Edinburgh Nursery Closures Report March 2011

·EDINBVRGH·
THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL

Item no
Report no
8.1 (b)
c.<i.c(ctol \D-l\\ c't('P
Outcome of the Consultation Process for the

Proposal to close Princess Elizabeth Nursery School
Affecting Prestonfield Primary Nursery Class and Cameron House
Nursery School
The City of Edinburgh Council

10 March 2011
1 Purpose of report
1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise on the outcome of the statutory
consultation exercise in respect of the proposal to close Princess Elizabeth
Nursery School. The report responds to the main issues raised during the
consultation and provides recommendations on how to proceed.
2 Summary
2.1 The Council conducted a statutory consultation in autumn 2010 on a proposal

to close Princess Elizabeth Nursery School. Representations on the proposed
closure were made during the consultation process through deputations to
Committee, by written representations and verbally at the public meeting. The
issues that have been raised by letter or email reflect the main issues that were
raised at the public meeting. The issues raised by respondents are addressed
in detail in the main report.
2.2 The views of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) have been
sought under the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010.
Following visits to Princess Elizabeth Nursery School and to Cameron House
Nursery School and Prestonfield Primary School Nursery Class as the two
proposed receiving nurseries, HMIE concluded that the children affected by the
closure of Princess Elizabeth Nursery School would continue to receive an
appropriate educational experience. The report also advises that clear
arrangements for the transition and support arrangements for children, parents
and staff should be put in place. These issues are addressed in the report.
2.3 After taking account of the representations made and the issues arising, the
Director of Children and Families still considers that the case for closure
substantially outweighs the objections made. The reasons for reaching such a
decision are summarised below:
• Within the Prestonfeld area there are enough spaces to accommodate the
children who currently attend Princess Elizabeth Nursery School as well as
1
space to accommodate a further 10 FTE places should these be required in
the future. There is also additional space within Prestonfield Primary
School to develop additional early years provision should this be required.
• Children will continue to receive an appropriate educational experience

should the decision be taken to close Princess Elizabeth Nursery School.
• Nursery Schools are more expensive to run than nursery classes. Figures
from 09/10 show the average cost of £6,301 per child in Princess Elizabeth
as opposed to £4,765 in Prestonfield Nursery Class. It is possible to
decrease the average cost in Cameron House of £6,367 by moving places
from Princess Elizabeth. Princess Elizabeth has the floor space to be
registered to take up to 24 FTE while Cameron House is registered to take
up to 26 FTE places.
• The closure of Princess Elizabeth would still give parents the choice of
nursery school or nursery class provision within a 500 metre area in the
community.
• Implementation of the proposal would generate £92,511 of annual net

recurring revenue savings and release a building for sale that is
conservatively valued at £150,000.
• The release of the capital receipt from the sale of Princess Elizabeth will
allow investment in the early years estate, including making improvements
at Prestonfield Primary Nursery Class provision.
3 Main report
3.1 The consultation process for the two closure proposals is set out in an
accompanying report on this agenda. A summary of the proposal for Princess
Elizabeth is set out in Appendix 1. Appendix 2 provides a record of the public
meeting held for the Princess Elizabeth Nursery School proposal. The
correspondence received in response to the consultation is laid out in Appendix
3. The report received by HMIE is contained in Appendix 4.
3.2 A total of 7 written representations were received objecting to the proposal.

The Princess Elizabeth Nursery Parents Group submitted a detailed response
objecting to the proposal and this was augmented by a petition that was signed
by 22 parents of children who currently attend Princess Elizabeth.
3.3 Of the remaining submissions, three were from individual parents whose
children currently attend Princess Elizabeth Nursery School and one was
received from George Foulkes MSP, writing on behalf of a constituent.
3.4 There was one submission from a parent of a child who formerly attended
Princess Elizabeth and a submission was also received from a representative
from Strathclyde University who commented positively on Princess Elizabeth as
a training site.
3.5 The following section of the report sets out the main issues raised during the
consultation and the Council's response.
2
Issues Raised
Issue 1: Strategic and demographic
3.6 Parents expressed the view that the proposed closure is inconsistent with the
National emphasis on early years services, as found in the Early Years
Framework, and inconsistent with evidence of the positive impact of standalone
nursery schools on long term outcomes. Particular points made were as
follows:
• There is a projected increase in the birth rate and therefore increased

demand for nursery places is expected.
• The City of Edinburgh Council has restricted the numbers of places

available at Princess Elizabeth Nursery School and also reduced the
number of free full time places available. This has impacted on families and
children who have had English as an additional language.
• The view is expressed that the occupancy level is not low if measured
against the numbers of staff that are allocated to the nursery.
• Research evidence points to the effectiveness of the nursery school setting

with regard to long term outcomes for children.
• Concern is expressed about the impact of the closure on choices for

parents who wish to access the provision in Princess Elizabeth both for
those living in the Preston field community and those who make the choice
from farther away communities. There is a perception that the closure
would result in the Council not meeting its statutory duties.
Council response on the demographic and strategic issues raised
Council's strategy for early years services
3.7 The City of Edinburgh Council published its own Early Years Strategy and
Action Plan in January 2010 demonstrating its continuing commitment to the
provision and development of early years services, and its significant
contribution to achieving positive long term outcomes for children.
3.8 The strategy complements the Scottish Government's National Early Years
Framework, and sets out some of the steps required to meet the changing
needs of children and families. The national and Council's strategies both
identify outcomes to be achieved over a ten year period but their
implementation requires realignment of existing resources.
Projected increase in birth rate
3.9 The Council has a responsibility to respond to the demand for preschool
education on a city wide basis. However, there are areas of the city where
there is an oversupply of places and significant unused spaced. The proposal
to close Princess Elizabeth Nursery School will make more effective use of the
space available in Cameron House Nursery School and at Prestonfield Primary
3
School Nursery Class, and both nurseries would be able to respond to any
increase in likely demand within this locality.
3.10 Should 15 FTE places from Princess Elizabeth be relocated to Cameron House
and Prestonfield Primary Nursery Class, there would remain space for a further
10 FTE places should this be required in the future, and staff allocated
accordingly. There is also more space that could be developed within
Prestonfield Primary Nursery Class should this be required in the future.
Restricting the number of places through low staffing allocations
3.11 The objections made suggest that the staffing within Princess Elizabeth
Nursery School have been kept low and that this has had a negative impact on
capacity and occupancy. However, the Council has a finite number of staff to
be deployed within its nursery schools and classes. Staffing resources are
allocated on an annual basis, following an audit of nursery places to assess
take up and demand. Current staffing capacity at Princess Elizabeth has been
arrived at as a consequence of this audit. In order to keep Princess Elizabeth
viable with minimum staffing, the numbers of staff have been reduced
elsewhere, in spite of evidence of greater demand at other nursery
establishments, including nursery schools.
3.12 Even with the reduction of staff in Princess Elizabeth the nursery has not
operated to its current capacity for the greater part of the academic session.
With the allocation of additional places within Cameron House Nursery School
and Prestonfield Primary School there would be enough places to cater for
existing needs, and for children whose families might request a place at a later
date.
3.13 For any family moving into the City, there is a choice of accessing a place in a
nursery school, nursery class or partner provider and the Council's policy is to
continue to provide this range of provision without using catchment areas to
allocate places. This includes families who are looking for places to support
their university place, a number of whom currently access places in nursery
classes and nursery schools in other parts of the City.
Impact of the reduction of free full time places on allocation to children

with English as an additional language
3.14 The Council only receives government funding for the preschool education
hours to which children have a statutory entitlement, not for free full time
places. In the session 2007/08 the Council was facing a deficit in its budget
and made the decision to review the number and allocation of its free full time
places.
3.15 The criteria used to allocate free full time places was amended to require that
robust evidence could be provided to support the allocation of these places.
They continue to be available to children with English as an additional language
where it is established that their language development is delayed or where
their lack of English significantly affects their ability to access the curriculum.
The effectiveness of the nursery school setting on long term outcomes

for children
4
3.16 Parents refer to evidence citing the effectiveness of nursery school settings on
long term outcomes for children, as opposed to nursery classes and partner
providers. However, the more recent Curriculum for Excellence has resulted in
the development of Personal Learning Plannning for all children by all providers
of preschool education including nursery schools, classes and partner
providers. This provides a focus for individualised child centred planning to
ensure that children are able to achieve the desired outcomes. These are that
they become successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens
and effective contributors.
3.17 Curriculum for Excellence also relies on effective partnerships with parents and
effective transition processes. These build on active learning approaches and
the positive ethos created within early years settings across all sectors.
Curriculum for Excellence provides the framework to promote and develop
these approaches across all stages of education.
Impact on parental choice
3.18 The Parents Group refers to the perceived unfairness of prioritising the views of
parents who have not been able to access places at Prestonfield Primary
School Nursery Class. However this proposal to close Princess Elizabeth is
heavily influenced by the number of places and accommodation available in
this specific area.
3.19 The Standards In Scotland's Schools Act 2000 requires that the Local Authority
will secure places that as far as possible reflect parental preferences and that
any restrictions are justified within clear admissions policies. The Council's
Early Years Admissions Policy clearly states how nursery places should be
prioritised. This is based on children's ages and their entitlement to access
preschool education. Wherever choice is made available the Council cannot
guarantee that a parent's first choice will always be accommodated. However,
it provides the widest choice by not allocating places on a catchment basis.
Issue 2: Impact on Quality and Educational Benefit
3.20 Parents expressed concern that children will experience lesser quality of
provision at Prestonfield Primary School Nursery Class and made specific
reference to the perceived benefits of the small setting on the children's
experience. Points made include the following:
• A comparison was made of the inspection reports received by Prestonfield

Primary School and Princess Elizabeth Nursery School.
• Concern is expressed about children having to access larger settings and

the perceived burden on Prestonfield Primary School and Cameron House
Nursery School in having to increase their numbers.
• Concern expressed about the support available to parents in encouraging

them to take an active role in their children's learning.
• Concern expressed about the emphasis placed on the Princess Elizabeth

