Nursery planned for Manor Avenue - public meeting

60 Manor Avenue, February 4th, 7pm

Developers are planning to turn the former United Services Club at 60 Manor Avenue into a nursery, providing places for 64 children. Some local residents have organised a campaign in protest at the scheme, which they fear could place severe demands on the local roads. A meeting will be held on site at 7pm tonight to discuss the situation.

Our natural inclination is to wish new enterprise and investment in Brockley well, especially when it provides facilities for young families. We also dislike the reflexive negativity that often infects local protest groups, which are often composed of the kinds of people who would have found fault with the invention of fire or the wheel had they been around at the time.

However, in this case, we believe the protestors have a point. Manor Avenue is ludicrously clogged with parked cars already and the roads surrounding the station are also increasingly jammed. They are right to raise concerns about the extra demand for parking likely to be created by the centre's 18 full-time staff and non-resident parents who may drive to Brockley in search of a nursery in zone 2.

We think the development also poses a wider question about parking around Brockley Station - a subject which we plan to return to in the near future.

307 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 307   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

On the subject of parking round the station:

I recently went on a little excursion and, do to leaving an an unsociable hour, was able to leave my car right outside the station entrance.

I returned a week later to find my car still there and was able to drive to my (brockley) doorstep.

A nice little treat for all of us living in Brockley that I wouldn't like to see gotten rid of by any anti-car "protest group".

Name and address supplied.

Tamsin said...

Were you on your own in the journey? Otherwise the fairer thing for all concerned is to drive to the station in good time, abandon one person and luggage, and go back to park the car as normal outside your house (incidentally contributing to the illusion that it is still occupied as normal to keep burglars at bay).

On the proposed nursery, is this the same building there was discussion about the sale of - to the enrichment of the few remaining members?

How many other nurseries are there in the immediate area and to what extent are they over subscribed - will they, plus a new one be able to survive economically. New investment is all very well but not to the detriment of existing business.

Tamsin said...

Sorry! Didn't follow the link you put in - of course it is...

Anonymous said...

Drop one person off, come home then walk back to the station? LOL - you must be in cloud cookoo-land!

JPM said...

Lazy and selfish SOB. Walk to the station! Keep the space clear for people dropping off and picking up. (Though you surely must be a wind-up merchant.)

Tamsin, yes it is that same establishment.

Strangely, I have noticed quite a few people parking in Geoffrey Road, Manor Avenue, and Ashby Road, and then waking to the station. Some had passports and luggage!

Thanks, Nick, for highlighting the issue, and for the very fair preamble. I will be there for sure.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Nick, it is all too easy for there to be a knee jerk reaction to any proposed new development. London isn't a country village nor is Brockley-it is a busy urban area. Yes there are concerns regarding traffic parking etc and these need to be looked at, but please keep an open mind. The benefits of having numerous mums and staff using the local shops/cafe's could far outweigh the traffic problems. Perhaps if they were somehow encouraged to park away from the nursery say near the shops/cafe's then they may be more likely to use them. I can't say if the logistics would work but it is worth a thought.

Anonymous said...

I'm going just to see what the intrepid JPM looks like.

JPM said...

Why would they park near the shops?
Some of thes epeople will come from outside the area (Kent say), and will park locally, drop their children off, and take Brockley or St Johns stations. The cars would remain until the day's work's done.

That said... don't the surrounding school already provide free nursery provision for those actually 'living' in the area?

I should also reveal that I am one of the fortunate residents to have a driveway, so can count myself as unbiased. If someone parks over it, due to new legislation I can get it ticketed ot towed.

brockley mutha said...

@JPM - nursery schools provide early education for local children from the age of around 3, for half a day. The nursery that is planned for manor avenue is daycare - for children from 3months or so and its aimed at working parents.

That said - I think it's highly unlikely that it will bring more business to Brockley's local shops (which is anons argument) - the people who are dropping their children off are going straight to work, not hanging around looking for new retail opps.

nobbly brick said...

I dislike blog-owners naturally assuming they have the right to occupy their own, self-appointed, moral high ground when it suits them.

Headhunter said...

I had a leaflet through my door (Manor Ave) about this. I agree that it will make the traffic situation in the mornings and evenings ludicrous. Manor Ave (between Ashby and Geoffrey) already gets used as a bit of a rat run for cars trying to avoid the same stretch of Wickham Rd, adding a few dozen parents' cars dropping kids off and we'll just have jams all along the street.

The road almost directly outside 60 Manor Ave also has traffic calming road narrowing which will add to the chaos. The developer says that parents will use "alternative transport", which I am extremely sceptical about. IME busy parents now barely walk anywhere, they have jobs to get to, so driving the kids to school/nursery is just one way of saving a bit of time. Who can blame them but all I'm saying is that the traffic situation on what is currently a quiet, residential road will be untenable.

I'll try to attend this evening however I may not get back from work in time.

JPM - Interesting you say that you have noticed a lot of people with suitcases and passports walking along Manor Ave, I have noticed that since I have lived there for the past 2 and a bit years. Do you think they park there and then head out to Gatwick or something? There certainly seem to be an unusually high number of people with suitcases wandering along the street. Not that it's a problem, just wondering why....

Headhunter said...

Nobbly - I don't understand, how does this article reflect the self appointed moral high ground? Even if it does, it's a blog, not a carefully balanced article from the BBC, is it? If I ran a blog I would run it how I pleased and if it pleased my readers they could ignore my opinions...

Anonymous said...

In my experience-living in an area with a couple of private nursery's mum's do drop their kids off and go for coffee etc. Many mum's are not working-my wife included-but still send the children to nursery a couple of days a week. Many of our friends do the same thing. They park near the shops, walk the children to the nursery and walk back to the shops where they have coffee or buy produce for supper that evening.
I can understand peoples concerns and I'm not saying this nursery is a good idea, but lets try to find a solution to any problems first before dismissing this new venture. If we want nice shops and a bustling retail area we need people to be around during the day.

osh said...

hmmm, nick essentially says "on the one hand it could be good, on the other it might be bad - both sides have valid points but go along and take part." Who could complain about that?

Unless Nobbly Brick recognises in himself those people that nick has a dig at - those who are constantly negative about things? I wonder!

Jenny said...

It is now time to stand together - you think it is bad now with parking - just you wait....and yes this is the thin end of the wedge - if this commercial, traffic generating enterprise is allowed in a residential street it will be setting a serious precendent for MORE such activities. So forget the peaceful residential street and say hello Peckham - next it will be a church open all hours - oh and it wont just be the residents of Manor Ave this gets it will be all the neighbouring streets that will suffer and as they suffer the call will be heard from Lewisham Council - 'well we will introduce residents' parking' - how will you like that!?

JPM said...

nICK, I WOULD IGNORE THE CRITICISM, IF ONE COULD CALL IT THAT. THE GUY DOES NOT SEE IT AS HIS PROBLEM.

By the way, you are not being invited to a meeting to give your views really. The council officers hope to display to the elected members that they have ticked a box marked 'neighbour/community consultation'.

Fact. The decision to 'recommend' this proposal has already been made - by the officers. So, when it comes to Committee your elected members can go 'granted'.

Only it's not that simple....

They have not done their research and hugely underestimated the resolve of residents.

@Headunter. Yes, that's exactly what's happening. Those people you see parking up are headed to Heathrow!

Tressillian James said...

I'm afraid I don't see the shopping and coffee argument - Brockley is hardly Yummy Mummy territory - however much we might hope it is. The reality is that people will swing by in the cars to drop the littel one off on the way to work - and they will park close by to do that. Even if they don't leave their cars here for the day, the rise in traffic will be consdierable at drop off and pick up times.

However, how big is this nursery in comparasion to the one on Tressillian? Althouigh there is an increase in traffic there - at a busy intersection, it never seems to be a problem.

Brockley Kate said...

Two main areas of potential concern that I can see:

1) Does the nursery meet local demand? Is it possible to impose any kind of constraints on who uses the nursery, to ensure it serves the local community?
Is there any data/info about whether there is a lack of supply in the local area?

2) As already mentioned, the precedent implications of setting up what sounds like quite a large business on a residential street. I know there's already a nursery on Tressillian, so I'd be interested to know how long that has been there for, and what the council's policy is in general on businesses in residential areas.

Anonymous said...

I'm concerned that Brockley Central seems to be promoting some sort of Owellian existance where the residents of Brockley sustain themselves with repeated coffees, brie and mung-produce. There are other things in life apart from sitting in cafes and drinking coffees.

Anonymous said...

Hooray to more nurseries if there is a need. I will be looking for one soon so suits me - only wish it was closer to my doorstep.

The idea that people will drive in from far out of the area to put their child in nursery/ commute to work seems really bizarre. Most people try to find a service close to their home rather than miles away.

If you live in the area, why can you not face the fact that you live in London - Zone 2 and not the green belt. A few more cars in the morning and the evening is not going to change the daytime quality of life of the conservation area.

The NIMBYism is just unbelievable sometimes.

Headhunter said...

JPM - Are you sure? Heading to Heathrow?! Hardly the most convenient place to head to Heathrow from! Even Gatwick, surely there are free parking areas closer to Gatwick where one can leave the car before hopping on the train for the last bit of the journey?

Headhunter said...

I'm disappointed that the council has already recommended the proposal to be granted. I'm sure people will happily drive in from surrounding areas to drop their kids at the nursery, park up and take the train the rest of the way to work in central London.

People already do that, there's a definitely a fair number of people driving in from outlying areas, parking in Brockley with its free parking, and getting the train from there (as discussed here previously).

