"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." Is this a quiet residential area or joy rider central. ..
Another weak argument against Piplings, up there with they took the risk that this would happen therefore it should happen. (Sorry Saddened, I appreciate that you responded to my earlier post but I still think your argument is weak)
Photographing people is not illegal but photographing children in this manner is distasteful and harrassing as it is being done with that very intention. Photography is never neutral, never just a mechanical activity. It is not a friendly act in this particular instance. It is not just about recording imaginary events and blowing them out of proportion, this is a deliverate attempt to make parents feel uncomfortable about being there.
It is not appropriate. It can be considered an abuse. It is not congruent with safeguarding practice. If people want themselves and their children to be in a newspaper picture then that is done with their consent.There is a considerable difference. The fact that taking photos of children against their parents wishes isnt illegal in this country does not make it right. Parents have a duty to safeguard their children from malicious intent. A photo may be completely innocent in one case, then again it might be taken out of context. It also can be used in situations which might reveals a childs wherebouts, say to an estranged parent who may come after the child, or a child on at risk register. It may be a slight exaggeration but this reminds me of what happened years ago at the Holy Cross School in Belfast where children from the Catholic community had to walk through a Protestant area to get to school amidst considerable vocal and sometimes agressive opposition. I dont think there are hordes of people out in Liphook jeering at arriving parents (as likely as hordes of traffic jams probably) but it does seem to an observer like me that parents and children are having to run some sort of gauntlet to carry out their business.
Why are people recording traffic flow and general goings on at the nursery. It is none of anyones business as the premises has planning permisson. The issue of the covenant is that it exists. That is a legal matter but it has become embroiled and mixed up with further claims of the nursery being disruptive. It is so because the people up there complaining about it are just so adamant that this nursery will go by hook or by crook that they have no ability whatsoever anymore to distingush between both matters and it is so abundantly clear now that there is a real witch hunt going on up there. There is no direct correlation between the covenant and movements at the nursery.
I wonder in the fabulous world of 'what if' scenarios, would someone be doing the same if this business were a solicitors office. Also I wonder if a solicitors office or dr's surgery, despite being named as suitable within the covenant, would actually get planning permission as the traffic and disruption likely to be caused by either use is going to be more intensive than anything produced by Piplings.
In short, I dont think the TLRA would support either of those businesses on the estate for the same reasons as they oppose Piplings with the exception of laughing children. The opposition of the covenant on the basis that its not one of those particular businesses is therefore a complete charade for those reasons. Its hollow and its nasty.
So, it seems TLERA continue to stall the SGM, and so the saga continues.
Despite a call for an SGM made earlier this week, we have still not heard of a date for the requested SGM, and today we have heard reports that Valerie Ward, vice-chair of TLERA has been knocking on residents' doors who are signatories to the request for the SGM, demanding to know why they "want to shut down TLERA".
Once again, some clarity required. The exact wording of the request for the SGM was as follows:
As is provided by the constitution of the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate Residents Association (TLERA), we the undersigned hereby request a Special General Meeting of the Residents Association.
We request that all members are invited, to include the personal invitation of Mr Philip Lee and Mrs Emma Lee of 5 Liphook Crescent, London.
The purpose of this meeting is:
1. To enable Philip and Emma Lee to answer questions and respond to statements/allegations raised in the recent TLERA newsletter 'Piplings Nursery - the facts'.
2. To clarify the involvement of TLERA road and committee representatives in the ongoing action against the family at 5 Liphook Crescent.
3. To discuss the implications of the legal enforcement of a Restrictive Covenant on other existing and future local businesses in the Estate.
4. To seek the opinions of those attending on their support and acceptance of Piplings Nursery as an integral part of the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate community.
5. Finally, a vote of confidence in the current committee members of the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate Residents Association
As you can see, this is not a meeting to request the 'winding up' of the association (and this has to be specifically requested so cannot be discussed at the meeting), but simply a request to get all interested parties in one room to see how things have got this far.