building's suitability in the proposal.
5
• HMIE identify the need to support parents and children to ensure a smooth
transition also support staff.
Council response to the quality impact issues raised
Care Commission Inspection Reports
3.21 The proposal to close Princess Elizabeth Nursery School is not a reflection of
the quality of its provision which is confirmed by the Care Commission reports
in 2009 where the nursery achieved an overall grading of 'very good', with
'excellent' grades being awarded to two of the four quality themes being
inspected. The range of experiences available to children who attend Princess
Elizabeth are reflected in the delivery of the curriculum across the nursery
sector.
3.22 The most recent Care Commission inspection that took place in Prestonfield
Primary School Nursery Class in June 2010 awarded grades of 'very good'
against the two quality themes being inspected. However, an 'excellent' grade
was awarded to a specific statement relating to the Quality of Care and
Support theme.
3.23 In the report submitted by HMIE following the consultation and visits to
Prestonfield Primary Nursery Class and Cameron House Nursery School, it
was concluded that the children would continue to receive an appropriate
educational experience, should Princess Elizabeth close.
Impact of larger nursery settings
3.24 A parent expressed concern that alternative provision would not provide the
level of support and care required for a child with additional support needs.
The parent referred to the particular ethos that has been experienced in
Princess Elizabeth and the benefits for the development of the child and the
support experienced by the family. The experience as described is also
evidenced across different nursery settings within the Council, and
demonstrates the special relationships that are developed between parents and
nursery staff.
3.25 The systems that are put in place to support the experiences of children and
their families are in evidence across our nursery settings. These include the
allocation of key workers, the development of Coordinated Support Plans and
Individual Education Plans, as well as the Personal Learning Planning
undertaken for all children. These systems also prove effective for children
who have places in establishments with much larger numbers than are
currently accommodated in Princess Elizabeth, Cameron House or Prestonfield
Primary Nursery Class.
3.26 The HMIE report does not indicate that larger numbers in Cameron House
Nursery School and Prestonfield Primary School Nursery Class would have a
negative impact on children's educational experience should Princess Elizabeth
close.
6
Support available to encourage parental involvement in children's
learning
3.27 Personal Learning Planning is the system that actively encourages parents to
be involved in their learning and is in place across all nursery provision,
including Prestonfield Nursery Class and Cameron House Nursery School.
3.28 Reference is made to the PEEP programme that encourages parents and
children learning together. Staff have been trained across the City to deliver
this programme, and planning is taking place to ensure that this is available to
parents where they might wish to access this programme. The member of staff
currently at Princess Elizabeth is part of this pool of staff and therefore this
experience will not be lost.
3.29 There are a number of programmes in place across the City that encourage
parents and children in their learning and the development of their well being.
Cameron House Nursery School has been participating in the Creating
Confidence programme, and the intention is to develop the knowledge and skill
through development opportunities between Cameron House and other nursery
settings, particularly Prestonfield Nursery Class.
Building suitability
3.30 The Parents Group refers to the comments made in the proposal about the
suitability of the building and the fact that parents value the environment and do
not have problems with the building layout or the stair access to the upper floor
on which the nursery is located.
3.31 When considering the proposal to close Princess Elizabeth the Council took
account of all of the issues, including the size of each nursery. Care
Commission regulations determine that the space available at Princess
Elizabeth can only be registered for 24 FTE places while Cameron House is
registered for 26 FTE and Prestonfield Nursery Class can be registered for 40
FTE.
3.32 While parents are not expressing difficulties about accessing the staircase
entrance, the Council took account of the experience that children have on a
day to day basis including the quality of access to the outside area. Both
Cameron House Nursery School and Prestonfield Primary School Nursery
Class have level access to their outside areas from the nursery classroom.
Support for nursery children and families
3.33 HMIE advise that plans to support parents, children and staff in transition be
put in place should it be decided to close Princess Elizabeth. The Council aims
to minimise any disruption by planning the potential closure at the end of the
academic session. Therefore the transition will affect six children who are
currently attending Princess Elizabeth. Parents would be supported to identify
alternative nurseries and current transition processes that are in place across
all of the Council's early years settings would be used to ensure that children's
needs are identified and continue to be met.
7
3.34 Although the Prestonfield Primary Nursery Class and Cameron House Nursery
School have been identified as receiving schools, parents may choose to enrol
their children in other establishments. Specific transition plans, reflecting the
achievements and needs of the children and families identified by parents and
the staff who know them, would be made regardless of the setting parents
might choose. It is anticipated that this planning would start as soon as the
decision to close is made.
3.35 The children will be moving to environments that are physically larger and able
to accommodate larger numbers of children. However, all of our
establishments are resourced with the required levels of staff and, where
necessary, additional support is available where it has been assessed that the
needs of children require this. Because of the difference in scale it is also
anticipated that a greater number of learning and social opportunities will be
available to the children and their families.
Support for staff
3.36 Senior officers have met regularly with the staff group at Princess Elizabeth to
ensure that they receive up to date information on a face to face basis. It is
envisaged that this will continue. Should the decision be taken to close the
nursery school, the staff will be supported to be placed in appropriate
alternative posts in the Council through the Council's procedures for
redeploying displaced staff members.
Issue 3: Financial questions and issues
3.37 Parents have requested further clarity related to the costs associated with
Princess Elizabeth Nursery School and financial savings that would be
generated by its closure. The following main points were made:
• Clarity requested about the amount of maintenance budget required.
• Clarification sought about the impact of selling hours on nursery costs and
the effect of the increase in numbers on the average costs per child
attributed to Cameron House Nursery School and Prestonfield Primary
School Nursery Class.
• Clarification sought about savings related to staffing costs bearing in mind

staff will be redeployed to other posts in the department.
• Concern expressed about the closing costs and the conservative value
placed on the building
Council Response to the financial questions
Building related costs and savings
3.38 Parents have asked for further clarification related to the savings and costs
associated with the building. The nursery school has a budget of £8,635 within
8
its non staffing costs which is required for the running of the building. This
figure has been factored into the savings that have been identified.
3.39 The £27,000 that has been identified as potential expenditure over the next 5
years is a sum arrived at following an analysis of previous years' requirements
and expected works in the future to ensure the condition of the building is kept
to a reasonable standard. This sum has not been calculated as part of the
overall savings figure of £92,511 but identified as additional expenditure that
need not be prioritised for Princess Elizabeth should it close.
Cost per place
3.40 The average cost per place of a child at Princess Elizabeth is £6301, at
Prestonfield Primary Nursery Class is £4765 and Cameron House Nursery
School is £6367. Should Princess Elizabeth close and additional places be
allocated in the other two school this would result in the average cost of a child
in Prestonfield Primary School Nursery Class reducing to £3,917 and in
Cameron House Nursery School reducing to £5,606.
3.41 The calculation of the cost per place on all of the nursery establishments
reflects the cost of a place provided. It does not take account of the impact of
unfilled places or the effect of selling these spare places. Cost per place
figures would be higher if they were to be calculated based on actual pupil
numbers and significantly higher for those nurseries with a greater proportion of
unfilled places. The income generated from the sale of an unfilled place does
not fully cover the total cost of that place so the sale of unfilled places can only
be seen as a short term solution to managing any surplus places.
Staff savings
3.42 The staffing savings of £83, 876 that apply to the closure of Princess Elizabeth
Nursery School have been calculated on the basis that:
• Additional places will be created in Prestonfield Primary School Nursery

Class and Cameron House Nursery School. Therefore it will be necessary
to transfer the budget required to support these places i.e. enough money to
pay for 1.5 Nursery Nurse posts.
• The savings have been calculated on the basis that the money for other
staff posts that the school budget covers will not be transferred in this way.
However, staff will move to posts that are currently held as vacancies in
other establishments which then results in a saving for the Council, as it
avoids the costs of additional members of staff.
Closure costs
3.43 It is anticipated that the one off closure costs of £20,000 and the security costs
of £700 per month would be short term costs. These would be kept to a
minimum by putting the building on the market as soon as the required decision
making process is complete. While there is a short term impact of these
closing costs, the Council has to take a longer term view of the impact of the
savings.
9
Estimated value of the building
3.44 The longer term view also includes the impact that can be made using the
capital achieved through the sale of the building, which has been estimated as
£150,000, for the purpose of developing and improving other parts of the early
years estate. This includes improvements to be made at Prestonfield Primary
School Nursery Class.
3.45 City Development has advised that the estimate of the likely capital receipt is
based on what they think a property will sell for on the open market. It is
envisaged that Princess Elizabeth would attract interest from people wanting to
convert the building to residential use or demolish the building and redevelop
the site. However, securing funding for projects of this kind is still proving
difficult which has a depressing effect on values. This is the reason for the
perceived low valuation.
4 Financial Implications
Gross Revenue Cost Savings
4.1 Annual revenue savings regarding the proposals have been predicted as set
out below. These are based on the assumption that 13 FTE places will be
made available and therefore will require to be funded from the Princess
Elizabeth budget at the identified receiving schools.
Table 4.1: Gross Predicted Full Year Revenue Savings
""
Revenue Savings £',"
Staff Savings 83,876

Running Cost Savings 8,635
Predicted Savings Full Year (1) 92,511
(1) The predicted savings are calculated based on the 20010/11 school budget.
4.2 There will be costs associated with the closure of the building and maintaining it
securely until its disposal. As detailed in point 3.43 these are estimated as one-
off closure costs of £20,000 and monthly security costs until disposal of £700.
Capital Receipt
4.3 It is proposed that the Princess Elizabeth Nursery School site would be
declared surplus and the site marketed at an appropriate time to ensure that
the maximum possible capital receipt can be generated from the site. The
nursery school site has been valued at £150,000
Capital Investment Required
4.4 It is intended that any capital receipts from the sale of the site are ring fenced
for investment in the early years estate. Work to upgrade the accommodation
10
at Prestonfield Primary Nursery class would take place during the summer
break in 2011 ready for the new academic session starting in August.
4.5 Any capital receipt in excess of the amount required for the works at :
Prestonfield Primary Nursery Class would be used for investment in the wider
early years estate. A decision on how this will be allocated will be taken once
the Princess Elizabeth site is sold.
Funding of Capital Works
4.6 The capital works at Prestonfield Primary Nursery Class will be funded from
slippage in the Children and Families department capital programme. It is
anticipated that the Princess Elizabeth Nursery School site will be soldl by the
2012, the receipt from the sale will therefore repay the departmental capital
budget in the same financial year.
4.7 Should there be a delay in realising the receipt from the sale of the Princess
Elizabeth site and no slippage in the departmental capital programme it is
proposed that prudential borrowing, funded from the revenue savings from
closing the nursery, would be used to fund the capital works until such,time as
a capital receipt is received.
5 Environmental Impact
I
5.1 The proposal to close Princess Elizabeth Nursery School should have la
beneficial environmental impact in that it would result in one less school
building to heat and maintain. There would be a reduction in energy
consumption with less carbon emissions assisting the Council to meet ,its
carbon targets. There is the opportunity to re-use and rationalise furniture,
materials and equipment across the rest of the school estate assisting with
resource use policies. There is spare capacity at Prestonfield Primary Nursery
Class and Cameron House Nursery School that will be used as a direct
consequence of the closure.
6 Conclusions
6.1 There is current over capacity in nursery provision in this part of the City.
Closure of Princess Elizabeth Nursery School would be the most effective way
of reducing capacity, causing minimum disruption for parents and pupils. The
proposals allow for parents to have a choice of alternative nursery provision
within the Prestonfield area and there is potential for further development
should this be required in the future.
6.2 HMIE have concluded that children affected by the closure of Princess
Elizabeth Nursery School would continue to receive an appropriate educational
experience.
6.3 Children will experience continued developments associated with Curriculum

for Excellence and increased opportunities for physical play and learnirg.
6.4 The proposal delivers revenue savings through reducing the number of nursery
school establishments in the city. A capital receipt would be generated which
I
11
would be reinvested to improve and develop the early years estate including
that based at Prestonfield Primary Nursery Class.
7 Recommendations
7.1 It is recommended that:
a) Princess Elizabeth Nursery School is closed at the end of the current

academic session, July 2011.
b) Consultation takes place with parents of children who currently attend
Princess Elizabeth and who will require a further year of preschool
education as to their preferred choice of nursery and transition plans put
in place.
c) Information is provided to parents whose children are currently on the
waiting list for a place at Princess Elizabeth so that they can consider
alternative provision.
d) Approval is given to plan and implement the works to be carried out at
Prestonfield Primary Nursery Class.
e) Princess Elizabeth Nursery School is declared surplus from the end of
the 2010/11 school session and that action be taken to dispose of the
site;
f) The receipt from the sale of the Princess Elizabeth building is ring-
fenced to cover the cost of proposed works at Prestonfield Primary
School Nursery Class with the remaining balance being ring-fenced for
reinvestment into the Children and Families early years estate.
Gillian Tee
Director of Children and Families
Appendices
Appendix 1 Proposals for the Closure of Princess Elizabeth Nursery School, October 2010
Appendix 2 Record of Meeting: Consultation on Proposals to Close Princess Elizabeth Nursery
School, 15 November 2010 in Prestonfield Primary School
Appendix 3 Record of correspondence received in response to public consultation, October 2010
to December 2010
Appendix 4 Report received by HMIE addressing educational aspects of the proposals to close
Princess Elizabeth Nursery School, January 2011
ContactJTel Aileen Mclean, Head of Early Stages
Wards affected 10 - Meadows/Morningside 15 - Southside Newington

16 - Liberton/Gilmerton
12
Single Outcome National Outcome 5 - Our children have the best start in life and are ready to
Agreement succeed
Background Nursery School Estate Review 12 October 2010

Paper
13
·EDINBVRGH·
Appendix 1
Proposals for the Closure of Princess Elizabeth Nursery

School.
Affecting Cameron House Nursery School and Prestonfield Primary
School Nursery Class
1. Introduction & Context
1.1 This consultation paper sets out the rationale and the implications arising in
respect of the proposal to close Princess Elizabeth Nursery School. The paper
also sets out the consultation process and the means and timescales for
making representations.
Format of Consultation Paper

