Most villages I've been to have shops, pubs and other businesses running in them...

This post was last modified: 07-02-2012 02:30 PM by IWereAbsolutelyFuming.

Rainbow Smiles. 45 children in a converted residential house in a residential street (Rosendale Road SE21)

A unique village indeed. Just like Royston Vasey! I did say!

Orange, just a few points...
1. The houses in Liphook Crescent are much bigger than you describe, easily accommodating the number of children Piplings looked after.
2. I know people who suffer the nuisance of parents parking across their drives when dropping their children at St Francesca Cabrini primary school. Should the school be closed down? Or should there be some negotiations with the parents?

So we’re going to have a TLERA meeting then? That’s good. It means I (and all the other previously-inactive TLERA members I’ve been talking to) will be able to come along and say thank you to the TLERA committee who give up so much of their time for us – doing all sorts of things that many residents probably don’t even know about..... like arranging for the hill to be gritted so we’re not cut off again , negotiating with the council, helping out whenever residents ask, and so on.

I saw Jason’s suggestion that TLERA should be wound up by a 2/3 majority and the funds given to a pro-Piplings TLERA. From what I’ve seen of some pro-Piplings people on this forum (with their untruths, scaremongering about other businesses and nasty personal comments) I can hardly see them doing anything for anyone else, let alone working as tirelessly for our benefit as the TLERA volunteers we’ve got now.

No thanks. We all know when we’re well off and we’ll stick with the TLERA we have, thank you. The only good thing that has come out of all this is that now everyone’s talking about it and finding out the truth.

The truth?

Jason has never suggested that TLERA be wound up.

Yes, Mrs R, you are right. I made a mistake. It was Loncdl on page 18 who suggested that TLERA should be wound up, not Jason.

I apologise.

Dear Saddened

I completely refute your allegations that I have requested the winding up of TLERA. This is not true.

I have been a member of TLERA since moving to the hill, attending fireworks and summer events over a number of years. I am supportive of the residents association and have sought their assistance and help on occasions as many others have.

However, aware of the recent actions of some representatives of TLERA, using the Residents Association funds and name, in pursuing legal action against a family that live here, I have supported the family and the nursery that is their livelihood.

I am one of many people from throughout the estate that have signed a request for an SGM so that this matter can be openly discussed and questions answered.

Dear Jason,

As I hope you will see, I have admitted that I was wrong and that it was Loncdl who suggested winding it up.

I apologise

I'm in a similar place to Jason - I've lived in the estate for 8 years and been a member of TLERA for that time. Generally found it to be a force for the good, particularly when it is creating a real sense of neighborhood which is missing from many parts of London.

I am really thankful to the committee for the many great community events - without them the estate would be another faceless part of south-east London.

However, I feel that financially supporting an action against a nursery on a legal technicality, when planning permission was granted and the evidence of real nuisance was so weak, was plain wrong without a mandate.

I am also looking forward to the SGM, to hear directly from all parties involved (Piplings, TLERA and also hopefully the next door neighbours bringing the action?) to get first hand information and an open debate about why it has come to this.

I also very much hope that other close residents, who support the nursery in its current location, attend to offer their opinions on the impact it has on their lives. From a comment made on the Friends of Piplings petition today, it is clear that not everyone feels the nursery is quite such a miserable nuisance:

"Our garden backs on to Piplings, but I feel there is much more to worry about than the noise of children during the day time. I'm sorry the situation has got to this and I can't support the stand of the residents association, despite being one of those homes apparently directly affected."

If you would like to add your name to the petition (300 names and counting), and haven't yet done so, please visit http://www.friendsofpiplings.org

Saddened,

You have accused me and others who have pointed out that Piplings are not the only business on the estate who are breaking the covenant of scaremongering. Yet you do not consider the content of TLERA newsletter to be scaremongering "Does this mean that if the application had been for a Sainsbury’s Local on the Triangle, they might well have granted it?!". "the thin edge of the wedge"

You freely admit that you are not bothered by noise or litter, so apparently there is no disturbance to you from the nursery. However you cannot support Piplings on the basis that they "didn't go through the necessary process to open in accordance of the law" the law which states that no business except doctors or solicitors is acceptable. You do however accept the other businesses which break the covenant should be free to practice regardless of the law.

