you state: That is silly – it’s not ONE person objecting. It’s hundreds.

In fact its hundreds who have come out in support of the nursery.

The Friends of Piplings have now collected over 300 signatures in support of the nursery - dozens from the immediate local roads including Liphook Crescent and some who even back onto the Piplings Nursery garden.

We used to live directly opposite a children's nursery for four years before moving to the hill. I would happily live next to a nursery such as Piplings - it is run by friendly and reasonable people who care passionately for the children living in the local community.

As many people have stated, you would hardly know that it is there.

To add to the above, Sherwood makes a good point about these sorts of services being wanted and needed but people being unwilling to have them close to them. On one level this is understandable but I think what many of us who support Piplings cannot understand is quite what the impact of the nursery is. There have been high-level statements about parking over driveways and noise but these haven't been quantified or described in detail. Are cars left parked over driveways all day or is it just for 10 minutes (as someone who 'suffers' this myself I know it has annoyed me numerous times but in 9 years I think there have only been two occasions when it has prevented us moving our car)? It's something that shouldn't happen but it is (a) something that is easily dealt with and (b) isn't really that big a deal...even to a grump like me. What level of noise is there? Is it purely from kids in the garden or does it escape the house too? The nursery is only allowed to use the garden for 4 hours in every 24 so outside noise cant be that big a deal and if noise is escaping the house there are ways to deal with that too (and ways that are far cheaper than having to spend £70k in legal fees).

We hear a lot about the community spirit in the TLE but there doesn't seem to be much of it in this case.

I always thought that I lived in tolerant society.

It saddens me that so much energy is used to defend rights (derived from the RC) against a nursery, where the biggest victims are parents and their children.

Had the nursery not been a good thing for the area it would have not got the planning permission.

Is it fair for people to undermine that permission?

The next thing we worry about is youth that has no respect for the elders. Well if we continue to treat children like this all the time, what example are we showing them?

You think everything that gets planning application approval is good for the community?

You think that 'the youth of today' will lose respect for their elders because neighbours oppose a nursery.

I think the people who support or are against this nursery location would get other people to look at the issues more seriously if there was less emotional and non factual 'assertions'.

Anyway let's just see how this plays out - good luck all!

Not everything no, but I think the level of mistrust of the planning system in this country is unwarranted. I have absolute confidence that Piplings being granted planning permission does not set a precedent that would see a sainsburys local, mechanics yard, nightclub, etc gaining planning permission to operate in the TLE.

This post was last modified: 09-02-2012 03:13 PM by IWereAbsolutelyFuming.

The planning permission was also conditional and was to be revalued after three years from the issuing date.
The travel plans presented to the council, indicated each child coming from these areas:
Marmora Road, Canonbie Road, Dunstan Road, Ringmore Rise, Horniman Drive, Crystal Palace Road, Barry Road, Marmora Road, Sydenham Hill, Crystal Palace Road, Grierson Road, Peckham Rye, Whatman Road, Steedman Street, Playfield Crescent, Underhill Road, Liphook Crescent, London Road, Liphook Crescent, Eliot Bank, Hillcourt Road, Peckham Rye, Greendale close, Verdant Lane, Liphook Crescent, Ryedale, Canbury Mews, Grassmount (28 children of which 3 from the owners?).

Staff coming from:

Holmesley Road, Redbridge Gardens, Ballance Road, Brodlove Lane, Links Road, Westbrooke Crescent, Royston Road, Bell Green Lane, Ravenscar Road, Liphook Crescent, Liphook Crescent (11 members of staff, all working 5 days a week).

Eliminating the owners family of 5, still many people for the premises (although I think not all children there at the same time). As you can see only 6 children in the direct vicinity were affected by the closure, others were coming from different areas and boroughs.

For donkey years there have been families with small children up the hill, not having a nursery on their doorsteps. Why the need of a nursery in the area was not raised before?

Regarding the neighbours supporting the nursery. The list of people approached by the Council were all in the vicinity of the nursery. I cannot believe they have now changed their minds.
Where are all these supporters coming from? And the journalists? Do they live in the area? Did they interview the opposition on the issue?

Regarding the dangers of the traffic in the area. This does not involve just the inconvenience of parking in front of people drives. The area is very hilly and bendy and there have been accidents in the past, (another reason for speed banks). There are drivers driving around like lunatics. There has been no speed sign from the Council such as "Slow Down - Nursery approach" since the opening of the business.
However, Piplings is a business and as such is there to make money. They are not a charity and do not accommodate any child in need of pre-school education. A good business will always survive. They will not starve, considering the fact they have branched out in Dulwich and at the Elm. When you enter into a commercial activity, you will always be in litigation for something or another, and, you should be prepared to face legal charges, by taking necessary precautions and insurances.
Regarding business in the area and the covenant. Yes, there are many business with registered addresses at their residential homes in Forest Hill. However, not all operate on a large scale from their homes. A builder or a plumber who gives his home address as his business contact, goes out and build homes or repairs faulty equipment elsewhere, thus not disturbing others living nearby.
In my opinion this legal action is not just about the covenant,. Something more serious has happened between the parties in litigation. There is more than what we know. Unfortunatley we all seem to be manipulated by one faction against the other!