1.2 The consultation paper is divided into the following sections:
1 Introduction & Context

2 The Proposal
3 Princess Elizabeth Nursery School - Case for Closure
4 Proposed Receiving Nurseries
• Cameron House Nursery School
• Prestonfield Primary Nursery Class
5 Education Benefits Statement
6 Financial Considerations
7 Conclusions
8 Public Consultation Process
Appendix 3.1 Location of Proposed Receiving Nursery Schools and Classes

and Partner Provider Nurseries
Rationalisation of the Nursery School Estate

1.3 The growing pressures on the Council's budget at a time of financial constraint
make it imperative to achieve best value. The Children and Families
Department must ensure that nursery places are matched as efficiently as
possible to demand. The City's nursery age population is expected to increase
in forthcoming years but this increase is not expected to be uniform across the
City and there will remain pockets with too many nursery places
1.4 The Department has undertaken a Nursery School Estate Review of the 16
standalone nursery schools to identify where excess capacity could be removed
and a copy is attached as Appendix 1 to the main report. Based on the findings
of this review it is now proposed to consult on the closure of two nursery
schools which includes Princess Elizabeth Nursery School. The other nursery
school proposed for closure is High School Yards.
Nursery School Capacity
1.5 In the consultation paper reference is made to the building capacity of the
nursery, the number of nursery places that are made available through staffing
allocations and the number of children (the roll) that attend the nursery.
1.6 Reference is made to the composition of nursery places which can be full-time
(FT) or part-time (PT). Part-time places may be morning (am) and afternoon
(pm). For comparative purposes, nursery places are also counted as full-time
equivalents (FTE). A nursery can apply flexibility in the provision of part-time
and full-time places to reflect demand and to utilise the staffing levels that have
been made.
Parental Considerations
1.7 While the proposals make re-provision at other council run nurseries, parents
may exercise parental choice and seek a place at an alternative location or with
a partner provider subject to the normal constraints of spaces being available.
1.8 Other than specific cases where the council arranges for the transportation of
pupils, the responsibility for ensuring the safety of children on the journey
between home and nursery school rests with the parents or guardians.
Making Representations
1.9 Comments on this paper should be submitted at the latest by close of business
on Tuesday, 7 December 2010 to either of the addresses set out in Section 8
of this paper. A public meeting detailed in Section 8, will be held as follows:
1.10 A public meeting detailed in Section 8, will be held as follows:

Venue Date Time
Prestonfield Primary School To be agreed 7 pm-9 pm
2. The Proposal
2.1 The proposal is that:
- 2-
2.2 Parents also have the choice of applying to any other nursery provider in the
City..
2.3 Maintaining the status quo, and keeping Princess Elizabeth Nursery School
open, is not specifically given as an option, but the Council could ultimately
decide on this course of action should it so wish.
3. Princess Elizabeth Nursery School- Case for _._"... _.
Location
3.1 The nursery is located in the Prestonfield area of the city and Appendix 3.1
identifies the proposed receiving nurseries and other council run nurseries and
partner provider nurseries in the area. This shows that there are a considerable
number of nursery providers in this sector of the city.
Nursery School Capacity and School Roll

3.2 The building capacity of Princess Elizabeth is 24 FTE places and the roll has
sat around the low twenties since 2006
3.3 Staffing provision for 2010/11 is made for 24 children and the roll at August
2010 was 20 pupils (see Table 3.1). Additional part time places have been
provided from full time provision to match demand.
Table 3.1: Provision of Places at Princess Elizabeth Nursery School
Suitability Assessment - Princess Elizabeth Nursery

3.4 The nursery is located on the upper floor of a two storey building and provides
one small classroom accessed from external stairs. A NHS clinic formerly
occupied the ground floor but it is now vacant. There is a large secure outdoor
play area but access from the nursery is via the external stairs. Taking the issue
of the external stairs into account and the limited facilities, suitability has been
rated poor (Grade D).
Building Condition and Previous Works

3.5 A survey carried out in 2009 rated the nursery as having an overall condition '8'
- performing adequately but showing minor deterioration consistent with its
construction date and use. Over the last five years, there has been no recorded
spend on building works.
Future Building Investment and Public Accessibility

3.6 Repair and maintenance needs over the next five years are estimated as being
over £27,000. However, due to limited budget availability, identified works would
be restricted to those repairs required to keep the property wind and watertight
and to ensure health and safety.
- 3-
3.7 It is estimated that a further £17,000 is required to improve public access to the
nursery.
Operational Costs
3.8 The two main costs of running a nursery school are staffing costs and service
costs (such as rates, heating and lighting). The 2009/10 average cost per place
(FTE) for each of the proposed closing and receiving nurseries is given below.
Princess Elizabeth as with Cameron House Nursery has high average costs. If
Princess Elizabeth closed, increased nursery provision at Cameron House
would lower the average cost.
Proposed Closing Nursery

Princess Elizabeth Nursery School £6,301 per place
Receiving Schools:
Cameron House Nursery School £6,367 per place
Prestonfield Primary Nursery Class £4,765 per place
Community Considerations
3.9 The Nursery School building does not have any out of hours community use so
there is minimal impact on local community provision. The nearby Prestonfield
Primary School provides a strong community focus and there are other
community facilities in the area such as Cameron House Community Centre.
• The nursery . is situated on< an

stairs;
• Access from the nursery to the outdoor play area is also

stairs;
-4-
4A. Proposed Receiving Nursery - Cameron House
Location
4.1 Cameron House Nursery School is located in the Prestonfield area of the city
and Appendix 1 provides a map showing its location relative to Princess
Elizabeth Nursery. The distance between the two nurseries is slightly over 200
metres.

4.2 The building capacity of Cameron House Nursery is 26 FTE places. Staffing
provision in 2010/11 is made for 26 children and the roll at August 2010 was 23
pupils (see Table 4.1). Additional part time places have been provided from full
time provision to match demand.
Table 4.1: Provision of Places at Cameron House Nursery School
Building
Nursery Provision of Places
Capacity
School Part Full
(FTE)
Time Time FTE
Cameron House 26 10 16 21 17
Nursery Suitability Assessment

4.3 This nursery school is a single storey building with one nursery class. There are
changing facilities in the children's toilets. The nursery class opens on to a
verandah with easy access to a secure outdoor play area. The nursery also has
access to the facilities in the new Cameron House Community Centre.
Suitability has been rated good (Grade S).

4.4 A survey carried out in 2009 rated the nursery as having an overall condition'S'
- performing adequately but showing minor deterioration consistent with its
construction date and use.

4.5 Repair and maintenance needs over the next five years are estimated as being
over £9,000. However, due to limited budget availability, identified works would
be restricted to those repairs required to keep the property wind and watertight
and to ensure health and safety.
4.6 It is estimated that around a further £7,000 is required to improve public access
to the nursery. A prioritised city wide programme of improvement will be
undertaken as funding becomes available.
Location
4.7 Prestonfield Primary School Nursery Class is located in the Prestonfield area of
the city and the map in Appendix 1 shows its location relative to Princess
- 5-
Elizabeth Nursery. The distance between the two nurseries is less than 500
metres.

4.8 The building capacity of Prestonfield is 40 full-time places (or 80 part-time
places). Staffing provision for 2010/11 is made for 28 children and the roll at
August 2010 was 28 as shown in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Provision of Places at Prestonfield PS Nursery Class
Provision of Places
Building
Nursery 2010/11
Capacity
Class Full
(FTE)
Time Time FTE
Prestonfield 40 20 8 18 20 8 18
Nursery Suitability Assessment

4.9 The single storey primary school is built round a central courtyard. The nursery
occupies two classrooms at one corner of the building, with nearby toilets.
There is an outdoor play area and an access control system in place. Suitability
has been rated good (Grade 8).

4.10 A survey carried out in 2009 rated the school and nursery class as having an
overall condition '8' - performing adequately but showing minor deterioration
consistent with its construction date and use. Future maintenance to the school
as a whole includes redecoration and replacement windows.

4.11 There is no separate information available on the breakdown of works that are
required to the nursery class.
5; Educational. Benefits Statement
Introduction
5.1 This section considers the implications of closure and the educational benefits
that would flow from this proposal. In assessing potential implications,
assumptions are made that children would transfer as proposed, but in practice
parental choice will affect the eventual nursery composition. The underlying
assumptions are also used to assess staffing requirements, to show that the
proposals are deliverable and to determine potential net savings based on the
revised nursery school and class organisations.
The likely effects of the Closure of Princess Elizabeth Nursery School
Pupils at Affected Nursery School and Nursery Class
5.2 It is proposed that the children at Princess Elizabeth Nursery School will attend
either Cameron House Nursery or Prestonfield Primary School Nursery.
-6-
5.3 In making alternative staffing allocations should Princess Elizabeth close, the
Council is proposing to make re-provision for 15 FTE places (see Table 5.1). It
is the intention that any child who meets the criteria for additional hours as
determined by the Early Years Admissions policy will receive this level of
service.
Table 5.1: Existing and Planned Provision at Princess Elizabeth
Proposed for Allocated Places Current Roll r i

closure forAuQ 2010 Re~pro
Princess Elizabeth 20 FTE 14.5 FTE 15 TE
Impact on Receiving Nursery School - Cameron House Nursery

5.4 Should Princess Elizabeth close, it is proposed to provide an additional 10 part
time places at Cameron House Nursery School (see Table 5.2).
Table 5.2: Planned Provision at Cameron House Nursery
Cameran House Nursery . . . Full

Tim~
• Part •.•. .FTE
Capacity is 26 Places (FTE) Time
Provision made for 2010/11 10 16 21
Proposed provision 2011/12 20 16 26
Impact on Receiving Nursery School- Prestonfield PS Nursery Class

5.5 It is also proposed to make re-provision at Prestonfield Primary School Nursery
Class which has a building capacity of 40 FTE places. Provision in 2010/11 is
currently made for 10 part time and 8 full time pupils.
5.6 Should Princess Elizabeth close, an extra 10 part time places are proposed
both in the morning and afternoon (see Table 5.3). This still leaves surplus
capacity for future growth if needed.
Table 5.3: Planned Provision at Prestonfield Primary School Nursery
18
28
Other users of the school's facilities

5.7 Princess Elizabeth Nursery School is only used as a nursery and no after
schools use is made of the building.
Children who would be likely to become pupils of the school

5.8 As nursery schools do not have local catchment areas, and there are a number
of alternative nurseries in the vicinity, the impact of closure should not
significantly affect younger children in the neighbourhood that will be attending
nursery school in the next few years.
Children attending other nursery schools and nursery classes in the

council area
5.9 In a time of severe budget pressure, the Council believes it can make savings
by running fewer nursery schools and operating the remaining nurseries more
efficiently. Closing Princess Elizabeth Nursery School is expected to bring
annual savings of approximately £92,500 and the proposed closure of a second
-7-
nursery school is expected to realise further savings of over £106,000. If
savings are to be made without closing nursery schools it would result in less
funding for each nursery, which could adversely affect the education of the
children across the council area.
5.10 There is surplus capacity at the identified receiving nurseries without the need
for any building works. Princess Elizabeth Nursery School and the proposed
receiving nurseries are all "B" rated in terms of building condition so there is no
disadvantage with regard to the build quality and decoration.
5.11 It is proposed to increase the number of nursery staff at the receiving schools to
meet the nationally applied staffing standards for nursery classes and nursery
schools as set out in the proposed staffing structures shown in Tables 5.2 and
5.3. These standards require one adult per 10 children (if part time) or a 1 to 8
ratio if there are full-time pupils.
Other likely effects of the proposal

5.12 A number of children that attend Princess Elizabeth Nursery do not have
English as their first language and additional language support will be made
available as necessary to help parents with the transition if the proposals are
approved. Additional support that any child currently receives would follow them
to their new nursery.
The educational benefits from implementation of the proposal

5.13 Savings will be made on the cost of running and maintaining the nursery school
and staff savings will arise from the reduction in teaching staff. These proposals
will contribute to the savings required from the Early Years budgets in the 2011-
12 financial year.
5.14 Princess Elizabeth Nursery School is rated "poor" in term of suitability due to its
upper floor location and access to the outdoor play area via external stairs. The
two proposed receiving nurseries are rated "good" and provide accommodation
that is better suited for nursery use.
5.15 A nursery class within a primary school offers benefits in terms of an easier
transition to primary school for those children that stay on to attend Prestonfield
Primary School. Nursery pupils at Prestonfield also have the opportunity to
access facilities at the school on a timetabled basis such as the gym and
computer facilities.
5.16 Because of the cluster of nurseries in the immediate area, provision of places
has been restricted at Prestonfield although there has been parental pressure
for creation of more places. The closure of Princess Elizabeth allows for such
extra provision.
5.17 There are no up to date joint HMIEI Care Commission reports for the proposed
closing or receiving nursery schools. Shown below in Table 5.3 are more recent
Care Commission Assessments for each nursery. Under their evaluation criteria
all three nurseries are generally rated very good or excellent.
-8-
Table 5.3: Care Commission Assessments
Nursery Report Quality of Quality of Quality of Qualitj•. mf·