It seems that with Valerie's action, and the stalling in calling an SGM, that at every step TLERA appear more and more involved than they ever should have been in this issue between two neighbours.
Its like a lot of things; if you want to take action against someone you need to engage them first but they can pretend either not to
Hear or to deliberately misunderstand in order to delay things. Is there no way a group of residents can set up this meeting themselves then invite the membership. ??
As a shamefully inactive TLERA member , I’m trying to apply a bit of reasoning to the recent posts by ladywotlunches and roz about TLERA
There was a suggestion on this (public) forum that TLERA should be wound up by a 2/3 majority and the funds given to a pro-Piplings TLERA. (I realize it was retracted later, but nevertheless it was posted and gave rise to a lot of consternation on the hill.)
In addition, ladywotlunches has just posted that you want “a vote of confidence in the current committee members.” (though you have worded it “confidence” and not "no-confidence", you do not show much confidence in TLERA yourself! )
I have also heard people talking about getting the current committee to resign.
So we have heard, on public forums, 3 separate threats to the TLERA committee. Is it then so wrong for someone who has been attacked to gather information for defending TLERA? It seems to me entirely reasonable. I have heard from many people who have been disturbed, even after 9pm, to sign petitions for Piplings. Is only one side of the argument allowed to knock on doors?
As for this “stalling” over calling a meeting. Do we really know they are stalling, or is this just another unwarranted attack on TLERA? I’m asking myself how long it takes to find a date and book a venue for several hundred people – and then to print invitations, giving the required amount of notice. I would guess it would take a week or two, at the very least.
Jason posted : 06-02-2012 10:31 PM
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.
That is only 5 full days ago! And the TLERA people are working people, who do TLERA work voluntarily in their free time. Please, can’t we give them a break from this incessant and unreasonable criticism?
Roz then asked: “Is there no way a group of residents can set up this meeting themselves then invite the membership. ??”
Please note that my next remark is tongue-in-cheek: If I were a TLERA committee member I’d reply , “Great, go ahead, with all the planning, work and expense involved.”
But I’m not – so please don’t take that seriously. Just think about the unreasonableness of constantly carping on about TLERA, and give them a reasonable amount of time to get the invitations out.
Saddened - unfortunately you really don't seem to understand what I, and 47 other signatories to the request for an SGM, want to achieve from this meeting. It is not a TLERA 'witch hunt' as you seem to suggest, but a simple way to discuss open and honestly with all parties what has happened in this nursery case. Despite repeated requests for TLERA to meet with Piplings, they still point blank refuse. Calling an SGM is our only remaining way to get everyone in a room together.
Indeed these are busy people, and it has only been 5 days. I certainly would'nt have expected a meeting to have happened by now, but at least a suggestion of when and where it might happen could surely have been communicated by now, at least to the requestors? Instead, it seems the committee has chosen to use their time to run down the list, and go visiting (late in the evening themselves) to try and indicate that the request for a meeting is something different to that the signatories agreed to.
All we, and a growing group of other residents, want, is a discussion as to what has happened here. And also, it would be a great opportunity to talk through TLERAs remit on the estate. Increasingly they seem to object on the grounds of any changes, good or bad in the community. I hear recently that they strongly objected to the improvements in Horniman Gardens, citing that this would be the "thin end of the wedge" for developments in our public spaces. Does that phrase ring any bells??
I think it's in everyone's interests to get the meeting arranged as soon as possible to enable the committee to explain it's actions, and the members to air their views for and against, and hopefully to get some consensus on the way forward. Trial by forum is hopeless as a way of resolving differences.
Update:
A list of 30 physical signatures on paper for an SGM has been personally delivered to the home of the TLERA chairman David and Roweena his hon, secretary this evening, Sunday. It was personally handed to Roweena. A copy has been retained for records. In addition a number of TLERA members have emailed directly requesting the same.
