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.