School or Date Care and Environment Staffing Management
Class Support and,
leadership)
Princess March 09 Excellent Excellent Very Good Very Good
Elizabeth
Cameron Feb09 Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent
House
Prestonfield Nov08 Very Good Good Very Good Very Good
PS Nursery
How the Council intends to minimise or avoid any adverse effects

5.18 It is expected that the main disruption arising from the proposed closure will be
the change of nursery for those affected children and their parents/guardians.
However, with a planned closure at the summer holidays it means that many
nursery children would be transferring onto primary school and this will reduce
the numbers that are affected. It is envisaged that 6 of the children currently
attending Princess Elizabeth Nursery will require places in alternative nurseries.
5.19 Should Council approve the proposal to close Princess Elizabeth Nursery
School, support will be given to both parents and pupils in the transfer to a new
nursery and to facilitate the assimilation of the children with other nursery
children. There will be discussion with parents in respect of the preferred
receiving nursery school and what other options are available.
5.20 The provision of alternative nursery places in such close proximity should
ensure that the closure and transfer process runs smoothly and that the
education of the children is not adversely affected by the proposals.
6. Financial Considerations
6.1 The potential annual net savings from the closure of Princess Elizabeth Nursery
School are set out below. The staffing savings assume the redeployment of
existing staff to the receiving nurseries or elsewhere in the school estate
wherever possible.
Potential Savings from the closure of Princess Elizabeth nursery school

• Staffing savings £83,876
• Service cost savings £08,635
• Total savings £92,511
Proposed Works, Redevelopment and Potential Capital Receipts

6.2 There is no specific capital work required to deliver the proposal. If Princess
Elizabeth Nursery School closes it is proposed to sell the land and building
which have been valued at £150,000.
-9-
6.3 One off costs associated with closing the building (e.g. boarding up/utility
disconnections/ removals are estimated to be around £20,000. Ongoing security
costs prior to sale are estimated to be approximately £700 per month.
6.4 It is proposed, subject to a council decision, that any funding raised from selling
the site and building would be reinvested into upgrading Children and Families
buildings.
7. Conclusions
7.1 There is a strong case for closing Princess Elizabeth Nursery School and
making re-provision elsewhere and the main reasons are set out below.
• The nursery is located on the upper floor of a two storey

there is no direct access to the nursery playground;
• The roll of 20 children is the second /owestln the city;
• Staffing provision is proposed. for an extra 15 FTE Ulaflitt.
House and Prestonfield nurseries;
- 10-
Staffing Implications and Parent Liaison
7.2 If the proposal is approved, there will be ongoing liaison with staff and parents
to ensure a smooth transition and to minimise any disruption. It is Council policy
to seek suitable alternative employment for those staff that will be affected by
the proposals.
8. Public Consultation Process
8.1 It is proposed to close Princess Elizabeth Nursery School in July 2011. On

return from the summer holidays in August, those children continuing with their
nursery education would attend their receiving nursery - or an alternative choice
depending on parental preference. This section expands upon the public
consultation process relating to the proposal.
8.2 The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 sets out the statutory
consultation requirements for the closure of Princess Elizabeth Nursery School
and the statutory consultees include the following:
1. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education (HMIE);

2. the Parent Council or combined Parent Council of any affected school;
3. the parents of the pupils at any affected school;
4. the parents of any children expected to attend any of the affected nurseries;
5. the staff at any affected school and trade union representatives; and
6. affected community councils.
8.3 Other than Princess Elizabeth Nursery School, the affected schools are deemed
to be Cameron House Nursery School and Prestonfield Primary School.
8.4 The consultation period for the proposals paper will run for over six weeks from
26 October to 7 December 2010 and the paper will be made available
electronically and in paper format. A public meeting will be held in respect of the
proposals at the venue listed below. Free childcare and/or translation services
can be provided at the public meeting if requests for these services are made to
(0131) 469 3161.
Venue Date Time

Prestonfield Primary To be agreed 7.00-9.00 pm
School
8.5 At the end of the consultation period, the Council will send HMIE relevant
documentation on the consultation process. Thereafter HMIE will prepare a
report on the educational aspects of the proposal which the Council must take
into account in preparing the final consultation report.
8.6 HMIE is required to prepare a report on the educational aspects of the relevant
proposal and must submit this report to the Council within three weeks (or
longer if agreed). The Council must then take account of the HMIE's report in
preparing the final consultation report.
- 11 -
B.7 The consultation report will be made publicly available and notification will be
given to those individuals or groups that have made representations during the
consultation period. The report will include a summary of written representations
received during the consultation period and representations made at the public
meeting along with the Council response to representations made.
B.B The Council must wait three weeks from date of publication of the consultation
report before making a decision on whether to approve the proposals either in
whole or in part. It is anticipated that the consultation report will be presented to
a meeting of The City of Edinburgh Council on 10 March 2011 setting out
recommendations.
B.9 The Council website, www.edinburgh.gov.uklcfpropertyreview will contain

information on the consultation. During the consultation period, any views on
this proposal should be sent in writing to the address given below. Responses
can also be made bye-mail to cf.propertyreview@edinburgh.gov.uk. All
responses to the consultation paper should be received by Tuesday 7
December and addressed to the Director of Children and Families.
Gillian Tee
Director of Children and Families
City of Edinburgh Council
Council Headquarters
Waverley Court,
Level 1:2,
4 East Market Street
Edinburgh EHB BBG
- 12 -
Appendix 2
·EDINBVRGH·
Item no
Record of Meeting
Consultation Meeting on Proposals to Close

Princess Elizabeth Nursery School
Edinburgh, 15 November 2010
Present:- Councillor MacLaren (Convener, Education, Children and Families

Committee), Tom Wood (Chair) and approximately 20 members of the public.
In Attendance:- Susan Brown (Client Services Group Leader, Asset Management,

City Development), Eve Lyon (Quality Improvement Officer, Children and Families),
Aileen Mclean (Head of Early Years, Children and Families), Jane Ramage (Early
Years and Childcare Manager, Children and Families) and Gillian Tee (Director of
Children and Families).
The Education, Children and Families Committee had agreed at its meeting on
12 October 2010 to undertake consultations on proposals to close High School Yards
and Princess Elizabeth Nursery Schools.
Introduction
Tom Wood welcomed members of the public and officers to the statutory consultation
meeting on the proposed closure of Princess Elizabeth Nursery School. He
described his role as independent chair of the consultation meeting. He explained
that he intended to encourage a full dialogue, to ensure that all the relevant issues
were covered and that the questions were answered by the Department of Children
and Families.
Convener's Statement
Councillor MacLaren explained that this consultation on the proposed closure of

Princess Elizabeth Nursery was an important issue. She then thanked those in
attendance for coming to the meeting and indicated that she wanted to hear people's
views. These consultations could be difficult meetings as people had strong feelings
about the issue. The proposals were not designed to undercut support needs, rather
the motivating factor was the very difficult financial situation. There would be an
announcement from the Scottish Government soon. It was anticipated that there
would be huge reductions in the budget and it was necessary to use available
funding wisely. There were costs involved in retaining a half-empty nursery.
2

15 November 2010
Presentation
Aileen Mclean, Children and Families, set the context for the proposed closure of
Princess Elizabeth Nursery School. There was growing pressure on budgets with
further cuts in public expenditure expected. A review of the early years estate had
identified an inefficient use of buildings and spare physical capacity within City
Centre nursery provision. Two nursery schools had been identified for consultation
on proposed closures.
Focussing specifically on Princess Elizabeth Nursery School, the building capacity

was for 24 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) places and it was currently staffed to provide
21 FTE places. 14.5 FTE places were currently being used. There was capacity in
other nurseries within a 400 metre radius to accommodate the children currently in
attendance at Princess Elizabeth Nursery School.
Princess Elizabeth Nursery School had had a low roll in recent years. The average
cost per pupil was £6300 compared to an average city cost of £3500 per pupil. The
small nursery site did not meet current requirements. There was a large secure
outdoor play area but access from the nursery was via the external stairs. Taking the
issue of the external stairs into account and the limited facilities, suitability had been
assessed as poor. An assessment of the building condition had shown a potential
requirement to spend £27,000 on maintenance over the next five years.
The Department's proposal was that children would be offered places at Prestonfield
Primary School Nursery Class and Cameron House Nursery School. Any capital
receipt from Princess Elizabeth Nursery School could be used to enhance the early
years estate including that at the nursery class at Prestonfield Primary.
Details were provided of the consultation process. The consultation period would run
until 7 December 2010. A report would be presented to the Council meeting on 10
March 2011 where a decision would be made on the future of Princess Elizabeth
Nursery School. Should a decision be made to close the Nursery School there would
be a further period required for consideration by Scottish Ministers.
Questions/Comments
Q1 What was the main reason for the proposed closure of Princess Elizabeth
Nursery School?
Answer 1
The main reason was that there were more places than children in the area
incorporating Princess Elizabeth Nursery School, Cameron House Nursery
School and Prestonfield Primary Nursery School Class. There was staffing
provision for 24 FTE places at Princess Elizabeth Nursery, but the roll in August
2010 was 20. Also, there were three nurseries within 400 metres and only
3

15 November 2010
enough children to fill two nurseries. Moreover, only seven children would
return to the nursery in August 2011. It was possible to accommodate these
children in the two receiving nurseries, which were both of good quality and
provided parental choice. These were difficult financial times and a net saving
of £92,500 per annum could be saved from the closure. The potential capital
receipts from the sale of the Princess Elizabeth building could be reinvested in
the early years estate.
Q2 Attempts had been made by the Council to close this nursery before. It had
been stated that there were only twenty children, however would there not be
seven more children attending the nursery next year? Additionally, past
experience showed that more children went on to the school role in December.
Was it not therefore possible that by June 2011 there would be 24 children on
the roll?
Answer 2
It was true that there might be seven more children on the roll in August 2011,
however, there were only 62 children needing places in the area, with 105
places available in the three nurseries. Even if this nursery was closed, there
would still be more places than children and this had been the case for a period
of time.
Q3 Reference was made to the situation of the nursery on the upper floor and
access by external stairs. For parents this was not an issue and they thought
that it was safe enough compared to the other nurseries. The nursery was 80
years old and did it not give a good education to children provided by very good
staff?
Answer 3
There was no doubt about the commitment of the staff and quality of provision
at Princess Elizabeth, there were simply too many places available. It had to be
decided which nursery to close and it was necessary to use the building that
had easiest access to an outside play area. Also, the children would have more
choice in the new set-up. The Department was aware of the age of the building
and the quality of the garden at Princess Elizabeth was appreciated, however,
the strength of the nursery was the staff, not the building itself and the staff
would have the opportunity to continue to provide a good quality of education if
they were relocated to the receiving schools.
Q4 To what extent were the building and the stairs an issue at the nursery?
Q5 There might be problems with access at the two receiving nurseries. Sometimes
there were problems with access for children's buggies at Princess Elizabeth
because of the stairs as some parents had to leave their buggies in the street.
4

15 November 2010
Answers 4 and 5
The two receiving nurseries also had lovely gardens without the problem of
stairs that existed at Princess Elizabeth. The stairs were a consideration, but
were not really the main issue, which was overcapacity.
Q6 Did the Education Minister not say that "small was better" and was this not the
case with Princess Elizabeth?
Answer 6
It was necessary to consider the entire situation. What was small and
affordable had to be considered. Cameron House was a small nursery but not
as small as Princess Elizabeth. It would not be possible to close either of the
other nurseries and accommodate the children into Princess Elizabeth Nursery.
Q7 Looking at the assessments by the Care Commission at the two receiving

nurseries, would there not be a reduction in the quality of the environment and a
reduction in the assessment from from "excellent" at Princess Elizabeth nursery
to "very good" at other nurseries. Would this not result in a reduction in the
overall quality of education?
Q8 If there was overcapacity, how could the children coming to Princess Elizabeth
Nursery from outwith the catchment area be accounted for?
Q9 How could parental choice, which was outlined in the proposals, be planned
for?
Answers 7, 8 and 9
The alternative nurseries being offered were still of a very high standard and the
assessment by the Care Commission were still "very good". Additionally,
Prestonfield had recently received a better appraisal from HMIE than the
previous inspection. It received "excellent" for some of the points in the recent
appraisal. Regarding planning for places outwith the catchment area, this was
a complicated process. It had to be determined how the nursery had been used
and also how many children were on the list. In respect of the children from
outwith the area, these children were accounted for on the waiting list. The
authority knew that some of the children were not from the catchment area,
however these children could still be accommodated.
It was explained that all of nursery provision was of a very high quality and this
included the two receiving nurseries. Ensuring quality was part of the
consultation process
Q10 Would any of the money freed-up by the sale of the building be retained by the
Department of Children and Families?
5

