Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My daughter is starting there next week. So I can't give you any thoughts on how it is, but I was very impressed by my visit, and like you say, the Ofsted is outstanding.


Nurseries are very much a personal thing. Ofsted is a good guide, but as long as a nursery is considered Satisfactory/Good, then the rest is down to the feel you get when you visit. When my son went to nursery, I looked at 2 on the same morning. On paper one stood head and shoulders above the rest. When I visited, I went for the one with a lower Ofsted, because the feel and staff were much better.


Book a visit and see what you think. Good luck with it all!

Hi Neilly,


Sorry no personal experience but I do know someone who's toddler goes and who is very happy with it. Not sure if you have been to visit yet but if you ask then I'm sure they can put you in touch with other parents. I know that my nursery offered to put us in touch with parents although we saw the results of a parent survey so could see the positive feedback there and didn't in the end approach other parents. Piplings should be good, I think they are on the more expensive side.

Seedlings in Forest Hill. Am I allowed on the Dulwich forum :-)


Really happy with it. Have to second ladywotlunches point. I thought I would prefer another nursery as from the initial phone calls they seemed more professional. On visiting I preferred the friendlier vibe at Seedlings. Also looked at the older children as I plan for my little one to be there long term, the older kids were chatty and seemed to be having fun which I took as a good sign.


Not sure what age your wee one is but I had my name down since pregnancy, so get in there!


Good Luck

  • 4 months later...

My son has been at the Forest Hill Branch since he was a baby and his now nearly three. We are now moving him to the East Dulwich one. I cannot speak highly enough of Piplings. My son has thrived there and, I know this will sound corny, but I feel when I am dropping him off there that he is going into another little family. I know it is a little move expensise than other places but I have to say the level of care my son recieves and the attention to detail that I see makes it worth every penny. They recently got outstanding in all 17 areas on Ofsted and I am not suprised.


As a man is was also important to me that there was some male presence at the nursary and the three male memebers of staff they have are fantastic, as are the women. Overall it is a very balanced, positve and supportive place.


Ten stars from me.


Laurence J

Very sadly, parents at Piplings Forest Hill been informed this week that it will be closing, due to some legal action by unfriendly neighbours. Places for some of the children have been made available at Piplings East Dulwich, but this will in turn leave less places for the other children in the area.


Although planning permission had been given last year by Lewisham council, there was a restrictive covenant dating from when the houses were built (1938) that forbids most businesses(apart from doctors and solicitors and the like) from being run from the building. A couple of neighbours, backed by the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate Residents Association, took the nursery to court to enforce this restrictive covenant.


Personally I'm very sad that such a fantastic nursery is being forced to closed, and angry and frustrated by the actions of the residents association in supporting a couple of residents in this action, without informing other residents in the area, on which the action has arguably a more detrimental effect.


The crazy thing is that the nursery certainly causes a lot less disturbance that say, a doctor's surgery would in the same place (which would be admissable). This action seems to be very short sighted as the community as a whole will be losing a sorely needed local resource, which is also an outstanding (as confirmed by ofsted), calm and caring place for our local children to attend.


A key objection to the nursery was that there was "no apparent need" in the area. Absolutely crazy, but something that could not be challenged in the courtroom.


There may still be some other options open, but I think it will need a lot of local support. Please feel free to add thoughts here, which I'm sure Piplings will read!! There's also more being said on the SE23 forum on this topic too, if you're interested.

DulwichGirl2 - good question. However the property was the family home for some time before it became a nursery (still is). And the option from Ofsted to have 'childcare on domestic premises' (rather than just childminding) has only been available for a couple of years. Perhaps, when they bought it, they didn't have plans to run a nursery, and these plans changed.


ClareC - indeed, but that also shows that although the covenants are in place for pretty much every property in the Tewskesbury lodge area, not all neighbours have seen fit to enforce it to the letter - mainly because it has become very outdated in our service industry era - its not like we have vehicle body shops, scrap metal merchants and the like opening up, which I think is what the covenants were there to protect against.

