Appeal 6001278

The appeal is dismissed.

Reference is made within the Council’s Statement of Case to an application Ref 25/1216/L which was refused on 22 July 2025. This appears to relate to an application for listed building consent. However, the appeal scheme before me (Ref 25/1417/F ) seeks planning permission only. I have proceeded on the basis of determining the appeal on the basis that it is made under s78 TCPA as an appeal against the refusal of planning permission.

The main issues are: i. Whether or not there is a local need for a nursery facility in this location; ii. The effects of the proposal in respect of living conditions, with specific consideration of noise; iii. The effect of the proposal in respect of transport and/or traffic; iv. Whether or not the proposed development would preserve the [name] listed building and/or its setting, and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Woolwich Common Conservation Area, and; v. The effect of the proposal on the [name] (MOL).

The site is located immediately north of [name] at [site address] , Woolwich, London, [postcode] , which currently forms part of the wider [name] (RAB) site. The site extends to approximately 0.36 ha and accommodates a c. 293 sqm (GEA) building. The building is located on sloping terrain and is set over two storeys (lower ground and ground). The building is regular in shape and is accessed from an entrance lobby which is located to the west of the building.

The front elevation faces east and overlooks an area of open space. According to Historic England’s report on the nearby Rotunda, the building was constructed in 1838-9 and was extended to the west in 1852-3. It is located north of [site address] Road, which bends round to the west of the site. The site has its own access route and an area of hardstanding to the south of the building.

An area of green space and amenity space including a play area and Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) are located to the east of the site. There is a residential area located to the north and north east of the site and comprises [name]. The surrounding area is primarily owned and used by the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

The building has been vacant since 2022, with the Appellant having acquired the site in February [address] to operate children nursery. The proposed nursery would cater for approximately 60 children, with 12 full time staff and 4 part time staff. The hours of operation would be Monday to Friday, from 7:30am to 6:30pm.

Policy CH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014) (LPCS) states that the Council will support the development of new and improved community facilities, where there are identified local needs.

Policy S3 of The London Plan 2021 (LP21) states that proposals for education and childcare facilities (to meet demand and offer educational choice) should locate facilities in an area of identified need, in accessible locations with good public transport, walking and cycling links.

The LPCS does not appear to indicate how ‘local need’ should be quantified, and both parties point to a similar evidence base in the form of the Royal Borough of [name] (2024-2025). This report identifies a borough wide projection showing a requirement for 11,807 full-time equivalent places by 2029 compared to current provision of 11,541 places, representing an overall deficit of 266 places.

Within this point, the Council point to the fact that the aggregate figure does not identify the variations across the borough’s four planning areas. Instead, it points to the fact that within the central area (where the appeal proposal is based) there is a projected population decline of 0.4% which in turn suggests a reduction in local demand of 11 places by 2029. However, the Council also acknowledge that the report does acknowledge that there are uncertainties.

At the same time, the Council’s Early Years and [name] have stated that the additional provision would be beneficial to meet the needs arising from residential development in the Woolwich area. Moreover, it is unclear as to why the demand and shortfall within the Borough as a whole – of 266 places - would not benefit from the proposal scheme which would provide circa 60 places, nor how this is not an identified local need.

Accordingly, in meeting a local need as identified by the Royal Borough of [name] (2024-2025) and as supported by the Council’s own [name] and [name], the proposal would accord with Policy CH1 of the LPCS and Policy S3 of the LP21 which seek the aforesaid aims.

Policy DH(b) of the LPCS requires new development to demonstrate that there would be no significant loss of amenity to adjacent or nearby properties by creating an unneighbourly sense of enclosure.

Policy E(a) of the LPCS also states that planning permission will not normally be granted where a proposed development would have a significant adverse effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers or uses, and especially where proposals would be likely to result in the unacceptable emission of noise.

Safeguarding against noise pollution is also covered in part by LP21 Policies D13 and D14, which refer to the need for new noise and other nuisance-generating development proposed close residential uses should put in place measures to mitigate and manage any noise impacts for neighbouring residents and in order to reduce, manage and mitigate noise to improve health and quality of life, residential and other non-aviation development proposals should manage noise.

A short distance to the north of the appeal building are located existing residential dwellings. It is occupiers of these dwellings to which the Council’s concerns relating to noise relate. Similarly, I have focussed my considerations on these dwellings located on the highway called [site address] .

To address the Council’s concerns, the Appellant had acoustics consultants undertake survey work on 30 and 31 July 2025. Following this, a report was issued on 1 August 2025. This report was then updated on 20 October 2025, with the appeal being submitted on 24 October 2025. The report was submitted within the Appellant’s bundle, at [name] at the appeal stage, and was not before the Council at the time it made its decision.

The Council have indicated that the [name] should not be accepted as evidence. However, it is contained within the Appellant’s bundle and it would be remiss of me to not consider it in this case. [name] acknowledge the Council’s point, and consider that it would have been beneficial had it been carried out earlier and submitted with the application – as per the Planning Inspectorate’s expedited written representations procedure now advises from the 1 April 2026. I am also cognisant with the fact that the Council’s own Environmental Health and [name] will not have necessarily had the benefit of reviewing the [name].