15 November 2010
Answer 10
Potential capital receipts would be re-invested into the early years estate, which
would include the nursery class at Prestonfield.
Q11 Councillor Burgess indicated that he had been fortunate to visit Princess
Elizabeth Nursery and confirmed that the quality of the provision was excellent.
However, some of the parents were concerned about quality when the children
moved to the receiving nurseries. Reference was made to the assessment of
the Care Commission. In respect of quality indicators, Princess Elizabeth
Nursery scored excellent, but at Prestonfield, the quality of the environment and
parental support was not as good. This caused concern. It should therefore be
ensured that standards were as good at Prestonfield. To ensure this, could
some of the funds freed up by the sale of the Princess Elizabeth be invested to
improve Prestonfield?
Answer 11
There were two main areas regarding the inspection at Prestonfield in June
2010. These were the Quality of Care and Support, which had received an
"excellent" and the Quality of the Environment, which had received a "very
good". Moreover, it was hoped that the money recouped from the capital
receipts would be used to help further improve Prestonfield.
Q12 Councillor Burgess asked did this not demonstrate that the Quality of the
Environment remained lower at Prestonfield than at the Princess Elizabeth
Nursery? Should the authority not therefore invest in the quality of the
environment at Prestonfield to bring it up to standard?
Answer 12
The nursery at Prestonfield was following an improvement plan and there was
confidence that the children would receive a good education at that nursery.
Q13 What about the quality of education? From the figures in the assessment,
Princess Elizabeth Nursery scored "very good" to "excellent", whereas
Prestonfield scored "good" to "very good". Also, how could the same quality of
education be delivered if more children were going to Prestonfield in the future?
Q14 What about the safety and wellbeing of children going to Prestonfield? The
older children might accidentally hurt the younger children in the more
overcrowded environment.
6

15 November 2010
Answers 13 and 14
There was every confidence about the quality and care of education at
Presonfield. Regarding the parents who wanted a "stand alone" nursery, there
were 26 places at Cameron House. This demonstrated that parental choice
existed as the children could either go to Cameron House or Prestonfield. The
Department was required to ensure that these two nurseries would be available
and provide a good quality of education. The condition of Prestonfield itself
illustrated the shortage of money. The Council could not even afford to
maintain the paintwork. It was necessary to find the funding from somewhere
and this could be found through efficiency savings. The reality was that this
was a difficult financial situation that had to be addressed. Regarding the
playground at Prestonfield and the safety issue, the nursery had its own play
area and the nursery children did not play with other children. Also, there were
other facilities at Prestonfield to create a good play area.
Q15 Parents were aware of the difficult financial situation and the policy of the
government. However, the Princess Elizabeth Nursery had strong support from
parents. How many full-time places were available and what was the ratio of
full-time to part-time places?
Answer 15
There was provision for 16 full-time and 8 part-time places. Parents were
"buying" additional hours at present for four morning children, however, this was
not a large number and the places could be made available. It was difficult to
predict what the relocation of full-time and part-time places would be. If there
were additional children at Prestonfield, the necessary staff would be provided.
This ratio was outlined in the report by the Director of Children and Families and
was laid down by the Care Commission and the City of Edinburgh Council.
Q16 Regarding the possible savings, if the Princess Elizabeth nursery closed then
the money would be used to refurbish other schools, therefore where would the
savings come from?
Q17 Two years ago the Council had proposed to close certain primary schools which
included Cameron House. After the proposed closure of the Princess Elizabeth
Nursery had the Council plans to close Cameron House as well?
Answers 16 and 17
There would be savings from staffing costs and it would be possible to avoid
planned expenditure on the building. It would not be possible to refurbish the
other nurseries wholesale, but some of the capital receipts from the sale of the
building could be reinvested in the early years estate. The Council was looking
at reinvesting in other schools. Regarding the concerns about the possible
7

15 November 2010
closure of Cameron House, the proposals required the retention of the two
receiving nurseries, which ruled out the closure of that establishment.
Q18 This was 80 th anniversary of the Princess Elizabeth Nursery and it was in
reasonably good condition. There had been two attempts to close the nursery
three times. Was this therefore "third time lucky"?
Answer 18
The overall condition of the building was "condition 8", which meant that the
building was performing adequately, but showing minor deterioration consistent
with its construction date and use. In respect of the stairs, there would be an
estimated £17,000 required simply to improve public access. Other
expenditures were also required.
Q19 Regarding the accessibility of stairs, what would £17,000 be used for and what
would the £27,000 be used for?
Q20 Could further clarification be given for the £17,000 spend and the £27,000
spend and where did the figures come from?
Answers 19 and 20
The £17,000 would be required to improve public access to the nursery. This
would include items such as external lighting, directional information and
emergency exits. The £27,000 was required to maintain the building over the
next five years. Identified works would be prioritised to those repairs required to
keep the property wind and watertight and to ensure health and safety. To
provide clarification, the £27,000 estimate was quite separate from the £17,000
access estimate. These estimates were based on a condition assessment from
the surveyors.
Q21 Many parents who sent their children to Princess Elizabeth Nursery were from
other areas of Edinburgh. The nursery had a good reputation for teaching
English as a second language. Some children who could previously not speak
any English could now speak good English, which was due to the nursery
teaching English as a second language. The staff were clearly skilled in this
area therefore would these skills be equalled at the two receiving nurseries in
future?
Answer 21
It was true that the nursery had long experience of dealing with English as a
second language, but, so did Cameron House and Prestonfield. Any children
requiring support would receive it.
8

15 November 2010
Q22 What would happen to the staff at Princess Elizabeth Nursery School if it
closed?
Q23 It was claimed that money would be saved by cutting staff, but how could this
be the case if the staff were going to the other nurseries?
Q24 Was there a plan to redeploy the staff in the two receiving schools?
Q25 Were there more full-time places available at the two receiving schools?
Answers 22, 23, 24 and 25
The staff at Princess Elizabeth would be redeployed in other early years

establishments, places were available in the two receiving nursery schools and
the staff would be given a choice and their experience would not be lost.
Regarding the potential savings, not all the staff at the nursery would be
required at the two other schools, such as the Head Teacher and the clerical
support staff. Stand alone buildings needed additional staff. In respect of the
possible placement of staff, if there was an increase in the number of children in
those establishments, it would be necessary to redeploy the staff. However, the
staff would have to be consulted. Regarding full-time places, there was not the
take-up of all the full-time places at the two receiving schools. It was planned to
retain the current number of full-time places at these establishments. There
had been greater demand for part-time places and there was greater number of
these available. Therefore 24 FTE places would be retained.
Councillor Perry emphasised that if the parents did not agree with the proposals
they should give their views to the four Councillors present.
Councillor Gordon Mackenzie thanked the people for attending the meeting. He
indicated that his oldest son had attended Princess Elizabeth Nursery he knew
it was a good nursery.
Q26 The 16 full-time and 8 part-time places at Princess Elizabeth Nursery were
referred to. It was claimed that the average cost for a full-time place was
£6,301. However, this was incorrect as the figures calculated a full-time
place as two places rather than one. Could it be clarified if a full-time place
counted as one or two places when calculating average cost?
Q27 A member of the public indicated that their daughter attended the nursery.
Some parents paid three hours per day to get extra hours. Was it not therefore
unfair that parents had to make a payment to buy a full-time space?
Q28 If the whole of the full-time cost was counted, would not the cost be different?
9

15 November 2010
Answers 26, 27 and 28
The Council had calculated full-time places as one rather than two. If full-time
places had to be provided additional funding from the Council would be
required. The cost was based on the Full-Time Equivalent, it was as if there
were two children and the authority was comparing like for like. Because the
nursery was not actually full, it had spare spaces and the actual cost was higher
than the official figures.
Q29 Was it not the case that the report by the Director of Children and Families did
not seem to account for the money paid in by parents to the nursery?
Q30 How was income and cost calculated?
Answers 29 and 30
It was not the case that the report by the Director of Children and Families
ignored the money paid in by parents. Keeping children in a small nursery was
an expensive option and was more expensive than in the report. It should be
remembered that the two receiving nursery schools had spare capacity and it
was not cost-effective to have children in a stand-alone nursery.
Q31 It cost over £6,300 per child at Princess Elizabeth Nursery which was only
£1,500 extra per child extra compared to Prestonfield, but for that the parents
were receiving good quality of provision. Additionally, as there was not at
present a Head Teacher in paid employment, did this not mean less cost?
Additionally, why not let children start at the age of three in nurseries across the
City?
Q32 The expensive option of private nursery provision was referred to. There was a
massive difference in quality in private nursery provision compared to state
nurseries. In Princess Elizabeth Nursery the parents were lucky that there was
a small number of children.
Answers 31 and 32
Princess Elizabeth Nursery did not have a Head Teacher but it did have an
appointed Full-Time Principal Teacher which allowed a small saving to be
made. But it was only a temporary solution. The costs were lower at the
receiving nursery schools and this had to be considered. Financial pressures
meant that the Council had to close one nursery school. Referring to the
question of allowing children to start nursery school on their third birthday, this
was possible in this area because there was overcapacity, but this was not the
case in other parts of the city. Parents here were being given a choice. The
Department was not accounting for parents putting children into private
nurseries. A member of the public had indicated that they were not happy with
10

15 November 2010
the quality of provision in the private nurseries. Provision was being made for
children at Prestonfield, which had a good nursery.
Q33 Why was Cameron House not under threat of closure?
Q34 Princess Elizabeth Nursery had been under threat of closure for a
considerable number of years and 27 years ago there was a campaign against
closure. If a child had any problems then it was recognised very quickly.
Moreover, children came from other catchment areas to be educated. Was it
not the case that the children would get a lower quality of education at the other
two receiving schools?
Answers 33 and 34
It was explained that Cameron House had been proposed for closure a few
years ago. The high quality of educational provision at Princess Elizabeth
nursery was not disputed. This perception was reinforced whenever there were
proposals to close the nursery as the parents were clearly concerned and
fought to keep the nursery open.
Q35 Would the children be able to move to Prestonfield with a member of staff?
Additionally, how many of the staff would still have jobs?
Q36 Why had Cameron House been threatened with closure in the past?
Answers 35 and 36
All staff would be redeployed but it could not be guaranteed at this stage that
members of staff would move with children to the receiving schools. There
would have to be discussion with the staff to give them a choice and to
provide reassurance. The threat of closure for Cameron House came about
because it had previously been anticipated that there would be provision for all
the children at Prestonfield.
Q37 A recent survey of 3-4 year olds confirmed that independent nursery schools
gave a better service than those attached to primary schools. Should this not
be a consideration?
Answer 37
The study was open to interpretation. The quality of staff made the difference
to service provision and all of the staff at the three nurseries were qualified.
Referring to the perceived benefits of independent nurseries, Cameron House
was a "stand alone" nursery and this gave more parental choice than in most of
the City.
11

15 November 2010
Q38 When had closures of nurseries taken place previously?
Q39 How could it be guaranteed that it would be successful?
Q40 Were the projected savings made on this occasion?
Answers 38, 39 and 40
Regarding previous closures, the Council had not actually closed nurseries
before. In respect of ensuring success, a transition program would be put in
place. The closure of Burdiehouse provided a successful example of a closure
and the savings which had been made. Moverover projected savings from this
closure had been exceeded and the children had settled really well.
Q41 If the nursery closed down, this would represent a big loss to community. What
would happen to the building?
Answer 41
The nursery would be put on open market for sale, but it was difficult to predict
what would then happen to it. This was dependant on what the Planning
Department would allow on the site. The nursery might be developed as
domestic accommodation.
Q42 Reference was made to the possible number and value of the flats.
could it be guaranteed that the capital receipts would be put in to education?
Q43 Was the valuation of the building and the land at £150,000 not an excessively
low figure to ask? It seemed to undermine the whole reason in support of
closure and re-provision. Should the authority not therefore try to get as much
as possible? Additionally, how could there be over £90,000 savings if the staff
were employed elsewhere?
Answers 42 and 43
There would possibly be a limited number of dwellings and their valuation would
depend on the usage of the site. The Council would attempt to get the
maximum amount from the sale of the building and potential capital receipts
would be reinvested in the early years estate. The apparent low price being
asked for the building and land reflected an assessment made of its current
market value at this point. It was necessary not to overstate the value in the
current market. Regarding the redeployment of staff, not all the staff would be
redeployed and some would go into "real" vacancies. This represented a
redistribution of staff.
Q44 From 2007 onwards, some parents had not put their name down for the
nursery, because of proposed the closure and this insecurity had contributed to
12

15 November 2010
the falling numbers. Had not the Council therefore engineered the whole
scenario?
Answer 44
Even if parents had not put their children's names down for the nursery, their
children were still receiving pre-school education in a nursery place. This
demonstrated the Council's capacity to give all children a nursery place. It was
not the intention of the Council to engineer a scenario to close the nursery, but
rather to use resources in the most efficient way.
There had been much discussion in respect of choice. It was very clear that
providing choice for some restricted it for others. The Council had to limit the
number of places available, to make sure that establishments stayed viable.
Tom Wood thanked everyone for their questions. This was not the end of the
process and people had until 7 December 2010 to make submissions. He had
identified a number of key issues, notably:
• Princess Elizabeth Nursery was much loved by parents.