Once again we get the NIMBY rubbish trotted out by the anonymii again. Seriously, if it grates that much, go to another website. How is it NIMBYist to not want the quiet residential road that you live on turned into a traffic and parking nightmare?

Tressillian James said...

"The idea that people will drive in from far out of the area to put their child in nursery/ commute to work seems really bizarre. Most people try to find a service close to their home rather than miles away. "

Anon it is not bizarre in the least. Most nurseries have a pick up time - usually around 5.00-5.30. You can't be late. Paretns who work in the centre but live in the suburbs find it hard to get back in time - and so search for a nursery closer in.

Brockley Nick said...

@nobbly - we each of us have that right, don't we? I'm sure you've exercised it more than once on this blog yourself.

But I don't really see where I was seeking to take the moral high ground. This isn't a moral question, it's a practical one. Can a local business flourish without having too harmful an impact on the local community, who are understandably concerned about its possible impact? What is the right balance to strike in this case and are there any compromise measures that can be taken to reduce the potential problems? I don't know, but I hope there will be some evidence presented tonight to help people make up their own minds - in line with what Kate was suggesting.

@TJ - as a parent of young children, I'd challenge your assertion that there isn't really a large community of young parents around. Via school, maternity yoga, playgroups and playgrounds we've met loads and it's certainly my unscientific observation that there are more pushchairs on Brockley Road than there used to be. It ought to be an ideal location for families - relatively central so that mums and dads can get home quickly to see their kids but with relatively low property prices, so people can afford a bit more space, along with a decent amount of green space and a good "sense of community". That was certainly our calculation.

Tamsin said...

If there's a need - there are quite a few already in SE4, Oak Hill, Early Bloomers, St Catherine House, the one on Hilly Fields, etc. etc. - and if the premises are suitable, internally as well as externally.

JPM said...

Well countered, Tressillian. But that Anon may have more than faulty wisdom to declare - so beware. However, as I've said before, Anon, if you supply your address we can pass it on as a likely site for a nursery.

Headhunter, I meant Gatwick. It's not difficult to get to from here. Though I don't have any evidence other than the sight of passports and suitcases being removed from the boots of a cars that have just arrived, then watched the same band of people headed for Brockley Station. [Keep your eyes peeled this summer.]

I should correct you though... the COUNCIL ITSELF HAS NOT YET REACHED A DECISION. It's the officers who have determined that this scheme should be recommended. That is the recommendation that will go to Committee... after a community 'consultation' of course.

Tamsin said...

A few stops to East Croydon and there's the Gatwick express. (And waiting at New Cross Gate with the luggage while the other half goes to get the car from outside the house.)

Headhunter said...

But why not just park at East Croydon and get the Gatwick Express rather than park in Brockley, take the train a few stops, then change to the Express. Guess we'll never know...

Tamsin said...

We could get a clipboard and a fake ID badge and ambush people to ask...

Tressilliana said...

St Catherine's House has been a day nursery for many years now. Before it was a conventional day nursery it was a nursery school, I think. I live pretty near it and don't notice too much in the way of traffic problems, but as TJ says it's on a pretty busy through route anyway.

I'm not convinced there's been an influx of young children to Brockley in the last few years, but maybe Lewisham data says otherwise. My children were born in the early 90s and I remember being amazed to discover that there were so many families in the area. It was only when we had a pushchair of our own (and occupant, of course) that we started noticing all the others.

fred vest said...

i sense a whiff of superiority hypocrisy nick, pretty much saying when anyone else protests about things they are anti-progress, reactionary and negative, but you of course rise above these very common human traits in a jesus like manner, so when you are against something it is a different case entirely, i.e. in general protestors against things are muppets and have no grounds for their objections, but when I do it I have a genuine reason for doing it

don't you think everyone who is against things do it for the same reasons as you, i.e. a perceived harm to their exsiting lives & community, now this can be subjective or objective but it's mainly at the root of all protests (whether it manifests itself out of self-interest or a wider concern for society/community etc..), for you to think somehow you transcend this mentality is pretty pompous to be honest - it also suggests that people who protest against things elsewhere (for the same reasons as you) should just put up with change that is forced upon them, yet when it's you, everyone should sit up and listen intently to your gospel

Brockley Nick said...

@Fred, I didn't say "whenever" people protest it's for the wrong reasons, I said "often". I "often" think people are wrong, ill-informed or blinkered when they protest about things. I regularly highlight when I think people have legitimate grievances, and certainly not only when they're in my back yard - example, the campaign against a housing development in Forest Hill.

In this case, I don't really have a personal stake, I have just seen how crowded Manor Avenue is already and can understand why residents would be worried.

There's no hypocrisy involved. But you're free to disagree with me if you think every protest group is always well-informed and reasonable.

JPM said...

Don't let him move the issue onto defending yourself. This is immediate and needs dealing with - NOW.

Headhunter said...

So perhaps it's Nick's opinion that in general, most complaints against new enterprise is "reflexive negativity"? Why should he not express that view on his own blog?

This blog has never claimed to be the objective voice of the entire Brockley population. As we have already discussed here, readers and commenters largely come from a certain strata of the population - what some here term "mung bean eaters", so naturally opinion is goin to be weighted in that direction.

Unless more "fried chicken eaters" come along it will always be so and if anyone feels it shouldn't be, surely they are free to set up their own website or blog as Andy/Cat Man has done?

Hugh said...

@Hugh, glad to have you back.

JPM said...

The planning application to the Council that all owners of the building should be consulted is not filled in correctly.

Can anyone advise on whether the proper legal steps have been taken in completing this form? (It's on the counci's website under 'Document' then 'Application', but with no actual owner listed.)

fred vest said...

"This is immediate and needs dealing with - NOW."

i hear the slot at the top of the agenda is free now the speedicars sign has been dealt with (aided by well informed and reasonable local protests one might add)

westsider said...

what a surprise that the site's perennial moaners should take offence that someone has dared to criticise their god-given right to moan about things incessantly.

By the way fred, the speedicars sign was a good example of how to do things. Peoople got their facts right, contacted the right people in a reasonable manner and asked for a solution which was easily delivered at no harm to the business involved. Everyone's a winner and I don't think anyone ever suggested it was a big deal, just that it needed fixing. But you know that really, don't you.

fred vest said...

"There's no hypocrisy involved. But you're free to disagree with me if you think every protest group is always well-informed and reasonable"

i'm not sure where you got the impression that i think that nick, and even if i did it's irrelevant to the point being made - which is somehow you magically transcend the pitfalls that others fall into when it comes to protesting about things that are happening in your own back yard - yet you mock for example protests to house 1,000 people in between two railway stations in catford for example (and the impact on local infrastructure), and show this as a sign of backwardness, reaction, negativity and a lack of progressive outlook - yet when it comes to a wee nursery in your own back yard you're up in arms at the consequences for the local community

when 'they' protest they are thick and ill informed, when i protest it's because i'm correct - this is your approach no subjectivity involved in it at all

Brockley Nick said...

Fred, it's not irrelevant to the point at all, it's central to it. I am saying that sometimes protest groups are unreasonable. Sometimes they are reasonable.

In this case, I think they have a case, but where you get the idea that I am up in arms about the issue, I have no idea. I am relatively neutral on the issue, as you should be able to tell from my original post.

osh said...

Aha, so Fred is that angry bloke from Catford - I knew it!

fred vest said...

@nick - well if you can reconcile what you just said there with the tone of the article then fair enough

Brockley Nick said...

@Fred - cool. If I didn't indulge in some florid writing from time to time, I would get very bored churning out an article or more every day, so I claim artistic license.

Brockley Kate said...

Hmmm, Catford Ross under another name eh?

JPM said...

Isn't there a local site for people in Catford then? I'm sure Nick's site was headed BROCKLEY CENTRAL. (All things SE4 not SE6 note.)

Anyway, back to my NIMBY protest...

I have just received a phone call informing me that the meeting is 'cancelled'. Why? The snow? Hail? Rain? A tornado perhaps?

No..

Because Brockley Society had not been informed by the council. (Sod the fifty neighbours who are turning up!)

This does not make the council look at all competent. I will report back when I have confirmed if this is the case.

Brockley Kate said...

Cancelled at BrocSoc's request, or cancelled by the council?

Headhunter said...

Great! So everyone will go traipsing over there in the snow, find they can't get in, go home again and think "what a waste of time", not bother next time and the council will tick the box marked "local neighbours not interested"...

JPM said...

Kate, good question. Here's the repons I received...

"I have had to cancel tonights meeting on No 60 Manor Ave as we failed to notify the Brockley Society who are objectors to the application.
I will try to rearrange the meeting for later in the month ensuring that everyone gets two weeks notice this time.
Please could you spread the word that that the meeting is cancelled, although I will try to let everyone know.
Given the sort period of notice of cancellation, I will be at the site tonight from about 6.55 just in case anyone turns up and wonders what's happening."

I'm not best please about it I can tell you. I've wriiten to ask if they can still go ahead. BrocSoc cn be briefed later.

Brockley Kate said...

Yes, if the person from the council has to show up anyway, then why not just have two meetings?!

Brockley Nick said...

Do you want me to put "postponed" in the header?

Lewisham Wayward said...

Having had to wait nearly 2 months (!!) for my first appointment with a midwife (at St. Johns Medical Centre) due to what I've been told is an increase in demand for midwifery in Lewisham, I'm not sure about assertions that this nursery is not needed. In fact Manor Ave would be my closest facility which would be appreciated as I don't have a car.

Perhaps some fact related research needed about demand in the area rather than nimbyism is needed.

