Walkthrough: a nursery in a former bank branch

A day nursery in a former bank branch usually needs no planning permission for the change of use itself, because both sit inside Class E. A bank is Class E(c) and a creche or day nursery is Class E(f), and movement between uses within the same class is not development. What the nursery did need permission for was everything else: the outdoor play area, the boundary treatment and the alterations to the shopfront.

This is an illustrative walkthrough of a 42 place nursery in a 1960s bank on a secondary shopping parade, with a rear yard of about 95 m² and a bus stop outside the door. The scheme and the objections are illustrative rather than taken from a real decision.

The use class position and whether permission was needed

The starting point was confirming the lawful use. The building had been a bank since it was built, which placed it in Class E(c)(i) following the 2020 amendment to the Use Classes Order. A day nursery falls in Class E(f). Article 3 of the Order means a change between uses within the same class is not development, so no permission was required for the use.

Three checks before relying on that.

Any Article 4 direction removing the relevant permitted change in that location. There was none here, but direction coverage in secondary centres is worth checking rather than assuming.

Any condition on an earlier permission restricting the use of the building. Banks built in the 1960s sometimes carry a condition limiting use to a named purpose, which overrides the general flexibility of Class E. There was no such condition on this file.

Whether the proposal involved a separate sui generis element, which it did not.

The practical consequence was that the application was for physical works and for the use of the rear yard as an outdoor play area, not for change of use. That framing kept the determination period to eight weeks and narrowed what the council could reasonably assess.

Outdoor play provision on a constrained site

The Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework requires providers to offer daily access to outdoor play, or to take children outside on a daily basis where an outdoor area is not available. It also sets indoor floor area per child: 3.5 m² for children under two, 2.5 m² for two year olds and 2.3 m² for children aged three to five.

The rear yard at 95 m² was enough for staggered outdoor sessions rather than for all 42 children at once. The scheme therefore proposed a timetabled rotation by age group, which became a condition.

Four design moves made the yard workable:

• A soft surfaced play area set away from the shared boundary, with the hard standing for bins and deliveries at the far end
• A 1.8 m close boarded fence to the boundary with the neighbouring yard, upgraded to an acoustic specification on the side facing the flats above the adjoining shop
• Planting along the boundary to soften the fence and shade part of the play area
• A covered canopy along the rear wall, so outdoor access remains possible in wet weather without extending session times

Where no outdoor area at all is available, the application has to explain how daily outdoor access will be achieved, and a vague reference to a nearby park will not satisfy an officer or an inspector.

Drop off and pick up and the highway objection

The highway authority objected on the first consultation, and the objection was the most serious issue in the case.

The parade had no off street parking, two hour limited waiting bays on the frontage and a bus stop immediately outside. The authority's concern was straightforward: 42 children arriving and leaving within a short window, with parents double parking on a bus route.

What answered it, in the end, was evidence rather than assertion.

1. Trip generation drawn from the recognised trip rate database for day nurseries, applied to the proposed number of places, rather than a stated assumption about how many parents would drive.
2. A session structure with staggered start and finish times by age group, spreading arrivals across 45 minutes rather than 15.
3. A drop off management plan with staff on the frontage at peak times, a short stay arrangement agreed with the authority, and a written commitment to review it after six months.
4. Evidence of walking, cycling and bus accessibility, including the catchment within a ten minute walk, which on a parade of this kind is substantial.
5. A travel plan with targets, a named coordinator and a monitoring commitment.

The authority withdrew the objection subject to the management plan and travel plan being secured by condition. Where access and servicing difficulties cannot be designed out, the outcome can be very different, as a retail unit divided into two and the access problem shows.

Noise from children and the assessment approach

Children's play noise is awkward to assess. BS 4142 is directed at sound of an industrial or commercial nature, and the character of children's voices does not sit comfortably within it, so an assessment that applies the standard mechanically tends to be criticised by whichever side it does not favour.

What the acoustician did instead was measure the existing ambient sound at the nearest residential facade over a weekday, predict levels at that facade from the play area at the proposed numbers and separation, and present the two together with the proposed mitigation. The report also set out the hours, the maximum number of children outside at any one time, and the acoustic fence specification.

That approach gave the environmental health officer something to condition, which is what an officer needs. A report that concludes the effect will be acceptable without proposing a control is less useful than one that offers a number.

Two mitigations carried most of the weight. The cap on children outdoors at one time, which was set at 18. And the hours during which the outdoor area could be used, which excluded early mornings and the period after 5pm.

Safeguarding, fencing and boundary treatment

Planning cannot deliver safeguarding outcomes, which are a matter for registration and inspection. What planning controls is the physical boundary, and officers do pay attention to it.

The submitted scheme covered the fence height and specification, gate positions with self closing and self latching hardware, the separation between the play area and the delivery route, and the sight lines from the entrance to the street. Boundary treatment was conditioned to be installed before the use of the outdoor area began, which is standard and sensible.

Overlooking cut both ways here. The flats above the neighbouring shop looked down into the yard, which raised a privacy point for the nursery as well as a noise point for the residents. Planting and the canopy answered part of it, and the remainder was accepted as a feature of a town centre location.

The documents submitted

Short and targeted, with each document answering one consultee:

• A Planning Statement setting out the use class analysis, confirming that permission was not required for the use, and dealing with the policy support for a community facility in a secondary centre
• A noise assessment covering play area noise and any external plant, with the proposed caps and hours
• A transport statement with trip generation, accessibility analysis and the drop off strategy
• A drop off management plan and a travel plan, offered as draft documents for approval by condition
• Drawings showing the outdoor play area, surfacing, fencing, canopy, gates and bin storage
• A short statement on outdoor play provision against the statutory framework requirements

The use class analysis in the Planning Statement did more work than anything else in the pack, because it narrowed the scope of the application. Where a conversion has to argue the merits of the use as well, the evidence set is much larger, as a Class MA conversion refused on natural light illustrates. The full range of supporting documents is listed on the planning report index.

The conditions imposed

The cap on children outdoors was the condition the applicant disliked and the one that made the permission possible. Negotiating the number at application stage, with the acoustic evidence to support it, is far better than accepting a lower figure and applying to vary it later.

Browse the PlanScope report types to see which documents a change of use or alteration application in a town centre typically needs.

This is general guidance rather than legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.