Turning to the report, on page 9 of the Report, somewhat surprisingly, there is a plan showing defined area of ‘external play area’. It is unclear as to the source of this Figure 4.1, as no such area is shown in any of the other submitted drawings at the determination stage, nor have any amended drawings been sought by the Appellant to be taken into account. As such it raises questions over the veracity of the acoustics report. This is because it is based on the assumption that external play would only occur in a specific area, yet there are no details as to why external play would only occur in this area rather than any other part of the site.

However, the veracity of the report is not undermined solely by this. [name] 5.1.1, it uses as an evidence base noise measurements of 21 children playing at a similar nursery. Yet the proposal in this case is for a nursery with around 60 places being provided; more than double the noise measurement comparison figure. I note the [name] view that it is unlikely that all 60 children will be outside at one time, except on special occasions.

However, I saw and heard during my site inspection (at around 15:30), that the local area benefits from a reasonably quiet noise environment even taking into account road noise from [address], aircraft noise from London City Airport, and noise from children and teenagers playing on the MUGA/ play area located on [site address] (to the east of the site). Into this, the proposal would introduce, at worse a ‘moderate impact’ as identified within the [name]. Yet the report offers no indication of how such noise impacts could be mitigated, as required by planning policy. Instead, the [name] asserts at paragraph 6.1.8 that ‘...because the nursery is in a conservation area, erecting a close-boarded fence around the play area to reduce noise levels is not permitted.’

In the absence of any mitigation measures being provided or suggested and a lack of clarity on the specific areas within the site that would be external play areas, I find that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the living conditions of nearby occupiers. It therefore conflicts with [name](b) and E(a) of the LPCS and Policies D13 and D14 of the LP21, which, amongst other aims, seek to ensure that developments manage and mitigate noise to improve health and quality of life.

Policy IM4 of the LPCS relates to support for integrated and sustainable transport systems; including that development must not go above the maximum parking standards set out in the London Plan. Policy IM(b) indicates that the Royal Borough is committed to protecting and enhancing footpaths and cycleways, and that new developments should provide for the needs of their users.

Policies T1, T2, T4, T5, T6 and T7 of the LP21 cover similar themes, with them indicating that transport assessments/statements should be submitted with development proposals to ensure that impacts on the capacity of the transport network (including impacts on pedestrians and the cycle network), at the local, network-wide and strategic level, are fully assessed. Transport assessments should focus on embedding the [name] within, and in the vicinity of, new development. These policies also set out car parking requirements; including for disabled persons parking and provision for electric vehicles.

The Appellant submitted a brief [name] at [name] within their Appeal Bundle 3. This is dated 26 September 2025, and was not, therefore before the Council when it determined the scheme. It is noted that the planning policy section contained within the [name] makes no reference to local plan policies and focusses instead on the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The Transport Statement indicates that the building would cater for approximately 60 children, with 12 full time staff and 4 part time staff; and with no external works proposed. However, whilst it refers to the PTAL 4 moderate/good rating there is little evidence within the [name] as to what provision there would be at the proposed nursery in terms of parking. For example, there is no provision for disabled/accessible parking on site, nor is there any demonstration that [name] (EV) charging points would be provided on site.

It would be odd that with 16 members of staff there would be no need at all for parking on the site for staff. Indeed, the Appellant points to the fact that the existing hardstanding on site would be used for drop off and collection only. However, the application form indicates 20 spaces on site and that the total proposed (including spaces retained) is 20; therefore parking is proposed, but no layout details are provided. [name] note that there is an area of hardstanding on site, with an absence of any layout showing the parking arrangements and how vehicles could safely enter and exit the site in order to minimise the risk to children, I cannot be certain whether or not the proposal would have acceptable transport impacts.

I also note that there is no provision for safe and secure cycle parking on the site shown on the submitted drawings. Nor are any details given in terms of pedestrian access. The existing access road from [address]/ [site address] is a single lane with obvious no passing point/layby, nor is there a pedestrian footpath along this access lane.

The Transport Statement indicates that access to the site will be directly from [address], and that the site frontage should ensure safe visible sightlines for drivers entering/exiting, and pedestrian crossing or traffic calming as needed to protect children and parents. It also goes on to indicate that pedestrian routes from adjacent footways must be segregated from vehicular movements within the site where possible.

However, when looking at the submitted Location Plan (date produced 30 April 2025), it is clear that the access to the site (which is defined by the red site line area) is, in fact, achieved off an access road [site address] . I cannot be certain that the enter/exit point [site address] / [site address] – which would be used by both vehicles and pedestrians to access the nursery - and the safety aspects identified within the [name], can realistically be implemented. This is because it is unclear as to what works may be required and/or whether or not they could be implemented (given that they lay outside of the appeal site).