We had a covernant like this on our old flat - seem to remember being told the history of them were to prevent homes being turned into houses of ill repute (which I'm guessing could be more disruptive than a nursery!).


The thread on the SE23 forum leaves a bad taste in the mouth as there were obviously residents gunning against the nursery & trying to scare others onto their side from the off :(


Fingers crossed all goes well in ED for them & those families left nursery-less are able to sort out alternate arrangements.


Is there any chance of Piplings appealing?

Did anyone explain to the residents the vast increase in the value of their houses that could result from FH becoming an increasingly desirable area to exactly the people who would use the nursery - respectable, dual income families wishing to send their children to a quality nursery? It seems to me that, rather than attacking the legality etc., the answer here was to explain to the residents that the nursery was in their own interests(!).


This area lives or dies by the families who are attracted to it. The quality of school provision is extremely important and we need to continue to attract families even earlier, ideally at baby stage when they are not thinking about schools. THis nursery, and other similar quality ones, was part of the attraction.


The residents have rather foolishly shot themselves in the foot by failing to understand the shifting dynamics of the local housing market.



Btw, I am not interested in day-care or Piplings nursery in any way. (I am interested in the value of my house, though!)

This issue is not a completely done deal yet, but it?s very, very near. As someone has posted elsewhere this is a shoot yourself in the foot scenario for the community on the hill. The TLERA residents association ?executive? headed by Valerie Ward took it upon themselves to drive this Nursery into the ground from even before day 1 and took it upon themselves to research into Restrictive Covenants and to identify ?someone? who they could use to enforce it ? the ?someone? they eventually found after trawling local Land Titles? dates was the very willing John and Caroline Fossey at No. 3 next door to the Nursery on Liphook Crescent. This is now entirely the Fosseys? legal action ? to destroy the Nursery ? egged on by some very anti-community neighbours and of course, still manipulating behind the scenes, the TLERA executive.


If you care about excellent childcare provision in the area?please?.you really need to stand up and be counted. If you didn?t know what the secretive TLERA have been up to? stand up and be shouting! Many Parents and those we count among our precious friends on the hill (are there more of you out there ? we hope - Please say hello?!) are in tears about the demolition of this quiet gentle Nursery.

L-w-l - All I know about the situation is what I've seen on here & the SE23 thread you linked to, although the tone o the other thread makes me wonder if a brothel would've been more welcome! The covernant on our flat dated back a bit further than 1938 (but only by 30 odd years).


Fingers crossed to Piplings. Can't see the harm in naming those involved in the court action - surely unless there was a super injunction in place the information is in the public domain to anyone interested anyway.

alice - who are these 24 screaming children you refer to? They certainly do not attend my nursery.Why on earth do you assume there are screaming children?


As for its not fair to name people who have objected to a nursery next door - buggie is correct - the Fossey's names, address and their objections are on the public record and have been for almost 2 years.

As a parent from the nursery, AND a local resident, I can vouch for the fact that this nursery is a very calm environment, where children have lots of fun. But one of the key factors in us making our original decision to send our child there was that in the 90 minutes we spent for our introductory visit, we never heard a single tantrum/fight/upset. Of course babies and young children cry, but not all 24 "screaming" at once.


And if you walk past the nursery during the day, you would be hard pressed to know it was there. People who I have spoken to who should know where it is (as they have voiced objections) still don't actually know where on Liphook Crescent they are referring to,

I agree with Buggie, it's all public information anyway.


If the people doing this feel so strongly as to do what they are doing, being identified shouldn't be an issue to them. I would be interested to hear their reasons. Surely some kind of compromise could have been agreed.


Their actions have effected numerous families and Potentially have a knock on effect for the 100 or so other businesses in the area. They are setting a precedent which can be applied to the other businesses. Once they have effectively driven out 100+ businesses from the area, where does that leave Forest Hill?


I don't have children at the nursery but wouldn't have any issue having a nursery for 24 next door. Heber School is @100m from me, has significantly more children yet is barely audible other than playtime. Even then it's barely noticeable and not unpleasant.


I think it's sad this has happened, unnecessary and wonder if it's been thought through fully.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...