• There was good service at the nursery and very high standards.
• There was the issue of capacity at the school.
• The question of why some other nursery was not being closed.
• There was concern that the children would not receive the same quality of
education at the two receiving nurseries.
• There were concerns about safety.
• The question of this being merely a cost-cutting exercise.
• The issue of good value being achieved by selling this building.
• Ensuring that the building should be sold for the highest price.
W2IChild&Fam/CMPENS151110/CE
Appendix 3
Princess Elizabeth Nursery Parents Group

clo Princess Elizabeth Nursery School
14 Clearburn Crescent
Edinburgh
1 0 QEt 2010 EH165ER
Dem' Gillian Tees c'1s

Re: Proposal to close Princess Elizabeth Nursery School
271h November 2010
We are writing to inform you that the parents of children attending Princess Elizabeth
Nursery School are opposed to its closure.
At the outset. we would like to dispel the myth that our opposition to closure of the
nursery is based on sentimental grounds. Rather the opposition is based on the high
quality pre-school education which the nursery provides which we believe should
continue to be made available to future generations.
We are aware that there are colossal budgetary pressures upon the Children and
families department. However, we do not find the arguments in favour of closing the
nursery substantial enough to warrant its closure. OUI' comments and queries relating
to the proposal document are presented below.
The projected savings are not as substantial as the proposal suggests:
-Main savings are to be made are through staff costs ...however. most of the staff will
be re-deployed elsewhere so such savings will be minor (Le. much less than £84k as
this will only relate to those staff who are made redundant).
-There are projected building repairs mld maintenance costs of £27k
The building is very solid and has been wind and watertight for the past five years (as
proven by the nil spend on building works over the previous 5 years- section 3.5 of
proposal document).
In the unlikely case that there were any pressing works (proposal states that due to
limited budget availability, identified works would be restricted to those repairs
l'equired to keep the property wind and watertight and to ensure health and safety-
section 3.6 of proposal document). then the £20k that would need to be made
available for the one-off costs associated with closing the building (section 6.3. of
proposal document) would surely covet these works.
-It is estimated that a further £l7k is requil'ed to improve public access to the building
Can this be clarified? At the public meeting, we were informed that this constituted
such things as signage within the nursery (why would laminated paper sheets not
suffice?); emergency exiting (surely already in place for health and safety reasons?);
accessible toilet.
Could the most pressing items not be covered within the £20k budgeted for closing
down the building?
- Service cost savings of £8,635
We presume this means heating and lighting etc.
However, section 6.3 of the proposal states that the ongoing security costs prior to
sale of the premises are estimated to be approx. £700 per month. Given the current
economic climate and property market, this cost could be ongoing for the
unforeseeable future.
The Children and Families Department Revenue Budget monitoring 2010/11 month
six position reported in November 2010 clearly indicated existing budgetary pressures
resulting from recurring security and utility costs relating to current surplus sites
which already estimated at around £200k.
Would it be wise to add to these spiralling costs in the current climate?
By avoiding this un-necessary expense and keeping the nursery open, the £700 per
month which would have been spent on security costs would virtually pay the
monthly service costs of the nursery.
-Capital receipts from sale
The land and buildings have been valued by the estates depruiment at £150,000
(section 6.2 of the proposal). Given that this is a sturdy~ two storey building (with the
equivalent of 12 rooms) which is located on a substantial piece of land, we dispute
this valuation and request proof or an independent external valuation be performed.
We are sure that if the nursery property were sold on the open market (e.g. via ESPC),
it would not sell for less than £400,000. A two bedroom flat adjacent to the nUl'sery is
valued in excess of £100,000.
Why would the cash-strapped Children and Families department be willing to sell the
land and buildings for offers around £150,OOO?
Given that the main reason given for closure of the nursery is financial constraints,
this would ulldem1ine the whole basis for closure. In addition, it would amount to
underselling city assets and thus depriving the city of Edinburgh residents twice over.
Firstly by de-commissioning a first-class nursery establishment and secondly by
underselling the assets.
Realistically, there are not large savings to be made. In terms of debts, we could sell
off every school in this country and our country would be no better off :financially
(feel fi'ee to prove this to be untrue). But as an uneducated society, we would be very
poor indeed.
We would like to know what the NET financial benefits of closing the nursery
actually are and ask if this a sum worthy of depriving future generations of the high
standard of pre-school education that this llursery provides?
In addition, can you clarify the cost ofthjs whole consultatiOll exercise?
Proposal states that PENS only has a roll of 20 children however the nursery is not
significantly under-occupied as is suggested
- The building capacity of the nursery is for 24 children (FTE)

-Staffing provision is only made for 20 children (FTE)
-20 children currently attend PENS. 2 more children will begin nursery in January
followed by a further 2 children in April. Thus occupancy in the mornings will then
be 100% according to staffmg allocations.
-Staffmg allocations for the afternoon session allow for 16 children and the occupancy
varies between 57-80%.
Thus. the nursery is currently working at 80% occupancy in the mornings and upto
80% occupancy in the afternoons. School closures have historically been undertaken
where occupancy has been well below 50%.
With the changing demo graphics there is increasing demand for early years provision.
particularly within council-run establishments. Therefore, would it not make sense to
preserve existing nursery school provision rather than contract the service?
Proposal states the nursery roll has been below 25 over the last 5 yrs
-This does not reflect the role of the department in exerting a downward pressure on
numbers through
i) a reduction in staff numbers which consequently limited the number places
ii) changes to early years admission policy which redtlced the number of children
obtaining full~time places:
A numbel' of children attending PENS presently and historically have had English as
an additional language. Previously children were able to qualify for full time places
for their EAL needs but criteria changed after 2007, This is detrimental in itself, as
language difficulties which persist beyond the early years will impact negatively all
their attainment
Hi) repeated threats of closure projecting the image that the future of the nursery was
uncertain. This detelTed parents from registering their children at the nursery:
One parent of a child here at PENS was not aware that PENS was to remain open
following the 2007 closure attempt and elU'olled School
nursery class. When she learned that the nursery was still operational, she
immediately transferred her child to PENS in 2009, l'egardless of the fact that this was
during the academic year. Having experienced the nursery provision at both PSNC
and PENS, she states that the provision at PENS is far superior.
Similarly, we are aware of parents who are avoiding placing their children on the
current waiting list for fear of closure.
Would the department deny that the three actions listed here were carried out?
-In addition, these numbers (roll below 25) do not take into account that there are and
have always been parents who buy additional hours for their children. This must
surely skew the figures (including costs per pupil) because these 'empty' places are
generating money for the depmtment.
Proposal states that the average cost per pupil is amongst the highest in the city
The difference in average cost per place at PENS compared with PSNC is around
£1,500 according to the figures provided in section 3.8 of the proposal. A comparison
of costs between PENS and CRNS shows them to be equivalent.
It has been stated in the proposal that increased provision at CHNS would lower the
average cost. How much would the projected average cost per place then be?
Similarly, how much would the projected average cost per place at PSNC be
following increased provision?
The care commission evaluation of PENS rated the nursery excellent both in terms of
quality of care and support and the quality of the environment However, evaluation
of PSNC shows this nursery has not achieved the same level in standards. Given that
PENS is a higher quality establishment than PSNC, the extra cost per place at that
establishment should be justified.
Children are the future and the Scottish government is itself conllnitted to increasing
the number of p('e-school centres receiving positive inspection reports. The reasoning
behind this national indicator is given on the government website as such:
'It is well-documented that good quality pre-school education enhances children's
development. The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) study has
shown that high quality pl'e-school experiences lead to better intellectual and
sociallbehavioul'al development and that disadvantaged children benefit significantly
from good quality pre-school experiences. There are, however, significant differences
between pre-school providers, and research shows that the quality of provision makes
a significant difference to outcomes for children.'
Independent nursery schools such as PENS were scored. as being higher quality
providers of pre-school education more often than nursery classes within pl'imary
schools.
Many parents of children ·attending PENS (and of those who have done in the past)
would testify to the significant diffel"ence that this high quality provision has made to
their children's developmental outcomes. In terms of the national indicator then,
Princess Elizabeth Nursery provides a high quality pre-school experience for the
children and is already in receipt of positive inspection reports. Rather than closing
such establishments, these should be heralded as centres of excellence in prc-school
education all.d provide a reference point for other preRschool establishments.
HMIE guidance indicates: •Where services are being reorganised, care should be
taken not to weaken existing, effective provision, such as that found most often in
nursery schools with teacher involvement, which are providing high-quality nursery
education.'
What evidence can you provide to demonstrate that closing PENS, which is an
effective provider of good quality pre-school education, does not weaken existing
provision on a city-wide level (given that there are no local catchments for nurseries)?
Proposed staffing provision for an extra 15FTE places at eHNS and PSNC
Despite maintaining staff:child ratios, how would the department ensure that extra
places would not place a greater burden on the standard of the pre-school experience
provided by eRNS and PSNC?
This is a particular concern for PSNC given that they have not been able to attain the
standards awarded to PENS and CHNS despite operating at 45% of the building
occupancy (2010111 provision capped at 18FTE out of an available 40FTE).
As the proposal states, there would still be spare capacity for future growth.
There is concern that a near 50% increase in provision at PSNC (from 18FTE to
28FTE places) would place a burden on the establishment making it difficult for them
to maintain current standards let alone exceed them to meet those attained by PENS
and Cl-INS.
What procedures will ensure that standards are maintained at the proposed receiving
schools?
Given that the demand upon early years provision is increasing, what procedures will
ensure that PSNC improves upon current standards, becoming a more effective
provider of pre-school education and thus capable of expansion to the fun capacity
without detriment as and when required?
Proposal states that there is parental preference to increase provision at PSNC

rather than provide places at PENS
While this reflects a survey of PSNC parents, it is unfair to pJace these parents wishes
ahead of the wishes of the parents whose children attend PENS.
Has there been some sort of referendum on this which PENS parents were not
informed about? How many PS parents have exerted pressure in this matter?
Does the pressure we are exerting in opposing withdrawal of places at PENS count?
We were not infol"med of the possibility of being able to apply pm'ental pressure for
places at PENS or indeed any other nUfseryl
When and how many parents from Prestonfield Primary School requested that the
provision of places be increased at PSNC?
Why is it not possible to retain PENS and increase provision slightly at PSNC to
accommodate those children whose parents request this?
Proposal states that it is envisaged that only 6 children will be returning for
201112012 session
These numbers do not take into account the younger siblings of children currently
attending PENS but who will turn 3 in the course of the 201112012 session.
In addition, the nature of the PENS school roll has been such that while in some years
a large number of children move on to primary school. there are alternate years when
there are many who stay on. Despite the fact that there has not been a long waiting list
for some years now, and the roll can be low at the start of the year, the nursery has
always reached near full occupancy by the end of the year.
A number of factors influence this matter, including the fact that children are only
allowed to start tIle nursery the term after their third birthday. In addition, the
Prestonfield area is popular with families who arrive from overseas to study at
universities in Edinburgh. Since the academic year starts after August, a number of
these children alTive at the nursery later on in the term.
Proposal states that two council-run nurseries and two private nurseries lie
within 400m of PENS
l11e council manages 95 pre-school centres across the city. The department states that
parents of PENS children have a choice of two other council nurseries and two private
nurseries within 400m of PENS.
Nursery schools do not have local catchment areas and therefore parents who made
the choice to send their children to PENS did so by choosing this single nursery out of
the 95 nurseries the council operates. Private nurseries do not employ trained teachers
and the service they provide is not what all parents desire for their children. We
therefore made the choice for our children to receive their pre-school education at a
local authority establishment over a private nursery as we feel that private nurseries
are more suited to childcare provision as opposed to pre-school education. We have a
number of parents who have in the past used private nurseries for their children but
for the pre-school years have chosen for their children to attend council-run nurseries.
The deprutment has also put forward the argument (at the public meeting) that parents
would still have the choice of two local authOlity nurseries in the area that they can
send their children to. This fails to acknowledge the fact that more than 75% of the
children who attend PENS live outwith the Prestonfield area. While choosing to close
PENS. how is the department able to justify removing the free choice which parents
had exercised in placing their children at PENS? In pruticular, how is it possible to
circumvent parental preference given the statutory duty imposed upon authorities to
educate the pupils in accordance with the wishes of their pal'ents (as outlined in the
excerpt from the SISS Act 2000 below)?
Scottish Executive documentation
STANDARDS IN SCOTLAND'S SCHOOLS ETC ACT 2000