JPM said...

I was thinking along those same lines as Headhunter.

Lewisham NotWayward said...

Lewisham Wayward, I would love to see the research that backs up your IMBY-ism.

Which road are you in by the way?

David said...

I live in Manor Avenue almost directly opposite 60 Manor Avenue -which is a very rundown building in need of restoration.

Personally, I have no problem with a new nursery there - if it regenerates the building, provides employment etc

Parking is already a severe problem on Manor Avenue and I do not think that in reality, a new nursery will significantly affect this. Unlike schools, nursery drop-offs take place over an hour or so. I used to drop off children at the nursery on Tressillian Road and cars there didn't cause congestion, problems etc.

As I understand it, the "24 hour" church issue has already been raised with the Council and they would restrict the use of the building to a nursery.

As to whether there is a need for a nursery - well that's a matter for the free market, not the Council but I would be surprised if the potential incumbents hadn't done their homework. Good luck to them.

Lewisham Wayward said...

LewishamNotWayward, I would have thought my name gave it away as to which road I live on! The facts may only be anecdotal, but my local surgery have told me that they have an unprecedented number of pregnant women on their books, hence the lack of appointments.

JPM said...

Well I'm committed to turning up now, as are most of my neighbours.
I do find these people curious who attempt to erode a person's concerns with the use of 'NIMBY'. As I say, Not In My Back Yard - IF THAT BACK YARD'S FULL. (Hello all brain cells!)

Tressillian James said...

@Nick - I certainly wasn't challenging that there are a large amount of familes with young children around. I was saying that this is not Yummy Mummy territory - by that I mean that we don't have the sort of 'drop the kids of at daycare and do a spot of local shopping and have coffee with the friends' mothers. I think the mothers here are much more likely to be holding down jobs.

LewishamNotWayWardAndObviouslyANIMBY said...

Lewisham Wayward. It's a long way... which part?

Brockley Nick said...

I guess I don't know what the term Yummy Mummy is supposed to mean then. I thought it was basically a youngish mum - a politer term than MILF.

Anonymous said...

Deosn't anyone know anyone at Brockley Society? Couldn't you ask them what they're up to? I've cancelled a friend for that blasted meeting.

Tressillian James said...

If Broc Soc are the main objectors, and they haven't been informed of the meeting I'm not suprised they cancelled. Someone must have been in touch with BrocSoc about this - it would be good for other local objectors to link up with them.

MILF said...

What are you insinuating?

JPM said...

Does David have a kid about to go to nursery perhaps?

Headhunter said...

It sounds like it's the council who should have in formed the Broc Soc, not the Broc Soc being belligerent. If the Broc Soc are the main objectors then surely it's a pretty dumb oversight not to consult them in setting up the meeting in the first place!

Tressillian James said...

Nick - I think this about sums it up

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1271972.ece

Anonymous said...

"Parking is already a severe problem on Manor Avenue and I do not think that in reality, a new nursery will significantly affect this."

You're out to lunch mate. If parking's already a problem then 'in reality' more means more.

Brockley Kate said...

Nick - a 'yummy mummy' is a bit more specific than that, I always thought. Pretty much definition 7 from this list:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yummy%20mummy

"An attrative mother who is usally married to a rich man. She spends most of her days shopping, getting her nails and hair done, at coffee with friends and watching Oprah,while her childern are at day care and her husband is at work. Often extremely spoiled and have not worked since thier childern were born."

So, definitely more East Dulwich than Brockley!

JPM said...

I'll certainly keep you informed if I see the same gentleman complaining about an increase in parking.

Methinks he may have a little interest to declare.

Tamsin said...

Interesting summary of headlines in the Times - read the piece on the Inner London School for problem kids - just shows what a charismatic individual can achieve (think of how well Crossways is doing compared with the previous attempt). Mark you - if there is any action on the recent report on the effects of childcare, even the best, nurseries will be closing down.

Anonymous said...

I love that yummy mummy article. It exposes the yummy mummy as a social fraud. If you are truly 'mummy'ing you haven't the time to be doing the things that make you look yummy.

JPM said...

On subject. I've spoken with BrocSoc about this. And they did not have a clue what the council was talking about. A lady called Kate is going to investigate and respond accrodingly. I'm sure this meeting should and could still go ahead.

Anonymous said...

David, what are you on? I've been passed the 'Club' and it is hardly 'very run down' as you alarmingly claim. (The developer will love that one.) Just in need of a bit of love and attention.
My neighbour reckons they are running it into the ground in order to sell anyway. They closed their books to new members to do just that apparently.

State the obvious said...

If people are worried about parking surely a CPZ is the answer.

JPM said...

How many?

I looked at ht eplans on the following: http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/38872_2.pdf

The plans show the following numbers, with ages and floors.

Age Number Floor
0-3 12 first
3-5 24 ground
2-3 16 "
0-3 12 "
0-3 12 "

Although the plans state 64 children, the above adds up to '80' and includes five-year olds. (The application says 0-3.)

Anyone any idea why the anomalies? Is it 64, or 80, and what are those ages?

Anonymous said...

A CPZ is just what the council wants you to get. Imagine over 200 hundred homes, at £90 per car. That's about 20k a year, for consultations. Great! And people will still be double-parked in your street because the wardens probably won't be out at that time.

patrick1971 said...

As an admittedly smug car-free person, it always amuses me when people who own cars complain about traffic and parking...

Nick's quite right; anyone who's been involved in local politics, or even who's just read the News Shopper, will be aware that there is a certain type of individual who protests against anything.

And is a two month wait to see a midwife really a problem? You find out you're pregnant by three months in the vast majority of cases. Two months to see a midwife = five months. You've still got four months to go before the big event!

Anonymous said...

David's post was a humdinger.

"Unlike schools, nursery drop-offs take place over an hour or so. I used to drop off children at the nursery on Tressillian Road and cars there didn't cause congestion, problems etc."

The nursery owner has submitted that drop-offs would NOT take place 'over the hour' but throughout the day.

David also used drop off children (really, by car?) and claims that cars at Tressillian don't cause a problem. Is that why I have to wait one side to get through that very small gap?

So instead of driving to nearby Tressillian (point proven) David is going to walk across the road at Manor. A true 'IMBY'. But only because it suits.

JPM said...

I only had to wait hours for a midwife.

When she was finished I left the pub.

fred vest said...

"Isn't there a local site for people in Catford then? I'm sure Nick's site was headed BROCKLEY CENTRAL. (All things SE4 not SE6 note.)"

ironically the only reason i stumbled upon here was through noticing nick had linked to my blog and implied how wrong (and backward) it was to be against a development to house 1,000 people sandwiched in between two train stations with no increases in local infrastructure, roads, rail, buses, car parking etc... to cope with the huge influx of new people to the area - i can see how this is not in the same league as a nursery opening in brocklehem but i do find it ironic that the nursery is being opposed by many here on the same grounds that they tut tutted me for back then - hence my initial observation on this thread

so i'm enjoying a (somewhat extended) right of reply here

fred vest said...

"anyone who's been involved in local politics, or even who's just read the News Shopper, will be aware that there is a certain type of individual who protests against anything"

what utter nonsense, anyone who has read the newshopper will be aware that there are certain individuals who when they sense something is not right will protest about it - max calo for example, they will also be aware that when people and/or a 'community' become aware of developments that they feel (subjectively or objectively) will have an unduly unfair adverse impact on their daily lives without any adequate kind of compensation then they too will protest - it sounds very much like this is what is going on in this thread - it's amazing however to see the self same people tut tutting when others do it

anyway, even if a certain type of person did protest against everything that's still a good thing, have a look at any functioning democracy (i used the phrase in the loosest sense) or watch the parliament channel for a bit and you'll see it in action, you may not agree with the views of those objecting to anything, but the 'clash of ideas' rubbing together is essential for good things to eventually come out and 'truth' to become nearer to. what a dull old world it would be without any kind of challenge to received dogma - we'd be stuck back at a stage prior to ancient greece if that was the case

patrick1971 said...

I'm not saying it's not a good thing, fred; as you say, it's what democracy is all about. But in my experience, it gets a bit boy-who-cried-wolf; some people are so opposed to everything that, as Nick says, they'd probably have protested against the development of the wheel had they been around at the time. Which has huge implications for the democratic process, as they're then not taken seriously because they don't know when to choose their battles.

Tressillian James said...

So Fred Vest is from Catford and just likes to troll about here..

Also heartily support the refution of a CPZ - it would be a money spinner for the council and add to the street furniture that clutters the area with signs and possible non-resident parking meeters.

Tamsin said...

A CPZ is not the answer to anything. The Council issue more permits than there are places, rake in money, rack up the cost, require vouchers for your guests. From the residents side once you pay for something you feel really aggrieved if you don't get it and so neighbour on neighour anger escalates - to the extent, in one West London area, of tyre slashing.

That sounds a big, hot-house nursery. Will look at the plans in more detail later, but presumably they meet all the Ofsted requirements or they would not be proposing them. But Ofsted re-visit when built and may reduce the numbers then - which will play merry hell with their business plan. Oak Hill was going to be 70 places but ended up around 50. We were, though, incredibly fortunate with start up funds from the Children's Centre budget.

fred vest said...

" But in my experience, it gets a bit boy-who-cried-wolf; some people are so opposed to everything that, as Nick says, they'd probably have protested against the development of the wheel had they been around at the time"

this is all seeming a bit to generalised and suited to a whimsy generic, gut feel type, argument - i'm wondering if you (or nick) could but some flesh on the bones and point out a few of these people who you are referring about and cross reference evidence of their protests against everything that is going on around them? if it's all catalogued already in the newshopper as you said then it should provide a convenient starting point - although i'm not sure how easy it will be to back up the claim that they protest against everyhing - as theirs a lot going on in the world you know, but if the argument is solid i presume it will be no problem in doing this

Tressilliana said...