Five weeks ago I went to meet with the chairman of the Tewkesbury Lodge Residents Association (as a local resident and parent at the nursery) and asked the Residents Association to assist with settling the ongoing action against Piplings Nursery for the benefit of the local community.
As this was not forthcoming, lots of residents have since signed petitions calling for a Special General Meeting. These have been delivered and 'verified', yet this meeting date has still not been advised.
In the mean time, it seems the Residents Association have stepped up their action against the nursery with the recent 'selected' posting of the attached letter to some residents. There are a number of inaccuracies in the letter in terms of the wording and implications of the covenant that should not be taken as the truths or implications.
This unfortunately fully demonstrates the continuing involvement of the Residents Association in the legal action against the residents of 5 Liphook Crescent, using the same legal team (Solicitor and Barrister) that are currently enacting the covenant for the neighbours.
This campaign is very inappropriate and has to stop. I look forward to the Special Residents Meeting happening very soon so that the real 'facts' about Piplings is able to be discussed by local residents.
As it had gone quiet I thought that the meeting was progressing but clearly not. Having read the letter I think it's outrageous that the Tlra chooses to proceed to openly solicit opposition and support for legal action whilst ignoring the requests of its members for an opportunity to discuss the issue. Have they not acknowledged at all the meeting request, and suggested they are looking to set a date and find a venue, or are their energies just going back into fuelling this particular fire?
if I were a member who felt ignored I think I would start looking into calling a meeting myself. Is that not possible under your constitution.?
I think it's clear now that the leadership of TLRA have selected which particular interests of particular members they have chosen to fight for whilst they choose to ignore others. This does not seem very balanced or democratic to
Me. Surely they have a mandate to operate in a reasoned and balanced fashion and to represent the views and interests of all members not just pick and choose in accordance with their personal preference. I have been on other bodies which purports to represent the 'community'' whereas in fact people use it to protect their own property interests. I think that's inevitable to an extent as its human nature but as this is a closed membership then there are surely clear mechanisms in place for canvassing opinion?
PS Having read the
Letter again I fully agree with you about inaccuracy and
Misrepresentation. Amendments to covenants do not set the precedent suggested ; they have to be considered on a case by case basis and also there remains stringent planning controls. One would assume that the writer would be fully informed of this however continued to act vexatiously against no. 5. Good luck with opposing this. I have to say I feel lucky not having a RA running around stirring up bad feeling like they seem to do up there.
Would like to do an update for the SLP on this - I gather a letter with names of at least 30 residents has been submitted to TLERA asking for a SGM but nothing has happened. Would appreciate an update. 020 8710 6478 Kate Gould
To clarify; a valid request for a Special General Meeting was only received about a week and a half ago (on the evening of Sunday 12th February). We asked the person requesting the meeting for their preferred times and only received a reply 3 days ago. It takes time to find a suitable venue and print the necessary notices. Notices will be distributed shortly.
It should also be noted that the letter that Jason has posted was only delivered to one household who could otherwise not be contacted.
As you know a 'valid' request was actually submitted on the evening of 6th February with over 40 names and addresses of members.
As some committee members did not believe this, they started to knock on residents doors to check whether this was true. To prove it was, we then asked 30 of the people on the petition to physically sign another copy. If it had not been half-term we probably would have been able to collect further signatures. Only when this version was hand delivered to you was it 'validated'.
The letter sent recently TLERA certainly doesn't look like a note for one individual, because they could not be contacted. If that is the case, why does it not have specifics to that address (Name, address etc)? And I'm sure that this form would not have been created for just one person.
Why is it also the case that some residents who live very close to the nursery (even backing on to it) but that have voiced support, weren't contacted with this information?
If the letter was only sent to an individual then that would explain "why residents who live very close to the nursery (even backing on to it) but that have voiced support, weren't contacted with this information? "
Perhaps the envelope or a first page had personal details on it? - you certainly shouldnt be disclosing that kind of info on a public forum.