I note that the Appellant point to the use of Planning Conditions or Planning Obligations under s106 TCPA could provide suitable remedy. However, there is not a s106 agreement before me, and therefore as a solution to this matter is a moot point. In terms of conditions, whilst there can be some potential in other cases, it is clear that within the appeal scheme there are areas where conditions could not be reasonably used to try and control (potentially unknown) parties and / or how they use land as this lies outside of the red site line.

I therefore find that the proposal would have an adverse effect in respect of transport matters. Due to the lack of key and important details – such as parking layout, vehicle and pedestrian movements within and into and out of the site, lack of disabled parking provision, lack of EV points, and a lack of safe pedestrian access from the public highway into and out of the site – I find that proposal conflicts with Policies IM4 and IM(b) of the LPCS and with Policies T1, T2, T4, T5, T6 and T7 of the LP21.

I also find that the proposal fails to give priority first to pedestrians and cycle movements, address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility, create places that are safe, and be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles. In doing so, I find that the proposal would not accord with Paragraphs 116 and 117 of the Framework, which set out that development should only be refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptably impact on highway safety.

The appeal building is a [name] listed building ([name] 1078988) named the ‘[name], with the Historic England listing stating the following: ‘Early C19 with alterations. East front of 1 storey and basement, 6 windows. Moderately low pitched, hipped, slate roof with deep eaves. Central pedimented gable. Brick cornice in 2 planes. Multicoloured stock brick. Gauged brick arches to sash windows with glazing bars, all but 2 replaced. Basement plinth. Rear additions containing entrances.’

Its significance derives from its historical association in connection with the nearby military site at Woolwich and from its architectural interest; including those features indicated above. The site is also located within the Woolwich Common Conservation Area. The significance of which in this part is the historical association with the nearby military uses and the various buildings and areas of open space associated with such uses.

In legislation terms, s66(1) of the Planning Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990, as amended (PLBCAA) sets out that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. Similarly, s72(1) of the PLBCAA sets out that to any building or land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

In this case, the proposal would not result in any external alterations to the listed building. The Appellant also points out that their approach to outdoor natural play with no outdoor equipment or fencing. Although it should be noted that the only place the external play area is considered in any detail or definition is within the acoustic report. In any case, it is possible to use reasonable and enforceable planning conditions to prevent the erection or placement of any outdoor play equipment, and in a similar way to prevent the erection of any fences or other similar boundary treatment; even if usually permitted development.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would preserve the setting of the [name] listed building, and it would preserve the appearance of the Woolwich Common Conservation Area. As such, it would not result in anything greater than a neutral impact on either heritage asset. It would therefore accord with policies D3 and HC1 of the LP21, and Policies DH1, DH3, DH(h) and DH(i) of the LPCS, which, amongst other aims, seek to protect the character and setting of conservation areas, and that there is a presumption in favour of the preservation of Listed Buildings.

Policy OS2 of the LPCS set out that MOL will be maintained and its open character protected from inappropriate development. Its sets out that a number of uses are generally appropriate within MOL unless they would result in an adverse change to the character of the land. These uses include public and private open space, open air recreational uses, sports grounds and playing fields, large grounds attached to educational facilities and institutions, and nature conservation.

Policy OS(a) of the LPCS sets out that small scale built development which has a primary function for a purpose ancillary and essential to an appropriate use as stated in Policy OS2 may be permitted providing certain criteria are met. This includes that the design, scale, massing, siting and landscaping of the proposal should relate sensitively to other buildings on the site, to those on adjoining sites and to the character of the surrounding open land, and that the proposal should not be visually intrusive and should have minimal impact upon the nature of the area. It also includes that the proposal shall not result in a significant increase in vehicular traffic to the site and any provision for parking shall not dominate or fragment the site.

As detailed within the [name], no external works are proposed as part of the application. However, as considered within the living conditions and transport sections of this decision letter, there are deficiencies within the submitted information. The lack of these details means that it is not possible to ascertain the potential impact of the proposal in terms of the MOL or the aims which that designation seeks.

For example, whilst Policy OS2 indicates that open air recreational uses are ‘generally appropriate’, it is unclear as to what mitigation would be required for the noise generated by children attending the nursery using the undefined outside areas for play. Furthermore, it is unclear as to why the proposal would not result in a significant increase in vehicle traffic to the site – especially in the absence of footpaths into and out of the site and the lack of facilities such as disabled parking, EV charging and cycle parking. Added to this, is the fact that no layout of the parking or drop off area is provided. Therefore, it is unclear as to the impact on MOL that increased usage may result in.

Accordingly, on the basis of the evidence before me, I can only find that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the MOL. As such, the proposal would conflict with Policies OS2 and OS(a) of the LPCS, which seek the aforesaid aims.

Having carefully considered the appeal proposal, whilst I have found aspects of the adopted LPCS and LP21 that it would accord with, there are other parts where there is clear conflict. In considering the adopted development plan as a whole, I find that the proposal would conflict with it and that there are no material considerations which indicate a decision otherwise than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.