To clarify (I hope) the point on planning permission.

Piplings did apply for all the necessary permissions, well in advance of opening, and took advice from the planners on the length of time it would get to have permission, before arranging an opening date that should have meant that permission was given. This was based upon advice from the duty planner, and also based upon Emma's assessment of local opinion following her discussions with local neighbours PRIOR to applying for planning permission. This is standard practice for many businesses I believe.

Crucially during the discussions that were had with neighbours, no objections were raised.

However during the planning process, objections were received from a certain number of objectors (the exact numbers range depending on whether people quote properties, or multiple residents within properties). This caused the planning process to take longer than anticipated, but is not something that, having taken advisement at the beginning, Piplings could perhaps realistically have expected.

Also, they did nothing wrong in opening without the permission, as it had been applied for. And was subsequently granted following careful consideration by the planners.

As a parent, I wasn't involved at the beginning, but I can imagine that if I had been looking for a nursery place at this time I would have been fully armed with all facts, and would have made a decision on the risks of the nursery not getting planning permission, against the huge benefits of my child having the extraordinarily high quality care that Piplings provides.

Finally, at the planning application time, there were nowhere near 78 people involved. A nursery takes time to set up, and any impact of not getting planning permission two years ago would have had a much smaller effect than this current action that is being taken against a going concern, with children established and flourishing, which is based on an outdated legal technicality that was never intended to be used in this way.

Having just read opinion's post - Had I been looking at Piplings at its opening, bearing in mind there would have been no Ofsted to guide me at that time, I would have been using all other resource available to gauge local opinion on the nursery. That would have included looking at SE23.com, which would have meant I was fully aware of the planning situation before I made my decision to place my child there. I'm sure that it would have been a conversation that was had with the owners before signing my contract.

This post was last modified: 08-02-2012 01:43 PM by ladywotlunches.

As a parent who was there at the start (we moved our son for various reasons) there was never any mention made of not having full planning, in fact there was talk of a play house being built in the garden for children, but it never transpired. Planning was never mentioned at any point when we handed over our (rather hefty) deposit.

ladywotlunches - a search of the SE23 forum for "Piplings nursery" (which I did at the time) did not reveal this information, unless you think I should have trawled the threads for one which starts 'Planning application', on the off chance that it might have been relevant? Why should any parent assume that there is an issue such as this that needs investigating? Should the current parents (and indeed me at the time) have requested copies of the title deeds, to ensure the nursery was not operating contrary to a restrictive covenant?

They have planning permission now.

Get over it.

Opinion - I believe the name of the nursery was available in the thread very early in 2010, so a search of all contents of the forum should have brought it up. Can't say why it didnt now, 2 years on.

HelloHello - I note that you did post on this thread back in September 2010, so you were aware at least then of the planning situation. Perhaps this was one of the reasons you decided to leave?

As regards the covenant issue, yes as a parent ideally I would have liked to have known about the potential issues earlier, but all the way through I can see how Piplings have tried to minimise impact on the children, getting contingency in place by holding spaces at the second nursery in case the worst does happen. And from a business point of view I can see why the owners didn't get parents involved until they really had to - the uncertainty would potentially have made a bad situation worse, children would have left, and with less children at the nursery, the going concern wouldn't have been able to keep going as long as it has in the face of crippling legal costs.

This post was last modified: 08-02-2012 03:08 PM by ladywotlunches.

We were made aware after we had been at the nursery but not by the owners,, maybe they didn't consider getting permission a problem. We were never made to feel it was an issue (except on this forum, which I do always take with a pinch of salt). This wasn't why we took our son out of Piplings but not relevant to this thread.

Sherwood - my point was there seems to be a history of putting parents into a postion whereby the nursery services may be terminated, which is, in my opinion, irresponsible, given the difficulties of finding alternative childcare in this area at short notice.

opnion,

One of the reasons given by TLRA for opposition to Piplings was the availability of nursery places.

Sherwood - I am aware of this, and I think it is a bad reason. There may be nursery places available, but they are probably for one, or maybe two days a week, and potentially in nurseries that operate only in term time. Neither of which is useful to working parents. My child was on several waiting lists and the places only came up recently, some 18 months after applying.