'And is a two month wait to see a midwife really a problem? You find out you're pregnant by three months in the vast majority of cases. Two months to see a midwife = five months. You've still got four months to go before the big event!'

There speaks someone who's never been through a pregnancy! I hope Lewisham Wayward means she was unable to see a midwife at St John's so had to go to Lewisham or another hospital. I would be appalled to think that at that crucial stage in a pregnancy she had been unable to see any midwife at all.

Swifty said...

I reckon (note speculatory tone) the council are mad keen to have a CPZ around here. The money they could rake in. These streets are already regularly eyed up. Quite rightly if you have no tax disc you will find yourself clamped.
But they monitor the traffic quite beadily too, you only have to look at the mullering with bollards and traffic Islands Wickham Road recently received.

I say mullered because I think the place's leafy character has been altered by all those reflective lights and additional black posts sticking out of the ground and the loss of pavings to be replaced by tarmac.
It's pretty horrific actually I'm surprising there wasn't more fuss. But I guess it shows that people don't protest at everything.

patrick1971 said...

Tressilliana, true, I have never been through a pregnancy :-)

fred, your response has made me laugh. This is always the response when stuff that we all know is true in general, not in particular is said (c.f. Digby Jones's comments about public sector workers). Those aggrieved by the comments then demand this sort of ludicrous "evidence" in minute detail, when, as noted above, the point is a general one not a particular one.

But, if it's examples you want, I could give you quite a few people at my workplace who object to everything and are never enthusiastic about anything. An example more relevant to this blog would be (and I stress, so as not to get Nick into trouble, that this is MY PERSONAL OPINION ONLY) the Brockley Society. Whenever I read their newsletter I struggle to see what they're actually in favour of; it's all relentlessly negative.

You will no doubt now roll off a list of things that BrocSoc has supported, which may well be the case, but my GENERAL point remains.

The Cat Man said...

I think this is a very good idea and actually is further evidence of Brockleys regeneration.

People should be happy about it. The traffic problems are only going to get worse, unless the residents agree to ticketing or to privatise the road (which by the way, can be done if the majority of residents agree and fund it).

The creche will help the local economy. Be glad for it. I wouldn't mind it in my road.

Comment said...

Fred Vest's arguments in this discussion are more convincing. Patrick you are saying a few things here which are bit odd. You do realise what the raison d'etre of the Brockley Society is don't you?

Anonymous said...

brocklehem. Made me chuckle.

JPM said...

It's not a creche but a fee-paying (private) nursery.

The issue surrounds the change of use of the building from a 'club' that seemingly operated with ten members in relative obscurity, in a house that was let as bedsits. (This actually determines its residential useage but the council wants to avoid that.)

There is the additional issues of parking, increased traffic, and noise for those neighbours who are immediately adjacent. (Of which I ain't. Though I'd certainly like to know where you reside, David, as it sounds as if you're closer than me.)

BrocSoc are now going to attend the meeting, but no one has managed to get planning to answer the phone. If you're at Lewisham Council reading this please give them a nudge.

Is Fred Vest formerly a chap called Ross, really? I thought he wasn't coming back. Would he mind starting a new thread to discuss his gripe with Nick? Cheers.

Brockley Kate said...

I too would be opposed to a CPZ. I've lived in 2 different areas with CPZs and they were both a total headache and didn't do any of the good things they were supposedly set up to do anyway (other than gouge massive amounts of cash out of car drivers).

fred vest said...

"fred, your response has made me laugh. This is always the response when stuff that we all know is true in general, not in particular is said (c.f. Digby Jones's comments about public sector workers). Those aggrieved by the comments then demand this sort of ludicrous "evidence" in minute detail, when, as noted above, the point is a general one not a particular one."

hold on though, it was you who said you only need to read the newshopper to have nick's opinion validated, so by your own account such evidence exists already in the particular as that is what you based your defense of nick's position on and that was which you were suggesting people do so they can see for themselves how correct you are

it also seems like a total cop out argument to me - i.e. 'yeah i'm definately right, but i can't prove it and don't dare ask me for evidence to back up my points as that just 'ludicrious' and if i do give you evidence but then someone else produced evidence which contradicts it that doesn't take away my point because it's a general point and i'm correct!'

don't take this the wrong way, but i've had many arguments in the past with anti-semites and racists who employ a similar approach to divorcing their positions from substantive evidence - likewise some of the idiots on here don't seem to let evidence get in the way of their stupid positions, and they are quite rightly pulled up on them, so it seems to odd to carve out a special sphere for oneself where you can just basically say what you want under the guide of it being a general point and then if anyone asks you to back it up you then use this request as prove of your own position!

thousands of years of enlightened rationalism & empiricism flushed down the bog just to maintain a position that can't be maintained

i think nick's point could be adjusted to being right in that there are certain types of people that think or perceive other certain types of people protest about everything all the time, however that is more about the position/standpoint (or prejudices?) of that first group of certain types of people than anything else - kan'ts concepts of phenomena and noumena spring to mind as an apt parallel

Anonymous said...

"ironically the only reason i stumbled upon here was through noticing nick had linked to my blog"

Ah, so the reason for Fred Vest's anger and aggression becomes clear - Nick disagreed with something on his blog and he's been bearing a grudge ever since.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully nobody is going to respond to that. It seems as if it's designed to change the thread, doesn't it? (But don't answer that. Just opinions and solutions this time.)

fred vest said...

"I thought he wasn't coming back"

it was a general point i made about not coming back, any evidence you may provide which contradicts it doesn't mean it's still not true

(joke by the way for all those recovering from the sense of humour by-pass op)

please don't tell me that Brockely Society is what I make it said...

I agree with Swifty re the Wickham road improvements - I don;t think the council really care that this is a conservation area; and although I am a big supporter of the Brockely Society, I really don't think it is tackling its original remit of looking into planning issues to protect the conservation area. Winter Warmers for the elderly are nice - but everything from the Wickham Road street furniture to the recent removal of original slate roofs in the area are going through planning withpout an objection. All contrary to the councils own area guidelines.

JPM said...

The BrocSoc have now contacted me to say that they WILL be going to the meeting. Great news. See those of you there that feel motivated enough to take part, in a SE4 community-related issue.

fred vest said...

"Ah, so the reason for Fred Vest's anger and aggression becomes clear - Nick disagreed with something on his blog and he's been bearing a grudge ever since."

nah not really, nick's alright - i find it interesting to read a lot of the stuff here, research doesn't always have to be enjoyable you know

Anonymous said...

The meeting may not suit those wearing a vest.

JPM said...

Right, said fred.

Brockley Nick said...

There is nothing wrong with people from Catford or anywhere else joining the discussions. The more the merrier, as far as I am concerned, but it would be nice if we could underline the "merry" bit.

fred vest said...

10-4 captain

JPM said...

Curiously I studied the
Design and Access Statement for this proposal, which has other contradictions:

1.2.
"Zoom also work very closely with the Lewisham and Greenwich Early Years Teams and are aware of a need to generate more quality Childcare Provision within this (sic) Lewisham Ward."

42. Need
"Placed in an urban residential area, the site is well placed for families. It was Zoom's understand through their liasison with the Lewisham Early Years Team, that there was a need to generate more quality childcare provision within the Lewisham Ward."

This is the response I received today. "I did not write them statements so you need to contact the person who did." (Training and Quality Officer,
Children's Centre Childcare and Play 3rd Floor, Laurence House.)

So Zoom's understanding is predicated soley on its own research, and not those of the Childcare division.

Bea said...

As I mentioned in the previous post on this issue I am in favour of a further nursery opening up in Brockley.

To answer Kate’s question as to whether a nursery is even needed, in my opinion yes. I don’t have any supply vs. demand statistics to hand but when I was looking for a nursery place 4 years ago I had to leave a £80 non-refundable deposit at St. Catherine’s House on Tessillian to even get on the waiting list. They offered me a place 6 months later! Needless to say I lost the deposit.

The other nursery I investigated was Hilly Fields nursery (which is no where near Hilly Fields but on Foxberry Road) and was told I couldn’t even get on the waiting list as they were so over subscribed. I eventually found an excellent childminder – which worked out cheaper and better in term of getting back home in time to collect.

Nurseries charge a fortune if you are late – and if you are late more than twice (i.e. 15 minutes) they will report you to social services! Not great if it’s been snowing and your trains cancelled.

In terms of cars in the area – I walk past the Hillyfields nursery on a regular basis both around 8.00 am and sometimes around 9.00 am and see very little traffic blocking up what is a residential road with lots of on-street parking.

Also there is the entrance to Myatt Garden’s school nursery on Geoffrey Road – not far away at all from Manor Avenue. Although there is some extra traffic during drop off and collection it does not create a major bottleneck or less parking – there never is any parking space before or after school time anyway! It's nearly all residential.

I also dispute the fact that parents would bring their child to a nursery in Zone 2 from Kent and then head off into town on the grounds that if the child is sick for any reason and needs to be collected at short notice it is better to have friends or family who live locally to be there to help out immediately. It is unlikely for a parent to want to leave their child removed from any local support. If anything they are far more likely to leave their child in a nursery near work or near home – not half way in-between.

I know others beg to differ but in my opinion this is a planning application that Brockley should be pleased to see – it will restore a building, bring about employment and provide a much needed service to the area.