SECTION 34: GUIDANCE ON PRE-SCHOOL EDUCATION
Delivery ofPre-Scbool Education
Responding to parental preferences

4.6 Autholities will be aware that Section 43 ofthe 2000 Act removes pre-school
education from the system of placing requests which applies to primary and secondary
schools under their management. However. the general duty of authorities to educate
pupils in accordance with the wishes of their parents remains (contained in Section 28
of the 1980 Act).
4.7 A key aspect of this responsiveness relates to the placement of children in
particular centres. Given the way the duty on authorities and the
power available to authorities are framed in the 2000 Act (in terms of'securing'
rather than 'providing' services). parents will have a reasonable expectation not only
that authorities will secure a numerical sufficiency of places but also that these places
will as far as possible reflect parental preferences - including, where appropriate,
preferences for centres outwith their own area and for non-local authority centres
within their own area, In exercising their pre-school education functions, authorities
should ensure that any restrictions on choice are explained and justified by reference
to clear admissions policies.
Proposal states that Princess Elizabeth Nursery school is rated 'poor' in terms of
sllitability due to its upper floor location and access to the outdoor play area via
external stairs
Why has this building suddenly become less suited for use as a nursery, given that the
upper floor has been functioning as a nursery for 80yrs?
Parents fmd no issue with accessing the nursery via extemal stairs. Many families live
in homes which have stairs either internally 01' externally. Indeed, the world we live in
is such that we have to climb stairs now and then. Therefore, for those who live in
homes without stairs, they appreciate the opporllmity this presents for their children to
learn how to ascend and descend stairs safely. Health promotion encourages us to take
the stairs instead of lifts for physical well-being, thus our children receive health
benefits from use of the stairs.
For many who live in apartment blocks. gardens are commonly aecessed by
descending staircases. The fact that the garden is accessed by external stairs does not
reduce the opportunities our children have for enjoying the beautiful outdoor space.
As with the proposed receiving llurseries, children will always require supervised
access to the outdoor spaces, regardless of whether these spaces are directly or
indirectly accessible.
The nursery building is located in beautiful surroundings. The large front garden is
complete with massive trees which allow children to observe the changing seasons
quite blatantly. The nursery takes advantage of its upper floor location by setting up
binoculars in the classroom where the children are able to look at birds feeding at the
bird-table on the balcony and in the trees beyond. They use the extensive rear play-
garden to leam about seasons, carry out enviromnental initiatives (such as making a
water butt collecting channel from plastic bottles), gardening as well as more physical
activities such as playing in the mini-maze and sand-pit. or on the climbing frame and
bikes. The benefits of having the kind of garden that many of us can only dream of for
our children, more than makes up for any disadvantage access via external stairs may
bring.
Parents also find accessing PENS with buggies easier than at CHNS. At that nursery
there is a sloping path leading up to the nursery gate from street level which has
integrated steps and is very difficult to manage for some parents with buggies. This
has been stated as a reason for not considering CHNS when choosing nursery schools.
Proposal states nursery class within primary school offers benefits in terms of an
easier transition to primary school for those children that stay on to attend
Prestonfield Primary School
While this may be 'hue, very few children attending PENS later go on to attend
Prestonfield Primary School. Therefore, the children who attend PENS would not all
benefit from attending PSNC instead.
Proposal states nursery pupils at Prcstonficld have the opportunity to access

facilities at the school on a timetabled basis such as the gym and computer
facilities
PENS pupils have access to computer facilities at all times as there is a computer in
the classroom. PENS make excellent use of the nearby Cameron House Community
Centre facilities twice weekly. Here, the children also benefit from a programme of
Enjoy-A-Ball sp0l1s coaching during the summer tenn where they have the
opportunity to develop a range of skills. The children look forward to being out in the
community and also learn how they should behave when out as a group during the
walk back to the nursery.
Since the children who attend PENS are from a wide range of backgrounds, the staff
have always capitalised on this as an opportunity to help our children develop an
awareness and understanding of the diversity which exists in the world around us. The
children at the nursery celebrate a range of festivals together and we as parents
appreciate the effect this has in helping everyone get along with one another and
ensuring each individual is valued and accepted no matter what their backgrOlmd.
PENS staff excel at providing early years education to children who have English as
an additional language. 80me children come to the nursery speaking little English, but
the experienced staff provide gentle instruction and support in the leaming of English
as a foreign language.
The nursery classroom is bright and inviting. Even younger siblings find it hard to
leave when they come to drop off their brother/sister. By the time their turn comes to
attend PENS, they are more than happy to be left there as they have become so
familiar with the place!
The room is divided into different areas to stimulate the children's interest. FOl"
example. a dressing up area, a reading corner, construction play, music and dancing
area, craft, sand and water play areas. The children are able to do their own thing as
well as take part in more structured activies, all with the unobtrusive but gentle
support of the excellent staff. The children are learning without even being aware of
it, because of the specialised knowledge of the staff..
Children at PENS also enjoy additional educational benefits. For example, PENS staff
help to involve us in our children's learning through the weekly lending library and
the Maths Sacks which enable us to engage with our children through reading books
and the counting games.
One of the staff members has also been running a PEEP leaming together programme
for parents and their children, which is now in jts second year at PENS. This has been
a wonderful opportunity for us to learn how we can best support our children's
learning and development in the home environment.
If the nursery is closed, will there be this level of support for parents in encouraging
them to take an active role in their children's education at receiving nurseries?
Surplus capacity
It was stated at the public meeting that one of the reasons for closing PENS is due to
the surplus capacity which exists in the vicinity and that PENS has limited capacity to
cope with possible future needs.
To meet any increase in demand for places at PENS beyond the ClUTent building
capacity, would it not be possible to utilise the lower floor of the nursery?
As parents who know of the benefits to children of being part of a small nursery
establishment, we are concerned about what standard of pre-school education a child
might receive in a nursery as large as PSNC has the potential to be.
In terms of surplus capacity at PSNC, what would be the educational benefits to a

child of attending a nursery with upto 40 children present at a time where it might be
difficult for all staffmerobers to get to know and respond to each child's individual
needs?
How would staff members who operate a nursery with upto 80 children on the school
roll (as is the capacity at PSNC) develop a good understanding of each child's
individual needs?
How do we know that once PENS closes, CHNS will not be up for closure in the
coming fhture with all children being sent to PSNC instead?
Histolically, Princess Elizabeth Nursery is one of the oldest pre-school establishments
in Edinburgh and has an excellent reputation. Since its inception in 1930, it has taken
a child-centred approach to the education of pre-school children and to this day has
remained committed to this aim.
We would like to conclude with a quote from the Scottish Government's vision of the
early years - 'that children should be valued and provided for within communities;
the importance of strong. sensitive relationships vvith parents and carers; the right to a
high quality of life and access to play; the need to put children at the centre of service
delivery; to provide more support through universal services when children need it;
and that children should be able to achieve positive outcomes irrespective of race,
disability or social background.'
As parents of children who attend PENS. we sincerely believe that this vision is being
fulfilled at PENS. We hope to encourage you to build upon the foundations that have
been laid at this establishment and not destroy them.
We look forward to your response to our comments and queries.
Yours Sillcerely,
Princess Elizabeth Nursery Parents Group

Topic: Closure of Princess Elizabeth Nursery
School.
PETITION
We as parents or guardians of children who attend
Princess Elizabeth Nursery School who would like
the nursery school to be left open for the benefit of our
children and the community could you please sign this
petition. A.S.P. Thank
you for reading this;
a concerned parent.
SIGNATURES
NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE
14 signatures redacted
Topic: Closure of Princess Elizabeth Nursery
School.
PETITION
We as parents or guardians of children who attend
Princess Elizabeth Nursery School who would like
the nursery school to be left open for the benefit of our
children and the community could you please sign this
petition . A.S.P. Thank
you for reading this;
a concerned pareflt.
SIGNATURES
NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE

r-...
8 signatures redacted
Subject: FW: Proposed closure of Princess Elizabeth Nursery School
From: Alice.Ednie@scottish.parliament.uk [mailto:Alice.Ednie@scottish.parliament.uk] On Behalf Of
george.foulkes.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
Sent: 08 December 2010 12:54
To: Marilyne MacLaren
Subject: Proposed closure of Princess Elizabeth Nursery School
Dear Ms MacLaren
I have received a further email from a constituent with regard to the proposed closure of Princess Elizabeth Nursery
School. His concerns have been outlined in some detail and the following is an extract from his email:
........ the council is keen to dose Princess Elizabeth Nursery School in order to make some financial
savings. The projected savings ore not substantial and are most likely un deliverable. For example,
the main savings they suggest are to be made are through staff costs. However, most of the staff
will be re-deployed elsewhere so such savings will be minor. There are projected building repairs
and maintenance costs which would easily be covered by the one-off costs of shutting down the
building. The service costs of the nursery can be covered by the monthly security costs which
would need to be paid until the premises were sold (which in the current climate, could be for the
unforeseeable future). Thus, the financial benefits of closing the nursery would be unworthy of
depriving future generations of the high quality pre-school education that this nursery provides.
Children are the future and the Scottish Government is itself committed to increasing the number
of pre-school centres receiving positive inspection reports. The reasoning behind this national
indicator is given on the government website as: "It is well-documented that good quality pre-
school education enhances children's development. The Effective Provision of pre-school education
(EPPE) study has shown that high quality pre-school experiences lead to better intellectual and
SOCial/behavioural develapment and that disadvantaged children benefit significantly from good
quality pre-school experiences. There ore, however, significant differences between pre-school
providers and research shows that the quality of provision makes a significant difference to
outcomes for children. 11
In terms of quality of provision, Princess Elizabeth Nursery provides a high quality pre-school
experience for the children and is already in receipt of positive inspection reports. Rather than
dosing such establishments, these should be heralded as centres 0/ excellence in pre-school
education and provide a reference pointfor sub-standard establishments.
Historically, Princess Elizabeth Nursery is one of the oldest pre-school establishments in Edinburgh
and has an excellent reputation. Since its inception, it has taken a child-centred approach to the
education of pre-school children and to this day has remained committed to this aim .....
Where so many committed individuals worked hard to voluntarily deliver this pre-school
establishment to children in Edinburgh since 1930, I would have imagined that the gifting of this
nursery to the Education Department in 1974 would have been with the condition that it continued
to deliver pre-school education to children Edinburgh.
As stated in previous correspondence, pre-school education is extremely important and the increasing evidence
shows that it is the early years which determine people's lives.
In light of the above, I am deeply concerned about the proposed closure of Princess Elizabeth Nursery School and
request that any decision of closure be reconsidered.
I look forward to hearing from you.
file:IIG:\CF\EDUC_TOASTER_ARCHIVE\PPC\Early_Years\Schools&Classes\Nursery Closures\resp... 3110112011

t'roposea Closure or t'nncess J:.l1zaoern l'lursery ;:scnoo! t'age 1. or 1.
George Foulkes MSP
Member for the Lothians
********
Alice Ednie
Administrator
George Foulkes MSP
Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh
EH991SP
www.georgefoulkesmsp.com
www.youtube.com/georgefoulkes
(0131) 3486827
07890490706
*** •** ** * * ** * ** *
.********,***_****************************""****************H********"**
For latest news and information about all aspects of Parliamentary business, MSPs and our work, visit the Parliament's website a'
http://www.scottish.parliament.ukl.
For information about how you can visit the Parliament, go to http://www.scottish.parliament.uklvlllvisitingHolyroodlindex.htm.
Watch Parliamentary business live at http://www.holyrood.tv/
The information in this e-mail transmission and any files or attachments transmitted with it are strictly confidential and may contain privilegec
information. It is intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed and if you are not the intended recipient. you must no'
copy, distribute, disclose or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your computel
system and notify the sender as soon as possible.
While this e-mail message and attachments have been swept by the content filter software for the presence of computer viruses, the Scottist
Parliamentary Corporate Body does not guarantee that either are virus-free and accepts no liability for damage sustained as a result of a virus
It is the recipient's responsibility to ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversel~
affect their systems or data or otherwise incur liability in law."
******_'friIr********************************_************** •• *.*",***** •• *
file:IIG:\CF\EDUC ~TOASTER_ARCHIVE\PPC\Early_ Years\Schools&Classes\Nursery Closures\resp... 31101/2011

