on its merits etc.

I have read the planning application and council meetings diaries etc. I can see that the owners of the nursery were already doing a sort of business before, involving children ie. music teaching, but on a very small scale. The application was to change the character of the activity to a nursery one.
The Travel Plans presented to the Council in November last year, had listed only 5 children from adjacent roads. The rest were coming from the East Dulwich area (southwark council) and other roads down the valley, where highly professional people now live. Two members of staff only were from Liphook Crescent. There were concerns for traffic etc. because the house is in a very sharp bend.
Some councillor expressed concern that there was not an immediate need of the facility in the nearby area. During the various meetings two councillors abstained and 1 voted against it (total 7). As fees are not cheap, I wonder if this nursery is serving the needs of the noveau riches and the privileged, rather than every child in need of pre-school education living in the area.
The list of objectors mentioned not just the resident living opposite no. 5 Liphook Crescent, but almost everybody in Liphook Crescent and roads nearby.
What also concerns me (looking also to other planning applications in the Forest Hill Area) is that Lewisham Council is disregarding any objection received on the matters. Despite receiving 27 objections, in this case they approved the plan. Why asking people to express their opinion if they intended to approve it anyway?
However from the TLRA leaflet I have seen, no one has asked the owners to close the nursery. If they intend to proceed with their activity at Liphook Crescent, they need to present another application. In my opinion, the Elm, which is not very far, is the ideal place to resolve the matter. Instead of 24 children, it may even accommodate more.

It is laughable how you try to justify your objections to the wonderful local nursery. Fact remains that if you were to sit outside all day, you would hardly hear a squeak ! If a few more cars drive gently up your road than before, then live and let live. If a sainsbury's van starts to deliver food to your neighbour on a once a week basis, then welcome to 2012. I wonder whether any grumpy se23 people fancy a move to the highlands of Scotland, or indeed a home for other grumpy people ?

Much is made of the number of objectors to the nursery's planning application - the suggestion being that these were individuals. In fact the objections were encouraged by a door to door campaign by the TLERA which presented a very one-sided view of the application. Unacceptable behaviour in my opinion.

Orange, if local planning authorities rejected any application that was objected to nothing would ever get permission!

Orange,
I am the parent of a child at Piplings, live in an ex-local authority flat just the other side of the Horniman, and neither myself nor my partner are ‘highly professional’. Hardly nouveau riche…

As a result of the ongoing action against Piplings Nursery, correspondence has this evening been sent to the Chairman of The Tewkesbury Lodge Residents Association requesting a Special General Meeting.

This was signed by 48 members of the Residents Association.

We look forward to receiving notification of a meeting in the next few days.

Jason,

Did you get him to sign for it?

What is the purpose of the meeting? I'm not asking this in a provocative way, just out of interest. There are obviously opposing views within the association, so how do you forsee them being resolved? Would there normally be a vote and the majority view is the one to be adopted?

My view is the meeting should be used to poll opinion in the membership, based on balanced representations from both the nursery and its objectors. The Association should then base its plan of action based on the consensus.

The protection in the constitution against the Association acting in an unrepresentative way, is that it can be dissolved by a 2/3rd majority of those present to the SGM.

This post was last modified: 07-02-2012 11:28 AM by Les.

Thank you Les.

If the majority decide the TLRA should not support objections to the nursery, will that make any difference to the covenant case? As the property covenant is only a matter for the affected individuals on the estate and thus is their case, not that of the TLRA?

"Would there normally be a vote and the majority view is the one to be adopted?"

Manor, How else should the matter be resolved?

In this country we normally accept majority rule with a principle of one man one vote.

There's no need to be so antagonistic, I just didn't know how the TLRA works.

I believe some of its members are also women too.

This is an advet from Piplings on the east Dulwich Forum. The activity was started before any application, approval, ofsted checks were done as you can see:

Quote:
Re: Play Groups in East Dulwich Posted by pipling 19 December, 2009 20:01
Hi there

I run a drop off and collect art & craft/music and movement playgroup for 2 - 5 yr olds, just behind the Horniman Museum in Forest Hill. There are two sessions per day and one on Saturday morning.Come up the hill to take a look or visit http://www.piplingsplaygroup.com. Hope to see you there!
Unquote

The play group was not the same as the nursery business, certainly didn't need planning permission, unsure about the OFSTED element (doubt it needed it) but I'd think you'd need to be careful about suggesting the woman that ran it didn't have the appropriate 'approvals' to run such a group.

This post was last modified: 07-02-2012 12:16 PM by IWereAbsolutelyFuming.

I am not suggesting anything, just saying there was an activity going on already prior to the changes into a nursery. That activity seemed to be acceptable by everybody.
What concerns me is a) the area character could be changed because of this uproar and b) the council has shown to ignore the needs of others. Although the houses on the hill are not in the conservation area, the area itself is unique. You do not find another one similar in the south east of London. It is like a village of its own and therefore should be kept as such.
Reading the leaflet sent around by the TLRA (you can read it on their website) the inconvenience was with the traffic and the noise. People were having cars parked in front of their driveways. I cannot say much of the noise from the garden or the house, because I do not live directly close by, but I know the houses are mainly 1930 style with 2 medium sized bedrooms and a very small (a box) one. Application was granted only for the grand and first floors. You cannot accommodate many people in a house of this type.
By creating the furore as Piplings have done on all local forums, by splitting the community, by inviting the press and friends to run down their neighbours, they have done themselves no favour.
Anyway, if you go around the most expensive areas in West Dulwich, nearby the college, would you be allowed to have a nursery, or a commercial enterprise of medium size, near other residences that easily?

This post was last modified: 07-02-2012 01:28 PM by orange.

"Anyway, if you go around the most expensive areas in West Dulwich, nearby the college, would you be allowed to have a nursery, or a commercial enterprise of medium size, near other residences that easily?"

The answer is yes! Several of the houses you see in Dulwich are used totally by the College as boarding houses in operation 24/7.

Nelly's in SE21 (27 Turner Road) is in a Victorian terrace and have a large colourful sign outside their building which Piplings does not have.

There's no conspiracy theory there. Just some notinmybackyardism.