Anonymous said...

I think "Hilly Fields" is a suitable prefix for anything on Foxberry Road. What would you prefer, the "Esso Garage Day Centre"?

Anonymous said...

Another mung-flavoured cockup as its finally decided tonights meeting WILL go ahead.

Simon said...

David said ; "I live in Manor Avenue almost directly opposite 60 Manor Avenue -which is a very rundown building in need of restoration.

Personally, I have no problem with a new nursery there - if it regenerates the building, provides employment etc

Parking is already a severe problem on Manor Avenue and I do not think that in reality, a new nursery will significantly affect this. Unlike schools, nursery drop-offs take place over an hour or so. I used to drop off children at the nursery on Tressillian Road and cars there didn't cause congestion, problems etc.

As I understand it, the "24 hour" church issue has already been raised with the Council and they would restrict the use of the building to a nursery.

As to whether there is a need for a nursery - well that's a matter for the free market, not the Council but I would be surprised if the potential incumbents hadn't done their homework. Good luck to them."


David, i also live in Manor Avenue almost directly opposite the club.Infact i have a full view of the building from my front window, as you must do also. I do not think the building is "very run down" atall. The wooden window frames need re-painting and other cosmetic work but that is all externally.

If you do indeed live on Manor Avenue you will know that other buildings on the street are in need of much more attention than no.60. You say that parking is already a severe problem on the street so why are you happy for it to go ahead and make the problems even worse??

I am surprised that anyone living in such proximity seems so in favour of the propsal considering the noise and activity levels that will be created in this generally quiet, (apart from the traffic) leafy, grand and rather special Avenue.

Your final comments on the "free market" are also misguided. Look what happened recently to the British banking and financial sector who have been operating in their own "free market"!

If there is indeed a demand in the borough for this use Lewisham Council has a duty to ensure that the use is provided in a location which is fit for the purpose. I do not believe Manor Avenue is that location.

Bea said...

Anon – I didn’t say it was unsuitable just that it wasn’t near Hilly Fields! It a very pretty name, in my opinion, and far better than your suggestion.

However, it is a little misleading as Tamsin mentioned in a previous post “the one on Hilly Fields”. In fact there isn’t one on Hilly Fields – it’s on Foxberry Road (not far from the Esso station!)

drakefell debaser said...

There is so much vitriol in this thread it’s hard to imagine such a harmless establishment like a nursery is planning to open.

Never mind the benefits of perhaps having another nursery for parents to consider in their local area, the fact jobs are being created and a vacant building being put to good use. No, let’s worry about getting our cars out in the mornings and focus on the all the negative aspects even though for most, the opening times will be when people are at work.

fred vest said...

well said - seems like some people just protest about everything

Anonymous said...

"this is all seeming a bit to generalised and suited to a whimsy generic, gut feel type, argument - i'm wondering if you (or nick) could but some flesh on the bones and point out a few of these people who you are referring about and cross reference evidence of their protests against everything that is going on around them? "

The Ladywell Society; they protest against pretty much every single planning application in Ladywell...

fred vest said...

did the invention of the wheel need to go through lewisham planning department?

JPM said...

BrocSoc is now NOT turning up because it has been assured that the meeting is cancelled. [5.37PM notification).

I'm still going though as I might take those who turn up to the pub.

Unfortunately, Bea, your needs are not going to find much sympathy in Manor Avenue. And your example of Catherine House is hardly comparable.

Manor Avenue, as we are told, already has a social club, a care home (Avalon House), which operates via two houses and has a bus service, two knife sharpening businesses (at Ashby Road), the work units at the back in Ashby Mews, and the Wickham Arms pub. In the morning and afternoon it also has the nearby school traffic. Added to this, there is also the traffic that has been guided this way over recent years by the council reroute plan.

All this increases concerns, which is only natural.

On the subject of childminders though THAT is a provision within SE4 and surrounds that is lacking. But your research, 4 years old now (?), would not show that.

Tamsin said...

Since Bea's research (and sorry to be misleading about Hilly Fields) there are two other day care provisions in the SE4 area - Early Bloomers has re-invented itself with a new name and under totally new (and much better) management on Brockley Cross and there is Oak Hill - opened in October 2006 - nearly in Telegraph Hill but technically SE4 - Wallbutton Road.

Neither of these as far as I know take a deposit to go on the waiting list, Oak Hill takes one when you are are offered a place.

A but if a concern about the actual quality of the child care that will be on offer by what I understand to be a chain operator like Zoom. Also slightly concerned by the effect on genuinely local businesses in the same trade.

I plan to try to get over there for seven-ish. Which end of Manor Avenue is it?

Tom said...

Finally, I've found a group of likeminded people in Brockley which are pro-car and anti-children. I thought I was the only one. I also despise recycling and organic foods.

In these difficult economic times, its important to protect the local economy. I suggest that all children who attend the nursery should be able to prove their Brockley heritage for at least five generations.

Right I'm off to read the Telegraph and complain bitterly about something or other

Anonymous said...

Welcome, Tom :)

Anonymous said...

What the Dickens is going on with this meeting? Is it on or off?

Anonymous said...

Its on but the mung bean society aren't coming.

JPM said...

It is not ON. The council will not hold its own meeting due to BrocSoc not being informed.
I will go to let others know.

Anonymous said...

What a palaver over a nursery.

nobbly brick said...

Sorry, haven't had time to respond - some of us who don't have the pleasure of being a wage slave have to work to earn a bit of money

;)

I can see you've all been having fun without me anyway...

JPM said...

The meeting was cancelled. But 25 people turned up anyway, and so we had a meeting about the lack of a meeting.
One gentleman got all hot under the collar and said I was cynical because I did not trust the council and other things. (He seemed all for the nursery, whilst not being.)
Poor Jan from planning was in the thick of it, but presented himself like the gent he is.
And Tamsin was there..?

Tamsin said...

Yes, poor Jan was really put on the spot - standing in the cold and dark, having to justify council planning procedures (over and over again as more people joined the meeting) and being asked whether he thought the fact that locally elected councillors have to delare and interest and cannot sit on the committee dealing with issues on which they have been lobbied are the reason for apathy around local democracy!

Tamsin said...

The meeting, by the way, is only postponed and all objectors (including those who now do so within the next couple of days) will be notified of the next one.

Bea said...

JPM: Why is my example of Catherine’s House (and Hilly Fields nursery for that matter) hardly comparable? I was using it as a personal example of lack of childcare provision. OK, my experience was back in September 2004 and it would appear that there are some more nurseries open now but I know that this new provision has not satisfied total demand from chatting with my childminder.

Childminders: totally agree with you on that one. There are not enough in SE4! My childminder takes calls every week enquiring whether she can take on more children – and particularly babies, which she will not since she is elderly and she can no longer lift them easily.

Anonymous said...

What happened to idea of workplace creches, that was all the rage a few years back?

JPM said...

Bea, it's hardly comparable with Manor Avenue given the amount of businesses in and surrounding the latter, and the traffic and parking conditions. (I never see cars double parked in Tressillian.)

Also, Catherine House has an established use, as a nursery. If you are advocating change of use of a Victorian property solely by officer delegated powers then lord help the definition Conservation.

60 Manor Avenue, despite what the developer and Council would have you believe is a part-club part-residential unit. (More housing is needed in Brockley, not less, and their position on this is curious to say the least.)

It's a shame that Tamsin was the only BC reader not from Manor Avenue who was prepared to visit the site itself and engage with the issues, albeit in a different manner to myself.

What you really need to do, Bea, is some research. If you go to the documents presented by the developer you will see that some of its client base for its other nursery already comes in from Brockley, which is part Kent. But I suspect you're not interested in the facts. (Which is why I shall now let the matter drop.)

Anonymous said...

@JPM it is not fair to say Bea is not interested in facts. Her comments over time have shown that she is well informed and does research.

@ Bea. I know you are supportive of childcare as you have a child yourself. But don't you think the residents of Manor Avenue, who bought their properties in a residential street, have just concern about a business moving in? I think if it were a different type of business, you may have a different opinion? I am very much of the opinion that if the residents of the street, who have invested in that area through property purchase, do not want a service or business that was not previously established there, then the council should be listening.

Bea said...

JPM:

It is comparable with Manor Avenue given that there IS businesses in and surrounding the area of Catherine House. After all it is on the corner of Harefield Road which is a short walk from Brockley Road. I would argue that the traffic and parking conditions there are worse since it is on a busy cross roads and a bus route. However, I was not using Catherine House as an example for traffic – rather as an example for supply and demand.

Catherine House was founded in 1987 – the conservation area was designated in 1973. Therefore a residential Victorian house was converted into a nursery after the conservation area was established. The “Council seeks to preserve and enhance” the area not set it in aspic. Anyway, I would argue that a new nursery would enhance a building that is part business already (even if it is only very partially residential too i.e. some residential bedsits on the top floor which are not self contained without separate gas, water and electricity supply thereby making them ancillary to the club ).

How do you know Tamsin was the only BC reader there? I don’t suppose people wear badges announcing their allegiance to BC! Furthermore, the meeting was cancelled, was it not? Hardly an incentive to tramp through the snow to get there.

What you really need to do, JPM, is be less condescending. If you go to the documents presented by the developer you will see that it has done some research regarding traffic on its other sites where it claims that the majority of its parents are walking to the nursery (only about 25% use a car), staff arrival and departure times are staggered and only 4 parents would arrive by car at peak period of 18:00. But I suspect you're not interested in the facts. (Which is why I shall now let the matter drop.)

Anonymous said...

