A parent spoke to the meeting about their concerns and listed 4 points:

1. They are not happy with the consultation. Which guidelines did it follow? The parents received no letters consulting them and their invitation to the Council to meet with them got no response until after the consultation period was over.

2. Two of the Council's reason for closing St Johns (in addition to there being no room for expansion) are the poor condition of the building and the pending rent increase. How much consultation with the church and others was there - the parents have seen no correspondence or evidence
of the estimates of the cost of these.

3. St Johns is full while other nurseries are not. Why is the Council shutting this nursery - the arguments for choosing St Johns are not convincing.

4. The Council is not in a position to close the nursery - their decision will be based on conjecture, not fact.

In reply, the officer responsible said that there had been two meetings in March with the staff (who would be redeployed) and there was no requirement to consult with the trade union. The Council had met with the nursery management 4 times. He didn't mention meeting with the
parents.

He said a rent review had been outstanding since 1998 and the building was surveyed in 1999. The capacity could be expanded at Fernbank but not at St Johns - the parents argued here that Fernbank can't expand (I don't understand why expansion is so important when St Johns has 46
places and is full and Fernbank has 29 places, so they are closing the bigger place).

The officer also said that Fernbank is close to SRB schemes (does that make it politically more difficult to close). No other funds for the nursery are available and he indicated that the plan submitted by the nursery is not viable.

The parents said that the report they submitted with proposals to keep the nursery open has not even been shown to councillors - the officer said he had read it. Also, the scale of the rent increase is not known so the decision is not based on fact. There is nothing in the Council's
report about the welfare of the children.

The closure is not included in the Council's Forward Plan but councillors were reassured that they could still go ahead with it. Approximately 200,000 savings need to made from September so there could be no delay. The Council report makes it absolutely clear that the reason for cuts is purely financial and that 'its prime duty is to ensure a balanced budget. It is not possible therefore for members to avoid taking a decision which will result in the required savings being made.'

Councillor Peacock regretted the decision but went ahead and even stated that Labour had saved Hackney from 'swinging cuts' proposed by officers last year! He said the Council had identified 2 nurseries as unsuitable
to become Early Years Excellence Centres (!!?) and one of them had to go.

The Council' report says they will work with parents to offer children places elsewhere and all staff will be relocated. And they will work with a PRIVATE /VOLUNTARY sector provider to develop a nursery on the
site (so it is obviously still needed). They will also work with Fernbank parents to develop a 'robust business plan' - where are the kids in all of this?

There was no debate amongst the Councillors and the report was passed without a formal vote. This is a big reflection on the new structure of decision making whereby there is no opposition on the Cabinet. Taking it to the Scrutiny Committee will test how objective/effective they are.

Parents left saying that they would not give up and what happened to the Labour groups election promises.