Photographing people is not illegal but photographing children in this manner is distasteful and harrassing as it is being done with that very intention. Photography is never neutral, never just a mechanical activity. It is not a friendly act in this particular instance. It is not just about recording imaginary events and blowing them out of proportion, this is a deliverate attempt to make parents feel uncomfortable about being there.
It is not appropriate. It can be considered an abuse. It is not congruent with safeguarding practice. If people want themselves and their children to be in a newspaper picture then that is done with their consent.There is a considerable difference. The fact that taking photos of children against their parents wishes isnt illegal in this country does not make it right. Parents have a duty to safeguard their children from malicious intent. A photo may be completely innocent in one case, then again it might be taken out of context. It also can be used in situations which might reveals a childs wherebouts, say to an estranged parent who may come after the child, or a child on at risk register. It may be a slight exaggeration but this reminds me of what happened years ago at the Holy Cross School in Belfast where children from the Catholic community had to walk through a Protestant area to get to school amidst considerable vocal and sometimes agressive opposition. I dont think there are hordes of people out in Liphook jeering at arriving parents (as likely as hordes of traffic jams probably) but it does seem to an observer like me that parents and children are having to run some sort of gauntlet to carry out their business.

Why are people recording traffic flow and general goings on at the nursery. It is none of anyones business as the premises has planning permisson. The issue of the covenant is that it exists. That is a legal matter but it has become embroiled and mixed up with further claims of the nursery being disruptive. It is so because the people up there complaining about it are just so adamant that this nursery will go by hook or by crook that they have no ability whatsoever anymore to distingush between both matters and it is so abundantly clear now that there is a real witch hunt going on up there. There is no direct correlation between the covenant and movements at the nursery.

I wonder in the fabulous world of 'what if' scenarios, would someone be doing the same if this business were a solicitors office. Also I wonder if a solicitors office or dr's surgery, despite being named as suitable within the covenant, would actually get planning permission as the traffic and disruption likely to be caused by either use is going to be more intensive than anything produced by Piplings.
In short, I dont think the TLRA would support either of those businesses on the estate for the same reasons as they oppose Piplings with the exception of laughing children. The opposition of the covenant on the basis that its not one of those particular businesses is therefore a complete charade for those reasons. Its hollow and its nasty.