What utter nonesense this woman speaks! 'Where it claims' is about the most helpful information she provides. Hopefully she WILL be at the meeting next time.
He probably knew Tamsin was the only BC member there because he recognises his neighbours.

JPM said...

"Our records show that the Brockley Society letter of objection to this application was received and registered and that they were sent an invitation to the meeting."

"Had I been aware of this when the Brockley Society made their last minute objection to the meeting proceeding, I would obviously not have cancelled it."

"The situation now is that the meeting will be re-convened as soon as possible and any resident who did not previously know about the scheme therefore has an additional opportunity to write in." [Jan Mondrzejewski, Lewisham Planning.]

Anonymous said...

Bea is hardly speaking nonsense. Her view may be biased along the lines of 'if it's something that I want, it must be good'; but then isn't that how most people operate?

drakefell debaser said...

On the contrary anon, I think Bea’s argument is quite valid and you would do well to show some manners and not refer to her as ‘this woman’

Another thing, Tamsin lives in Telegraph Hill area.

Anonymous said...

But back in March 2008, Bea said...
"My son attends the nursery at Myatt Garden and is very happy there. The staff are excellent and provide lots of feedback."
Forgive me...?

Brockley Nick said...

Yes, if we can't be civil to eachother, then we'll shut the comments down.

Anonymous said...

Test

JPM said...

Let me just check something here... is this comments page really going to be closed down because Bea, a strong advocate for a nursery - in Manor Avenue - was referred to as 'this woman'? I really must check if 'guy' or 'man' have been used. (Talk about PC gone mad. Carol Thatcher, bring it on.)

Brockley Nick said...

No, it will be closed if we can't maintain a modicum of decency when speaking to one another.

Anonymous said...

Bea has a lot of friends on this site, so it's best you back down JPM or else we all suffer.

Brockley Nick said...

Lordy, it's not a fight and it's nothing to do with Bea. The comments on this thread have been generally very crotchety and it seems to be getting worse.

Make your points but be civil.

State the obvious said...

It occurs to me that all the owners of the club have to do is introduce the type of entertainment proposed at the White Hart - they are probably licenced for this now - and Hey Presto, suddenly a nursery seems a much better option and the opostion melts away .......or not

The Cat Man said...

yeah

Pete said...

It strikes me that this building was already a business (the united services club) and it is only by chance (wilful mismanagement perhaps) that it wasn't more popular or more busy.

I have to say that I have some sympathy with the views of "State the Obvious" on this issue...

JPM said...

Here's a bit of research...

Out of the 25 team meber s who holds posts at the company's other nurseries, 44% use cars.

Out of the 16 team members at its other site 45% use cars. (The data gathered for both was conducted on 10 Nov and 10 Dec.) That's more than twice a day of course.

In the first instance 5 held business parking permits, and in the second two.

I'll study the parent client figures and get back.

State the obvious... it is unliely that any entertainment venture would succeed, though it's eventual use will remain a concern. The 'club' has operated with just ten members, one day of the week. Its Club Certificate is invalid and has been since its 1997 accounts return.

brockley mutha said...

would it make any difference if I told you all that one of the people who started zoom is/was local. They used Catherine House and spotted a gap in the market - the rest is history.

I don't live on Manor avenue, so I don't know anything about the traffic problems on that road. I would say however that there are benefits to more nurseries in the area. There is a shortage of good childcare - all over London - Bea is right. Jump up and down all you like - it's a fact.

good childcare in an area is attractive to housebuyers; it makes an area attractive to families, attractive to people who have both children and .... jobs. That's not a bad thing.

JPM said...

Sorry, Pete, just seen your post.

I'm not sure State the Obv is looking for sympathy. At least I don't think s/he is going to regret the passing of a 'club' that wouldn't have allowed membership to anyone but the Ten.

If I could just correct a common misconception: it was never just a club. It was also a rental accomodation, and those registered there were eventually rehoused by the Council. In other words, as a result of this sale they were made homeless. All of which leads a documentary trail establishing it as a 'residence'. That, together with the 24 membership number needed to qualify for a Club Certificate, makes it not as cut and dry as presented.

Headhunter said...

Thing is that most of the buildings on Manor Ave are 1 or 2 bed flats which attract young, childless 20 or 30 somethings, not families. In fact noisy screaming children all day and people carriers buzzing up and down the street are more likely to cause home prices there to fall....

Simon said...

brockley mutha, what 'facts'. The ones containd in the planning application. They're interesting.
This is what it says;'If there are waiting lists (for nurseries) in the area (Brockley)this implies that either people are not able to work until provision is available.'

No probs there (except for the 'if'), but it goes on to say...
'... or they (parents) are driving further afield to find a place. Neither of these is desirable,' it rightly adds.

But why do you ignore the 'if'? Or why are you running with it as fact? Also, the suggestion that parents are driving 'further afield' from Brockley rather contradicts the claims made. In other words, if they're driving further afield in Brockley they can just as well drive further afield to Brockley. Which as Zoom Nursery states itself, isn't very desirable. And that's a fact.

Anonymous said...

I think prices plummeting in Manor Avenue would rather please some of the posters here. But well found, Simon. Puts a plug in it somewhat.

Bea said...

Anon

My son did attend Myatt Garden nursery for a couple of years and he was dropped off and collected by his childminder.

However, he is older now and this year is in Reception at a different school in Brockley, which his childminder still drops him off at and collects from.

I think you are implying that I am lying, nevertheless, for the benefit of the doubt I’ll leave it as “nonsense”.

State the Obvious said...

Not looking for sympathy just pointing out in a topical and hopefully amusing manner that some alternative uses could be considerably worse than a nursery......

Cynthia Payne anyone? Cars at all times then......

What do the objectors want to see it used as? I haven't seen any suggestions forthcoming.

Anonymous said...

A house, or flats. Need more nice houses.

Brockley Kate said...

Nurseries are one of those businesses which require quite specific types of premises, aren't they? There are lots of empty business units around Brockley but most of them don't seem appropriate for a nursery.
Nurseries often seem to be in converted houses - perhaps for this reason?

JPM said...

Brockley Kate you can read about the council policy on house conversions to nurseries in the council's "Adopted Unitary Development Plan". It's quite sympathetic to such conversions, providing various obstacles can be overcome. Neighbour opposition usually amongst them

brockley mutha said...

@ Simon - I said there is a shortage of good childcare in London.

Operative words - 'GOOD' and 'LONDON'.

You're jumping down my throat without properly reading my post.

I didn't take an aggressive tone, so am rather surprised both at your response and at its tone.

As well as that of the quisling 'anon' who jumped in after you.

brockley mutha said...

Ooh look - facts substantiating the shortage of childcare. This from the daycare trust.

Parents coping with childcare

In total, 69% of FISs said parents had reported a lack of childcare in their area over the past year and 59% of FISs reported insufficient childcare in their area for over 12s.

But before Simon or anyone else starts burst a blood vessel while quoting chapter and verse from the planning application I am still talking about childcare G E N E R A L L Y.

Tamsin said...

If anyone is immediately looking for childcare I noticed as I came back from the non-meeting last night that Early Bloomers on Brockley Cross (really convenient for the station) was advertising vacancies...
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxcare_reports/download/(id)/209846/(as)/EY346159_DC.pdf
Not an exstatic report but it is over a year ago and the base-line the manager was starting from was below zero. She had basically been sold a pub by the previous owners - had just taken over and then received a visit from Ofsted saying they were closing the place down. That it survived at all is a credit to her dedication and skills and it is well worth a visit.

Tamsin said...

Sorry - "ecstatic" (which still looks wrong - Jon we need a spell checker here!) - and "sold a pup".

BM - what area do the FIS stats. refer to?

Simon said...

i see another simon has appeared on this blog since my first comment.

in relation to state the obvious's comments backed up by the cat man; the property's designated planning use dates back to the 1920's i believe - as a social club for ex-servicemen (and the local community). The residential accomodation may have been originally intended for people associated with the club but this is not the case anymore. I know this because i met one of the tenants outside the building before christmas and he said he had no idea the club was being sold until he recieved a notice he had to vacate in a few weeks time and was rather surprised at the situation.

But, getting back to my point, a licence to serve alcohol (which i assume is what The White Hart style entermaint referred to relies upon?) is a separate issue from the designated planning use. The licencing department issues the licence, not the planning department and this is personal to the applicant.

If the owners of no. 60 (or any new owners for that matter)wish to start a White Hart style venture this would have to comply with the designated use of the building and the licence granted by the licencing dept. I doubt very much this would be the case. I also doubt very much the licencing department would be keen to provide a less restrictive licence considering the residential nature of the street. Regardless of this there is a pub 1 minute round the corner anyway - the Wickham Arms.

Is it not a little niaive to take the attitude that there are more contentious (ie White Hart) uses for the building than a nursery and so maybe local people should roll over and let it happen because it could be worse?

I am sure there are others whom will share state the obvious's view and i can understand that.

The point i am making is that a Nursery is not the correct use for the building because of the location and the disruption it will cause to the locality. Manor Avenue will not be able to cope properly with the traffic becasue the street is not wide enough and there is a lack of parking. The residents will have to deal with unfair noise levels and disruption to their street. and perhaps, most importantly this would set a dangerous precedent that commercial uses are acceptable in what is for the most part an entirely residential street.

I think people need to band together and realise that this needs to be addressed - not the fact there are other, worse uses that can be imagined.

nobbly brick said...

I didn't want my 'moral high ground' to float away without an explanation, but I've been struggling to find the time.