I cannot fathom your logic.

Thank you AMFM for publishing the Laws which are up for debate and pointing out that really each business on the estate would have to fight it's own corner regarding these laws, if pushed to do so. (I suppose if an unhappy neighbour or competitor saw fit to take them to court - apparently there's a lawyer who'll take these cases on a no win no fee basis).

I do think that Piplings should have sorted out their position with regards to the covenant before opening their business, but like plenty of other businesses on the estate, they didn't. Should they be punished for this? Should they have to shut? Lose their business? Staff lose their jobs? Children lose their home form home environment?

Here's hoping that the SGM will see a resolution of this issue before the court case. Perhaps if the majority vote to see Piplings and the good work it does flourish then the court case will be dropped. It's a big person who can say i was wrong, let's sort this amicably. That is an attitude I would like to see rewarded.

Dear Saddened and Co

I am pleased to see that matters have already been straightened out and poor old Jason's name cleared without me having to draw attention to the fact that it was my comment not his you referred to. However, I would also like to make clear that I was not seriously suggesting that the TLERA should be wound up. I endorse your comments, and Jason's comments, and everyone else's comments, about the good work they do. I was merely seeking to draw attention (in a way which with hindsight may not have come across as intended) to the perfectly legitimate subject for debate which is that, in this particular instance, TLERA does not appear to have complied with its own rules in relation to the calling of the SGM, or (arguably) in relation to the Pipilings issue generally, on the basis of which it asks all its members to pay their subscriptions and fund its activities. There is a certain irony about that in a debate which at heart is all about rigid compliance with rules and regulations ("covenants", I believe they're called), but hey, that's probably too obvious to have mentioned... Anyway like everyone else I am pleased by the overwhelming support there seems to have been for calling an SGM on this issue, which will hopefully take place soon and involve a cordial and respectful debate, after which we can all vote on whether we agree or disagree with what TLERA did in everyone's names on this occasion and then put this behind us.

"I do think that Piplings should have sorted out their position with regards to the covenant before opening their business, but like plenty of other businesses on the estate, they didn't."

My grandmother converted her large private house into a guest house without planning permission. We had 40 guests every night, but no-one complained. Our neighbours on either side were both local councillors!

Thank you for your replies, Les, Loncdl and Mrs R. and I am glad to see that the suggestion of winding up TLERA was not serious – and also that other people appreciate all the TLERA volunteers do for us.

I take your point about logic, MrsR and you have made me think further....

If you start up an ebay business, or a consultancy, or a plumbing business (to name just a few) without checking carefully - then you are taking a risk on yourself.

If you start a nursery with a potential 24 children and therefore a potential 48 parents, not to mention a potential 6 staff - then that means that you are putting a possible 78 people’s happiness and security at risk. And I know only too well how desperate one can get about good quality childcare – little matters more, when you have to go to work with small children - or in the present jobs market for nursery workers.

To rush on with a business in order to make money for yourself, before you seek the required permissions, so putting 78 people’s security at risk, is thoroughly irresponsible and selfish. And then to be involved in a campaign which allows it to be said that you are, “a young family being driven from the hill,” is really not on. (The children in the family may be young, but the owner, at age 50, is old enough to know better, so it is a misleading plea for pity.)

The fact is that the nursery opened without planning permission and without the care required when you are involving a potential 78 people. That they received planning permission later and are now trying to get the covenant changed does not alter the irresponsibility and selfishness.

So it’s the moral argument that stops me supporting Piplings, not the strictly logic one, because MrsR has a point!