I became aware of the nursery because of the planning application submitted on 17th Feb 2010 at this time I do not believe there were more than 6 children at day care at Piplings (please correct me if I am mistaken), I believe the same is true at the target date for a decision on the 26th April 2010. Between then and September 2010 numbers of children slowly increased (without planning permission having been decided).

In May 2010 I got round to submitting my personal response to the application, in favour of planning permission being granted, and pointing out that it was in line with all relevant Lewisham policies.

By June 2010 I assume that the officer had provided fairly positive feedback to the owners on the likelihood of planning permissions being granted. That was certainly the impression I got when I visited the nursery in June 2010 and decided with my wife that it was the best we had visited in Forest Hill. In August we registered my daughter to start at the nursery in the spring of 2011.

By November 2010, when the planning report was finally written and sent to planning committee, Piplings were operating at close to their projected numbers. This allowed the officers to monitor traffic on the road prior to permission being granted and 'have not witnessed any undue problems that could be seen as prejudicial to the free flow of traffic along this residential street which, incidentally, is very light'. Had Piplings not been operating as a nursery no such assessment would have been possible.

Most nurseries are entitled to terminate provision with one month notice. I agree this is far from ideal for parents or children, but is probably the only workable business model for any business.

I do not believe Piplings took any undue risks in increasing the numbers over the course of 2010 after the application target date. I would not recommend this course of action for any business or resident seeking planning permission, but I do not accept that the owners acted irresponsibly and selfishly.

As for the impact of the covenant, I think that neither the owners nor the neighbours were aware of this restriction until after the planning application had been decided.

Alright, Michael. I will reconsider and withdraw the word “selfish” . It would have been better to say, “without considering the implications for the large number of people who may be affected.”

Perhaps I used too emotive a word, having just heard the experiences of a Piplings mother who is now desperately trying to find another nursery place in a hurry – and feeling very sorry for her.

You clearly have a different idea of degrees of “risk.” Most children and parents I know would rather have a photo taken in the road – albeit without permission – than lose a settled nursery place at short notice - which to me is a serious disruption to a child's security and well-being.

Just for the record, there is no oversupply of nursery places in the Forest Hill area - far from the opposite. As I mentioned above in an earlier post, the information TLRA chose to quote as evidence was likely to have been inaccurate as it probably did include term time nurseries and pre-schools rather than full day care. Im afraid any parent around here will be able to support that. Its a similar problem for primary schools and state nursery provision.

There are a handful of full day care facilities in Forest Hill most of which are oversubscribed severely. I waited three years for a place for my child. There are now at least three new nurseries that have opened since summer 2007 which was when we were looking around so the supply has improved however the suppressed demand is still extensive so its still hard to get full time places or part time places that suit your needs. Unfortunately it can also be difficult to get a place as arising places are likely to be taken by siblings. This is why we waited so long for a place and only really got into the pre school part for a year or so however my other children go there now, fortunately for once we are beneficiaries of sibling policies! However the only reason we got that pre school place was that the nursery itself ( not Piplings) overcame considerable opposite to its own expansion plans and managed to extend their provision to incorporate a larger space for pre school children and hence more space for the younger children. That opposition took a similar path to the one Piplings are experiencing with the exception of the covenant issue, with concerns about parking, traffic generation, noise etc. The nursery, wanting to be considerate to its neighbours, bent over backwards to accommodate their wishes, at considerable expense it has to be said however with little acknowledgement. Even though these amendments were in accordance with the planning conditions that they had asked for, many of those neighbours still refused to drop their opposition to the application.

My childs second nursery experienced a lot of unreasonable objection when it increased its hours.
I work in the field of educational expansion and improvement and it has really taken me aback in general how difficult it is to get permission for new schools and nurseries. People can be extremely unreasonable and difficult most particularly around the issue of children and the perceived disruption that they can cause, and the hordes of cars allegedly waiting to drop off and collect. My view about anti-child sentiments are therefore not lightly made- I have seen and head all sorts of vitriol levied against even the smallest expansion proposal. It seems unfortunately to go with the territory. Many people are completely obsessed about parking and traffic impact. They forget that any such impact is fairly temporary and is over within a short period of time - usually when they are out at work anyway. I lived opposite a school for about 8 years. I hardly noticed it was there.