I took exception to the second sentence of the second paragraph because i think that you Nick (we) have probably never had any experience of a 'serious' 'local protest group'.

To mount a serious campaign you need to tackle the perceived oppressor on terms that they will find difficult to respond to, you need to find holes in arguments, and often the oppressor (OK, Lewisham Council) will have teams of professional people who sole aim will be to steamroller objectives through and if necessary, change laws, to achieve those aims.

To belittle people who choose to think that some action is important enough to fight for is unworthy of you, and untypical. (I'm not forgetting you use of 'often' either)

I stand to be corrected but I doubt that *anything* that has been raised on this blog has gone any further than a long list of comments and the raising of grievances which are not acted upon.

The issues local to Brockley will be pursued by the Broc Soc or BXAG, (neither of whom seem to enter into to discussions here, I wonder why not) not by a representative of the blog. The blog is merely a self-appointed mouthpiece - and that's not a criticism, but to achieve aims you have to motivate and focus, and these things are way outside the compass, and remit, of this blog.

This isn't me taking a moral high ground, it's me saying that talk is cheap, action requires commitment and courage.

westsider said...

Nobbly Brick that is the longest non-sequitur I have ever read. Completely irrelevent to the original post or the point of this blog. I suggest you try again. And this time address the point.

JPM said...

I don't think I can argue with much of what you've said there Nobbly Brick. There is an actual protest group in Manor Avenue, but not formed as a result or through this blog. And action does require commitment and courage where others rush to condemn.

Anonymous said...

Wow. So the media has no power or influence. Any media's credibility comes from its reach. From what I can see (and I live in lewisham) this is the biggest site in the borough. Click on the stats. You think the council site gets figures like that? You think all the campaign groups in the borough put together do? Get real. The only reason I read or comment on this site is because I know the council.watches what gets said.

Anonymous said...

Anon, do you say that because you actually KNOW that, or are you wearing a tinfoil hat?

Danja said...

I thought all anonymii wore tinfoil hats (and skirts).

Transpontine said...

People are getting a little over-excited about what seems a perfectly reasonable proposal for a nursery. I am afraid parking is a problem everywhere in London, it is hardly an excuse not to have any shops, cafes, schools or public facilities as by definition they attract - shock horror - people. From where I'm looking people in Manor Avenue have it pretty easy in traffic terms compared with most of the other roads going off Brockley Cross which are are much busier. Lewisham has a legal duty under the Childcare Act to support the supply of sufficient childcare and their own childcare sufficiency assessment shows that Brockley has the second lowest number of childcare places per child in the whole of Lewisham. No doubt there are vacancies elsewhere in nurseries but I doubt if there are any vacancies for under-2s places which tend to be very over-subscribed. That nursery that was by Brockley Cross seems to have closed, and I always thought it didn't look a great place for a nursery - the Manor Avenue site seems to offer potential for something more homely and suitable for very young children.

Anonymous said...

Agreed, Transpo

What we're seeing is Nimbyism in action - previously wheeled out during the Portland debate. Legitimate enterprises gets blocked by the mung-bean elite.

oryx said...

A comment from the other end of Brockley but hopefully a relevant one...as an example of people dropping off children, around Stillness school they seem not to just double-park but to triple (or should that be treble?) park, making it a nightmare for anyone else wanting to get through. Maybe I've imagined it, but I think I may also have seen quadruple-parking.

It is, of course, totally out of the question to expect people to walk or push their children to school. ;-)

Tamsin said...

The nursery by Brockley Cross is NOT closed - it is the one with vacancies that I mentioned a few posts back. Although they may not be for very young babies. The previous nursery on the sited with the big banner notices was - I think I can safely say in retrospect - a scandal that the Council and Ofsted were trying to close down for a long time. Early Bloomers, as I said above, is a complete change. At one time they had good signage too, but that seems to have disappeared in the re-vamp of the building.

Thinking about staffing levels I will throw in another fact. Even on the present conservative figure of 64 children - and if these are split about equally between under twos - two to threes - and threes to four (older four and five year olds are an irrelevance - in Lewisham you have to be in the reception class to get a place in the school)- you are going to need 15 in adults in the rooms at all times to function legally - plus a cook and a kitchen assistant - plus cover for popping out to the loo and going to lunch - plus mananger and properly a deputy - plus an admin worker. With a ten hour day the childcare should ideally be done in two shifts and you ought to have permanent floats to ensure that you are always in ratio and so meeting your registration and insurance requirements. Twenty workers absolute minimum, and it ought to be about twenty four or five.

Tamsin said...

The nursery by Brockley Cross is NOT closed - it is the one with vacancies that I mentioned a few posts back. Although they may not be for very young babies. The previous nursery on the sited with the big banner notices was - I think I can safely say in retrospect - a scandal that the Council and Ofsted were trying to close down for a long time. Early Bloomers, as I said above, is a complete change. At one time they had good signage too, but that seems to have disappeared in the re-vamp of the building.

Thinking about staffing levels I will throw in another fact. Even on the present conservative figure of 64 children - and if these are split about equally between under twos - two to threes - and threes to four (older four and five year olds are an irrelevance - in Lewisham you have to be in the reception class to get a place in the school)- you are going to need 15 in adults in the rooms at all times to function legally - plus a cook and a kitchen assistant - plus cover for popping out to the loo and going to lunch - plus mananger and properly a deputy - plus an admin worker. With a ten hour day the childcare should ideally be done in two shifts and you ought to have permanent floats to ensure that you are always in ratio and so meeting your registration and insurance requirements. Twenty workers absolute minimum, and it ought to be about twenty four or five.

Transpontine said...

Agree with encouraging people to walk to school, but just to get things in perspective Stillness school has 550 pupils compared with the 64 proposed in Manor Avenue. Furthermore at schools everyone arrives and departs at exactly the same time, whereas in day nurseries this is not the case. Typically people will drop off at any time between 8 and 9.30 and pick up between 4.30 and 6:00 pm. Assuming half the people drive, that could be as little as one car every two to three minutes (though obviously you might get some bunching). On my road I've just counted 50 vehicles going past in 2 minutes, not untypical in some of the busier local roads in the rush hour.

I also tend to think that traffic/parking is partly self-regulating. If people know there's little hope of finding a parking space in Manor Avenue they are less likely to take a chance on driving there.

JP said...

Or they are more likely to take tha car and park in Geoffrey Road, Ashby Road, and Upper Brockley Road.

What road do you live in by the way, Transpontine?

Manor Avenue can see the same number of cars drive through at peak times too. But I guess that's not your problem.

Thanks Tamsin for the true figures, as we knew all along those presented were doubtful.

Transpontine said...

Tamsin I stand corrected on Early Bloomers - it was the Brockley Cross Day Nursery I was referring to. Early Bloomers is only registered for 10 0-2 places so its main emphasis is on a slightly different age range to the proposed Manor Ave nursery. If the latter does create 25 jobs so much the better. I must say with the present state of the economy it would be a brave person to open a new day nursery and I would be very surprized if it got up to anything like full capacity in the foreseeable future.

You've hinted at having a personal interest - as the Chair of another local nursery - are you concerned about the impact of a new nursery? (I'm not being snide, that would be a reasonable concern).

JP, I don't give out my address online, I'm not saying where I live is necessarily busier than Manor Avenue, my point is with that volume of traffic a few more won't make much difference.

JP said...

Fair enough, Transpotine.

I was interested to read on your own blog that their may be a nursery planned at the Sainssbury's site, and this would seem to us more suitable.

The trouble we are experienceing in Manor Avenue (and I have no problem with people knowing te street I live in) is that we are coming in for a lot of stick by people who will not be troubled by this proposal because they either know the developer, will use the facilty (fine), or live far enough away from it for it not to impact. Human nautre I guess.

And the fact that you mention the difficulty of starting any business in these troubled times means we allow a change of use, but to what end? To see it fail?
Also, it should be stated, regardless of where the person who set this up lives, this is a 'chain' - and this council policy will come to a building near you.

Tamsin said...

Totally reasonable comment. I've an emotional but no financial interest since I am one of the unpaid directors of the independent company limited by guarantee that was set up by LBL to deliver its day care commitments through the Children's Centre that developed out of the Honor Oak Sure start. (In fact, thinking about it, Manor Avenue is outside the catchment area set down in by our Articles of Association which is limited to the old Sure Start area.)

Have an interest in quality of childcare (and an old-fashioned belief that any institutional day care for the very young is second best) and worries for the impact on Early Bloomers who deserve to succeed. (Starting up at about the same time as Oak Hill without any of our benefits from the Council.)

JP said...

But Tamsin, surely you know all these nurseries are 'oversubscribed'?

Anonymous said...

"I was interested to read on your own blog that their may be a nursery planned at the Sainssbury's site, and this would seem to us more suitable."

Why, because the customers will all be parking around New Cross Gate rather than your Manor Avenue mansion?

What absolute bollocks.

Pure NIMBY.

Tamsin said...

Yes, but saturation point will be hit at some level and either a new business will falter and fail or an old one close and as that happens the quality of child care in the institutions concerns would nose-dive. A certain level of over-supscription is what is best for everyone, businesses and children. It is inconvenient for the parents, but the answer to this un-met need is training and registration of child-minders - a much more flexible solution, but one that does require more pro-active involvement on the part of the Council - and investment of officer time and money.

drakefell debaser said...

Sorry Tamsin I don’t understand. Are you saying that fewer nurseries bring better quality child care? Surely the competition brought about by having more nurseries would increase the quality?

JP said...