MrsR also says:
“I do think that Piplings should have sorted out their position with regards to the covenant before opening their business, but like plenty of other businesses on the estate, they didn't.” In answer to your questions:

“Should they be punished for this?” - They have not been punished. Neighbours are exercising their right to take action. That is not punishment. It is a fact that if you rush into business without doing your homework you might lose - not a punishment. (On second thoughts, perhaps it is a punishment – but self-inflicted.)

Should they have to shut? If the court says so, then yes. At the moment I understand that it is a long way away from court and there is no order to close. If they really are closing now - then that is the owners’ decision.

Lose their business? See last answer.

Staff lose their jobs? Ditto. I feel very sorry for the staff.

Children lose their home from home environment?” Well, that is the saddest thing of all. As in all matters of irresponsibility in business, the most vulnerable suffer the most. (Think bankers..... sub-prime.....now homeless.)

I cannot accept the characterisation of Emma and Philip as 'irresponsible and selfish', nor do I believe they have deliberately done anything to endanger the safety and security of children and parents. To categorise them in this way is wholly inappropriate and in contradiction to everything that Ofsted have said and parents have experienced.

Your first post complained about labels and insults being assigned to people on the hill. I hope you will reconsider the way you have described the owners of Piplings. Your hypocritical attitude saddens me.

If there is any risk to children at the nursery then it has come from one or two individuals photographing children arriving without parental permission. Although this is not illegal in a public place, it is inappropriate and on occasion deliberately intimidatory. It does not surprise me in such circumstances that some individuals (including one of the councillors on the planning committee) have been highly critical of such tactics.

In relation to covenants, I think it has been said before that few people fully understand of are aware of their covenants, either in terms of the duties upon them or the power they have over their neighbours. When you sign a legal document 20 years ago the clause from 1938 is rarely at the front of your mind when you start up a business - that is why it is acknowledged that 50 businesses have been started and registered on the hill, in spite of covenants that would preclude this if strictly interpreted.

When Piplings started as day care for 6 children no complaints were made by neighbours in relation to breach of covenant, this only occurred after planning permission was granted due to alleged noise, traffic, litter, and smoking in the area. However the clause used in the covenant is purely about the existence of a business - not really related to traffic, noise, or any other issue.

Michael,

A good summary of the position.

The Evening Standard said this:
"A Lewisham council spokesman said that when planning permission was granted "councillors considered a nursery would have little impact on the environment and be beneficial to the community"".

This post was last modified: 08-02-2012 01:11 PM by Sherwood.

Saddened, do you have the facts to back this up? It isn't at all clear. Planning Permission is required in this instance once the property experiences a change of use that affects its domestic classification. The key here is when it began operating under the classification of 'Childcare on Domestic Premises'. This is triggered under OFSTED's regulations once a carer employs 3 extra staff on any one 'shift'. I don't think there is anything in the public domain that confirms this occurred before planning permission was given.

My child used to attend Piplings. My child started mid 2010. We were under the impression that at this stage it was operating as a nursery, and all the paperwork we were given confirmed this. According to the link on the first post in this thread, planning permission for the change of use to the nursery was only granted in November 2010, so it would seem that for approx the first six months of my child's attendance, Piplings was operating pending the decsion of the council. What would have been the position had the planning permission been refused? Presumably I would have found myself in the same position that the parents now find themselves in? I have to say that I agree with saddened, this is extremely irresponsible.

Saddened - from a planning point of view, as far as I know, Piplings have done nothing wrong. They applied for permission when required, and it was duly granted. When the nursery was smaller, there was no requirement for planning permission, as there was no substantial change in use of the property.

With respect to the restrictive convenant, firstly there is a question of awareness. How many people are aware of the requirements of their deeds? Secondly, there is a judgement about how likely it is to be relevant given that planning permission has been granted, and the real level of nuisance and disruption has been independantly shown to be minimal?

There is nothing here that says irresponsible business practice as you suggest. You only have to read the Ofsted report to get a view on how much the owners care for this business - it couldn't score higher in terms of its provision for children - that's something to be celebrated rather than chased out.

This post was last modified: 08-02-2012 01:30 PM by Les.