If the matter was "cut and dry", It would never been brought to court.

"In my opinion this legal action is not just about the covenant,. Something more serious has happened between the parties in litigation. There is more than what we know."

Why speculate about that kind of motivation on a public forum? How is that helpful to anyone?

If you have anything further to say on that, then say it - otherwise, please stick to the material issues. Thank you.

Orange - where do you get your information from? Where does it state that planning permission will be 'revalued' after 3 years? There is a standard condition on all granted permissions that work on implementing them must begin within 3 years of the granted date else it lapses.

And, as I understand it, the 'legal action' is entirely about the covenant.

If planning permission was conditional on the Travel Plan being approved - which one can only assume will change as different people attend the nursery over time - it would seem perfectly reasonable to have review points. If this is not the case, it would make the requirement for a travel plan a complete waste of time but might explain why monitoring customers travel to and from the nursery has been witnessed. It sounds like the council have encouraged this behaviour (so much disliked by customers) by making a this part of the planning approval criteria. It may of course be completely irrelevent now permission had been granted, but it is an example of how rediculous planning rules can be, if this is the case.

As I understand it, once planning permission is granted and that permission implemented there is little or no way to revoke it. So in that sense you might be able to claim the ongoing use of a travel plan is pointless. I'd suggest otherwise, the travel plan had to be created and agreed by the LPA before the permission was effective. It exists as a mechanism to manage any traffic related issues that may occur and it sets out fairly clear statements about the level of car use that should be targeted and the expected impact on the local roads. While deviation from this wouldn't result in planning permission being revoked I'm guessing it could be used to enforce measures to deal with any problems.

I doubt that the monitoring that the council encouraged was for neighbours to film the children arriving and leaving the nursery. Council and nurseries have more appropriate ways to measure car use and the effectiveness of a travel plan.

If neighbours did have concerns about the travel plan they could take this up with the council. As IWereAbsolutelyFuming has said, the legal action is not about the travel plan, it is about a business operating contrary to the covenant.

If people still think its acceptable in any way to film parents and children arriving and leaving a nursery then I'm sorry, you people up there in that estate are just plain weird. Weird, anti social, and with no idea clearly of boundaries let alone how this might come across to a parent and child and cause concern to them. I dont really care if its legal to take photos as and when; its completely unethical, and as I ve said, weird. Id actually like to see some of these people named as they have no place doing this sort of thing to a nursery and in the vicinity of a primary school.
I have to say that questions are beginning to arise about the mental health of some of the people who live there. Not everyone, but a few who insist on pursuing a crusade against this business, who may have made mistakes, but does not deserve to be the focus of such an ardent witch hunt.

Could not agree more with Roz.

I see - so people who have a legitimate right to challenge a planning application and enforce a restrictive covenent are now mentally ill weirdos - that just about sums it up.

Roz, I dont recall if it was you who was captured on film, I suspect not - but this all seems complete over the top hysteria. So what if the neighbours want some evidence of the disturbance caused by the business next door? Big deal if a photo has been taken. It was OK for the SLP and Evening Standard to take pictures of the families and their children. That was apparently quite acceptable.

On a different note, I was just interested to know if Piplings owners had made the parents and staff aware of the legal problems before all of this came to a head?

Like Gingernuts I was wondering how else they're supposed to record traffic flow, drop offs, blocked driveways, increasing numbers of vehicles etc. Describe the scene into a dictaphone? Sketch the scene in the style of those court artists?
All this anger directed against people who in my view are doing nothing wrong by objecting, and have not broken the law in any way. And the planning laws are there to help all of us, supposedly. Some of you might need them one day. Then I imagine it will be a different story.

I can't help thinking some of the ire should be directed elsewhere.

Photographing children seems to be a new urban myth. It is not illegal.

Generally businesses do not make customers aware of their problems. It often comes as a shock when a business closes. For example, even when they know they are closing shopkeepers usually do not tell their customers.

Seeformiles - no planning laws have been broken. Full planning process has been completed and approved. The covenant that is being debated currently was effectively made obsolete a) as soon as the developer sold all the original plots on the estate and b) when the Town Planning Act was passed.

A lot has been said about traffic congestion and parking problems.

The nursery is located opposite a 50 metre long strip of the road without any driveways/entrances with plenty of space for car parking without blocking anyone's driveway.

I have never seen more than three cars picking children up/dropping them off at any one time. There is plenty of space for parents to park without obstructing anyone. They are each there for less than 5 minutes.

I am guessing that on one occasion when the nursery first opened someone briefly blocked someones drive and this has been bounced around this forum ever since. This is in no way an issue.