People forget I think that young children make fantastic neighbours- they laugh a lot in play ( great for your blood pressure apparently) - and they sleep for a few hours after lunch. They generally in a nursery situation dont hang around the garden fighting and screaming as thats not tolerated. The parents come twice a day. If cars are used for drop offs and pick ups then its usually very brief. Similarly primary schools, which always get huge objections, are great neighbours as they have short hours and are usually completely closed in school holidays.

I do think there are a lot of unreasonable concerns about children services and this matter exemplifies it all rather well. I think its time that the UN Rights of the Child conventions were rolled out on things like this as hardly has anyone referred to this in all of this debate. And predominantly these children are themselves fairly local to the area if not actually living on the Estate itself. They are also residents- do they not have a voice? Hopefully someone will be representing them at the forthcoming EGM.

Saddened,
I can assure you that, although my family is already experiencing serious disruption as a result of the potential closure of the nursery due to the imposition of the covenant, it will in no way impact my daughter's security. It might impact my or my wife's ability to work, cause plenty of disruption to our lives, and certainly our happiness, but I think I can speak for all Piplings parents in saying that we will not allow this to impact our children's security.

Let's hope for the sake all concerned that a sensible solution can be found to this situation as soon as possible.

However there is undoubtedly an issue from losing a settled place- which begs the question as to why some local residents and the TLRA are forcing this situation to occur in the first place.
It would be more charitable, even without drawing the objection, to agree with the nursery a decent period of grace to allow parents to have an opportunity to find alternative places for their children.

A planned closure sounds like a good idea. However, it is unlikely to be easy for Piplings. In such circumstances staff often leave as soon as they can find alternative employment. Parents would move their children as soon as they could find an alternative.

Sherwood - no closure at all sounds like an even better idea!

Jason,

I agree. But that will depend on one person withdrawing his objection!

Sherwood said:
“But that will depend on one person withdrawing his objection!”

That is silly – it’s not ONE person objecting. It’s hundreds. Surely it depends on the nursery owners agreeing to drop the numbers in the nursery?

I don’t actually know any of the neighbours, but I’ve talked to very large number of people now, both on the hill and off it – and of course, people I know elsewhere saw the Evening Standard article and asked me about it.
I haven’t yet met a single person who would be happy to live next to a nursery of up to 24 children with the required number of staff. But most people eventually agree that a smaller nursery would be just about acceptable – or at least, that they wouldn’t take court action about it.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind living next to a small nursery because I like having children around. If you don’t have children or your own children have moved on it’s nice to see others’.

I can understand that a nursery needs a certain number in order to be viable – a friend explained to me that nurseries need to be in a chain so that they can move staff around when numbers vary, or for sickness etc.

Piplings have another large nursery near Peckham Rye. Why insist on 24 children up here, in the face of all the opposition? They already have the start of a chain, so the business is viable, even if the Liphook link in the chain needs to be smaller, because of its location in a residential area.

It seems like madness to be lining the pockets of lawyers and causing all this trouble with the poor TLERA committee, (who really do NOT deserve any criticism at all.) All because Piplings insist on a large nursery - when so many people object to it.

Michael explained in an earlier post that the nursery had gradually increased the numbers while they were seeking planning permission. Why can’t they now gradually decrease the numbers – as parents gradually find other places, or through natural wastage? Then no parent or child suffers.

Piplings won't have got exactly what they want, and possibly not the neighbours, but that’s life. And a great many people up here would be very happy to see the matter settled.

And finally, I would like to say that I felt very bad overnight about having used the word “selfish” on the forum yesterday. I got carried away – and that is the problem with internet forums, I suppose, but not an excuse.

Saddened,

Thank you for being honest. Most of us don't want various facilities next door. But we do want them, but next door to someone else!

I thought it was only one person who (after Land Registry searches had been made) actually could bring this action.

You make some fair points Saddened but Piplings is not a 'large' nursery. Any it has already had it's impact assessed by the LPA who have mandated an upper limit on attendees. I don't see that negotiations on 'size' are viable as the crux of the matter is not planning permission but the covenant. It would be too big a risk for the neighbours to agree to accept the business and the striking of the covenant based on an agreement of lower numbers when under planning permission the owner could then up the numbers again. Another option would be to agree a new covenant but when an assessment has already been made that 24 children would not pose a problem I don't see how a sensible new covenant could be agreed.

I'd also challenge your claim that hundreds of people oppose the nursery!