The arguments put forth by objectors seem unfair to me.

Gingernuts has raised "rubbish" and "litter" - this just sounds made up, I don't think there is any issue with the street outside Piplings becoming a tipping ground because it's a nursery. Certainly don't think ofsted would rate an establishment outstanding if it couldn't safely dispose of rubbish.

Staff smoking - Given that the owner asked staff not to smoke, I suspect that it hasn't been an issue for months. (even if it was an issue, surely a minor irritant not a major inconvenience).

Parking - It is a public street, people are allowed to park. There aren't that may children, some will be siblings, some parents will walk. On average probably less parking per day than a doctors or solicitors, perhaps as much as a tutor or music teacher.

Setting a precedent for Sainsbury's on the triangle and the business from hell moving in. There are still planning laws in place to avoid this. On the other hand it appears that a precedence has been set for using the covenant against a business you want to close down. So TLERA say this wont be used against you as long as you aren't causing a nuisance to your neighbours. I think this thread demonstrates how subjective the word "nuisance" is, so here's hoping you haven't annoyed your neighbour if you run a business from home on the estate.

Finally the noise inconvenience to neighbours. This is the only argument I have heard that seems to me to have any potential merit. No one on this thread appears to have heard noise coming from the nursery though. So if the objectors haven't heard the noise, why are they so against the nursery. According to an earlier post neighbours with gardens backing onto the nursery didn't know it existed so it's hardly believable that there is constant screaming coming from the garden.

Here's hoping that common ground can be found between the two parties and I especially hope that means Piplings can stay open.

http://friendsofpiplings.wordpress.com/