@Anonymous's bollocks. A NIMBY, and proud to be one. But a slight correction to your jaundiced assumptions. The proposed nursery at Sainsbury's WILL include parking. Traffic already goes to Sainsbury's. Therefore, 2 + 2 equals... everyone is happy.

Transpontine said...

I doubt whether the Sainsburys nursery will ever happen - no provider had been identified, and it will be at least 4 years before any building is completed there. In any event I think it would be serving a different area.

I appreciate that JP and other neighbours are entitled to their views (which do not seem to be unanimous) but there is a broader point that children are part of the community and need to be provided for - schools and nurseries are in residential areas because that's where people live. Brockley Central seem very keen to attract young adults to live in the area, they will have babies and there will need to be more education and childcare places. Inevitably those places will be in areas with traffic and parking issues - unless we stick all our kids on an industrial estate somewhere.

Zoom are not some giant corporate chain but a Lewisham-based group of nurseries (3 so far), who judging by their Ofsted inspections offer a good quality provision - which is by no means universal in the sector. So on balance (and agreeing with Tamsin on the limitations of daycare for young children) I think this would be a positive benefit to the community, for which the residents of Manor Avenue are not being asked to pay a disproportionate price (compared to the many other local residents who have community facilities on their roads). Anyway isn't a nursery less disruptive than a drinking club? Surely most people will be at work when the nursery is operating.

Anon 20.42 said...

No tin foil hats for me thanks. I know because I have worked there in the past - in fact that's the only reason I know about this site. And if you don't trust the word of an anon like me, then you can PROVE it for yourself by clicking on the stats counter at the bottom of the page, which tells you the domains that people using the site are from - look there was someone at 9.42 today from the council who checked the site.

But anyway, the bigger point is that campaign groups basically have two chances of changing things. One is to resort to the law - but very often they have no legal grounds. The other is to mobilise popular opinion and to do this, a good campaign group has to use all the tools at their disposal. This blog (and others in the area) are a very good tool for campaign groups, but there is an obvious reason why many don't use them - which is because on a blog (unlike their own newsletter, leaflets or in a newspaper which loves to unquestioninly highlight the plight of the plucky campaigner) their arguments can be challenged. Some of them aren't COURAGEOUS enough to have their case challenged, so they prefer leaflets, where people who think they're barking just chuck them in the bin.

Fair play to JPM for coming on here and arguing the case.

Anon 20.42 said...

Oh look, go back a bit earlier this morning and they visited the site twice more - one at 8.59 and one at 8.43.

Fair play to them for actually paying attention to what the community is saying. And for getting in before 9 on a Friday ;)

JP said...

@Transpontine... I must question some of your assertions.

"...JP and other neighbours are entitled to their views (which do not seem to be unanimous)..."

Do you mean unanimous to Manor Avenue? I know of only one post (allegedly from a person living opposite) in support. (The only person opposite of that description wrote against the nursery.)

I know children are part of the community (I have one). But so are adults with children and adults without children. And both have a right to determine how their community is shaped. And to peace and quiet.

I am not anti-nursery. And I actually don't understand why you rush to draw the apocalyptic picture of 'our kids' 'on an industrial estate somewhere' instead of questioning a policy of disruption on a street.

I don't much care if Zoom 'are not some giant corporate chain but a Lewisham-based group of nurseries (3 so far).' All that means little to me.

I pointed out in previous posts that this company offers 'good quality provision'. I spoke with one of the woman running it, Sophie, and told her of concerns. I also attempted to make it work by letting her know that land was avalailable (for sale) behind the proposed nursery, which would have allowed for drop-offs and pick-ups.
(Maybe if she can't afford to purchase it the Council can and then lease it. Though I only speak for myself as others may have a problem with that.)

Of course I'm also for business. But that doesn't mean that I want to have Wellbeloved the butcher next door to me.

And why have you not studied the OFSTED reports for the various nurseries that already exist within Brockley (SE4) and nearby codes?

Please point out those that are not of 'good quality'.

And do please let me know which road you live in (not the number) in order that any other business - that can be of 'positive benefit to the community, for which the residents of Manor Avenue are not being asked to pay a disproportionate price' - can be sited in your vicinty.

Do also let me know these other roads that have community facilities that Manor Avenue does not have... (That one shows you have not done your research by the way.)

'Anyway isn't a nursery less disruptive than a drinking club?'

I'll say it again. The 'club' openened one evening a week, and was (?) used by ten people, with some additional invites to residents, which many did not take up. The club had, it is fair to say, pasded its use-by-date. Which is evident in the present sale.

'Surely most people will be at work when the nursery is operating.'

You make the assumption that all carers go out to work or do not work from home. But it's true that the majority will be perhaps returning at the time specified.

However, please do not ignore the issue of change of use too. The club itself is sui generis. Although the Council now likes to class it D2 it is no such thing.

Anonymous said...

.
What a shame JP that you feel the need to make this so personal.

Transpontine has told you very calmly and reasonably that they did not want to say where they live.

Maybe you need to think through why people on this site might wish to be anon, comments like yours are not helpful.

State the obvious said...

Well, I agree with everyting Transpontine says and absolutely nothing that JP does.

I have never come across a more selfish NIMBY and hope I never have to meet him.

So there.......

JP said...

Surely that should be selfish (and unashamed) NIMBY?
[We have already met.]

Tamsin said...

@DD - what I think I was trying to say was that the quality of child care in nurseries struggling to stay open with fewer numbers than they need to make the books balance is likely to suffer. You cut back on the quality of the food, you don't renew equipment, you don't get in agency staff to provide cover which means you cant give staff time out for training or planning or reports but need to keep them in the rooms to maintain ratios.

lll said...

It's all very well referring to people as selfish, but if it was you, your road you'd fight for peace and quiet.

We need to understand both sides.

Tamsin said...

A nursery for children this age is not actually very noisy - unlike a school (and isn't it fascinting how a playground sounds just the same whatever the language) - so it would be "just" the traffic.

JPM said...

Thanks for the support. When it comes to assisting others, I know my credentials are in order. But with State the Obvious (et al)... we know nought.

Bea said...

I think this is a classic case of what Nick describes as the ”reflexive negativity … of people who would have found fault with the invention of fire or the wheel had they been around at the time”.

Despite the objector’s objections being clearly negated by facts:

- there is a desperate requirement for more childcare provision in Brockley

- the amount of traffic this nursery will create is negligible

- the current building is for sale with a business licence (and is not a residence)

The NIMBYS here stick their head in the sand!

I would happily live next door to a nursery as it brings vibrancy to the street.

And for the record – no, I am not about to reveal which street I live on but it is not far from Manor Avenue, it is residential, has a problem with parking and is in the conservation area.

And what is very evident on this thread is that “Rudeness is a weak person's impersonation of strength”.

Anonymous said...

Ickenham nursery school plan U-turn

Earlier this month, Hillingdon Council planning committee approved the change of use of a house on Rectory Way, Ickenham, to be converted into a children's nursery, despite hundreds of objections from residents.

Concerns surrounded the future of their conservation area after the nursery was approved within it.

The decision was originally listed for refusal. Councillors have now accepted that they made an error of judgement in approving the application.

Traffic problems were sited.

The earlier decision to grant was seen as 'a dangerous precedent, and not just for Ickenham.'

One of the reasons the application was recommended for refusal was the conservation area policy, this fact was (initially) ignored by the committee.

Rachel Moore, chairman of the Ickenham Residents Association, said: "The turning of a residential property in the heart of Ickenham into a business is a concern, and we are keen that this does not become a trend."

Members of other residents assocations in Hillingdon were said to be alarmed at the previous approval of the nursery, and said conservationa areas must be respected

Oliver O'Connor, formerly of the Hayes Garden Residents Association, said: "We had a conservation area in Hayes and it died a death because it wasn't enforced. I don't even know if it exists now. These things have to be looked after."

Keep up the fight JPM.

drakefell debaser said...

Thanks Tamsin I now understand what you were referring to.

JPM, why do you have to be so hostile? People that are not on Manor Ave may not be fully sympathetic to the traffic concerns primarily because they don’t live there but, I don’t think you are doing the cause any favours by being so dismissive of other people’s comments. People post a view and you invariably try and give them a blood nose for doing so and in the end people will probably just switch off to this issue altogether. I also think your suggestion to locate the nursery on the roads of those in favour is childish, Brockley is not made of Lego where you can just change things around as you please and I am sure the reason Manor Ave has been sited, is because Manor Ave has the ideal facility available right now.

I agree that it is not ideal for all residents but we have already seen a neighbour of yours say that it is a good thing to which you have accused him of having a hidden interest. Maybe, but all people have an interest to protect and unfortunately they don’t always ride in the same boat as you do.

JP said...

Drakefell Debaser, if you see my defending myself as hostile, then so be it. I come from up north, where we don't make love, we ^*@!

Please provide details of the person in Manor Ave who is in support of this scheme; put up or shut up.

The reason people, as you say, are receiving a bloody nose, is because they want to change my road. I think your attempt to do the same is childish, is in need of challenge, hostile or otherwise, so watch out for that nose.

Anonymous said...

“I live in Manor Avenue almost directly opposite 60 Manor Avenue … Personally, I have no problem with a new nursery there”

David @ 04 February 2009 13:10

drakefell debaser said...

JPM, I grew out of play ground antics many years ago so I am going to leave this to rest now.

Anonymous said...

That's it... David must exist then.
Maybe he's also Joe the Plumber

S the O said...

I'm confused. Are JP and JPM one and the same or two different entities?

Anyway I'm with you DD and off in search of a lighter thread.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 307   Newer› Newest»

Brockley Central Label Cloud