29th November 2010
Ms Gillian Tee
The City of Edinburgh Council
Director of Children and Families Department - 3 OEe 2010
Ref: Proposal for closure of Princes Elizabeth Nursery
Dear Ms Tee,
I am writing to express my total disagreement with the proposal for closing

Princess Elizabeth Nursery.
As a parent and teacher, I strongly believe that a valuable institution which
offers very high educational standards to our children should not be
closed.
There is no valid justification for such a measure. Princess Elizabeth has been
offering a valued educational service to the community of Prestonfield and
surrounding areas for eighty years.
1 am a parent of three children, two of them now in primary school who

attended this nursery. My youngest child Is currently attending Princess
Elizabeth Nursery and is very happy and satisfied. The attention from the
teachers and nursery nurses and assistants is second to none. I also feel that
Princess Elizabeth is a unique nursery archltecturally, providing a warm,
naturally lit indoor learning space with an extra special garden providing both
play area and green I garden space. I feel that Princess Elizabeth Nursery is a
jewel In the crown. I would not throwaway the community jewels!
Yours Sincerely
1 0 DEC 2310
:=--:>.
../
I a111 w.tmng-to oppose YOut proposal to close Princess Elizabeth Nutsety SchooL I feel
11tflt to closebne of Edinburgh's longest established pte-school estilblishments would be
a gtc!~tinjustice to the residents of Edinburgh City. The nprsery offers a high quality"Dre-
.•~dJ.oolexpetience which would be invaluable to many vulnerab~ Ot disadvantaged
-ihildren. This may cottle at incte!l.Sed cost, but it fulfils needs which could not be lnetat
'iil1-ger mu:senes or private nw:series where standru:ds ate not as high as they axe at .
Princes~ Eli~beth Nutsety"
Both of my sons have had the privilege of attending PENS and have benefited greatly
from the expe11ise of the nutset1 staff and the wann, nUJ:turing env1J:onment that e.'tists
at the mUlIery. My view of the nutsery is upheld by the cue commission J:eports which
" rate both the quality of ca..te and support as well as the quality of the enviroomenl: as
excellent. I oppose /:'he proposal that children who would attend PENS can attend
Preston field P1ima11 Nutse1'Y Class where dutte is a l:eduction m standards. Whilst there
~"fipare capacity at PSNC, how would the nU1'Sety be able to maintain its already lower
standatds with an increase in the number of children let alone raise its standards to 1neet
or exceed those which exist at PENS? I am fully aw~ that there would be an incre.a~e
.in staff nU1nbers~to maintain child to staff l"atiOS. However. it is unclear what p:toc~dures
:w.ould be put in place to ensme that an increase in numbetS at PSNC would not p~~e 11.
burden on the standards. IfPSNC has been unable to :teach the lugh standards .,
~
equivalent to those at PENS despite having fewer cbildten in atten~nce than is ",.
proposed, how can you ensute they would be able to achieve these in future? I know
first-hand what a difference 11. high quality pre-school establislunent can make to the
!.future of those children who attend such nUl'Secies as PENS and would insist that·such
icenttes of e.."Ccellence" ~·to be cherished and should not perish. >, ,
During this tUne, my eldest son. was lucky; enough to attend PENS
m.eant my son could choose and bring home a book which we could share together. In
addition, he would also get to bring horne a different maths sack each week wwch meant
I was able to play with him whilst helping him to develop counting skills. Small activities
which many can take for granted but fot otbexs can be difficult to make a part of normal
home life.
Since the nutselY is slnall, the staff are all able to get to know the individual needs of
each child.
Had my son attended

a pt:ivate nursel}', thete would have been no access or refel1:al to such services.
One of the great strengths of the staff is that they develop close relationships with the
families of children attending the nutsety. Without a doubt, I fdt it was essential for my
younger son to al1end PENS as well. As his olde.r brodler had attended the nw:sety, he
l~d already become familUu: with the staff and the environment.
TIle nmselY staff were outstanding in helping us to manage these issues .. J' $
..
The staff were able to do because was
a to fOlm widl my child. In l~er n.urse1i.es, or whel'e there is a high tul'1l0ver of staff
s~~h as private nurseties, such relationships are hardeJ: to form. And with children
t!lne is of the essence.
My son had attended a private nursel)' for a short time before he became eligible for free
flW:5Cl:y education.
This tl:anslates into psychological and
my If one considers the long telm costs of not" helping
vulnerable children to reach theiJ: developmental potential, it is sute1y better to spend a
little mote dwing these crucial early yeats than spend a lifetime patching things up when
the cl"acks statt to show as disadvantaged children grow up. This view is suppol1:ed by
the economic case set out by Nobel Prize·w.inning economistJames Heckman which
shows that the mte of economic tetw:n on early years investment is significantly
higher than for any other stage in the education systeln.
The pre-school experience that each of my boys tecei'lred at PENS was unique for each
of them. Yet, that each child who attends PENS receives such an experience is also
unique. One would be hard pushed to find such high quality pre-school experiences
being p.tovided by al.I. pre-school centJ:es. All nurseries ate clearly not the same and so it is
not just about pl'oviding places by number, but also about providing quality places. By
developing the confidence to do 'little' things like eat properly or finish a task, both of
my boys have gained the confidence and ability to learn more effectively. Had these
'little' issues not been dealt with, neither of them would have been able to make tlle
progress they have been able to make in life. The l:cality is that our' school
teachers don't have the time to hanclle dysfunctional beJl9.vim:u:.
cl11lCll:e:n are nr()V1(ied

pre-school education, they will be better placed to become effective learne!S and
contributors in the primary school setting. Whilst all children may not need the close
attention and benefits obtained through attend.ing a stnall nw:sery such as PENS, foe
other children it can be vital. I would urge you not to remove tllis facility which e."(cels at
providing effective SUppOl1 and eatly intel'Vention to ensUl'e positive outcomes for our
children.
TIle UK based Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) study has shown
that high quality pl:e-school expeci.ences lead to better intellectual and social/bebaviow:al
development and that clisad,rantaged children benefit significantly from good quality pre-
school experiences. In tllis study, independent nw:sety schools such as PENS scoted~
higher.in terms of pl:e.school qUlllity than nmsery clnsses within primaty schools.
Children from these high quality pl-e-school establishments showed less worried! anti-
social behaviour by the time they went to school and made better .intellecflUll progress.
The quality of the staff child interactions also had a positive impact 011 this SC01'e such
that, where staff sho\vedwatlnth and were responsive to the individual needs of children,
the children showed better social behavioural outcomes. Such intemctions are a clear and
established practice within PENS.
The quality of a pIe-school centre was also found to be positively .t:e1ated to the
qualification level of the staff. The higher the qualification of the staff, pru:ticularly tlle
manager of the centre, the more progress tlle children made. Independent nutSeL),
schools thus score highet in this respect as tlley are managed by a head-teacher who is
not only a trained teacher but often an eady years specialist. Rather than point patents ill
the clixection of private nUl'Series where trained teache1'S ate not employed (appencli."'l: 1 of
the proposal), tlle Childten alld Families department should therefore be keen to retain
their valuable assets in the form of independent nursery schools. While they may Cat1.1
additional costs as a l.'esult of theit independence, this should not justify their clostlre
;1rice they are pJ:oviding value fOl: money in the fo.rm of high quality pIe-school
•itxperiences.
Princess Elizabeth Nursety School was established in~930by a charitable U1JSt to ':'
provide p.te-school education of a high standard. Eighty yeaIS later, this establishment'
continues to provide a high quality pre-school experience which should be retained for
the benefit of nlt1.UC generations. To dose the ntmery would be quite an insult to the
charitable trust that gifted this historic institution to the department only 36 yIS ago. It
would also be a shame on the department for depriving the City of Edinburgh of one its
greatest assets for a paltl1' price.
Yours Sincerely
I'age 1 or 1.
Elaine Mill
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
To whom it may concern,
It was with deep disappointment that I learnt of the proposed closure of Princess Elizabeth Nursery School, having
my daughter been an attendee there term I 1
My daughter attended a variety of nurseries across the city during the first 4-5 years of her life as I continued my
education. Princess Elizabeth Nursery School (PENS) by far exceeded my expectations and clearly highlighted the
short comlngs of previous nurseries.
For example, PENS eXploration of the cultures within the broad mixture of ethnic backgrounds of the children at PEN
was a new and enjoyable experience for my daughter. Socially it helped her a lot in her transition from nursery to
school as she had developed a greater awareness and understanding of dIversity.
I further found the outdoor trips to be not only educational. but also a fantastic way of teaching my daughter the
rules of society. I recall how eXCited she was after a trip to Musselburgh on the train and the long explanation of how
you pay to get on a bus. I believe that the soclalizatlon Is also important for children to grow into independent and
confident individuals who are able to contribute positively to society. This was also re-enforced by a cafe that the
children opened one morning. This activity was completely initiated by the children themselves and so the chlldren
were allowed to make all the choices of what to do: they organised what to sell in their cafe, what time It would
open and such like. These types of high quality learning experiences are not commonplace within all pre-school
centres, and certainly were not evident within any of the nursery establishments my daughter previously attended.
PENS provided from mv opinion, the best education that my daughter had up to this point in her life. This may
contribute to the 'excellent' review given by the Care Commission. This is in contrast to private nurseries which cost
a lot more vet deliver a lot less. One of the worst paints made in the proposals paper is that people can choose to go
to private nurseries ..... but not everyone can afford this and this could lead to some children miSSing out on essential
pre-school education. It also can cause a huge financial strain on families If they do choose ....and how can it be
justified that families bear this burden for a lesser quality of service?
It would be fair to suggest that the remaining nurseries where the children are expected to go, Cameran House and
Prestonfleld, may feel a strain whilst accommodating a larger number of children. This may inevitably lead to a
lesser standard of education for all children attendIng. It is a grave concern of mine that the saving of £90,000 a year
08/1212010
Page2of2
will result in a consequence of a poorer quality of care and education.
PENS staff are dearlv all dedicated as demonstrated by having a low staff turn over and a long working history in the
establishment. The staff and children alike do not take for granted the lUxury that PEN is a smaller nursery but I
believe this is one of the great strengths of the nursery. Problems and difficulties, and indeed extra needs can be
identified at an ear1vstage allowing staff and parents to work together to resolve these. From a child's point of view,
isn't it better that these are caught at the earliest stage possible? .
PENS promote education, independence, diversity and socialisation over and above chlldcare. It would be an
incredible loss to the communitv if It were to close due to the rack of funding which is minute If you compare it to the
cost of other Edinburgh ventures such as the trams.
.' need - be rectified, taking the funding from Princess

In conclusion I feel that although the gaps In Coundl funds to
Elizabeth Nursery School is not the solution. This Is a short term solution to a long term problem and worst of all, to
the detriment of our children's future.
Yours SI ncerelv,
08/1212010
Appendix 4
Consultation proposal by The City of Edinburgh Council
Report by HM Inspectorate of Education addressing educational aspects of the

proposal to close Princess Elizabeth Nursery School
Introduction
1.1 The City of Edinburgh Council proposes to close Princess Elizabeth Nursery
School in July 2011. It is proposed that children will attend either Cameron House
Nursery School or Prestonfield Primary School Nursery Class.
1.2 The report from HM Inspectorate of Education (HMI E) is required under the
terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. It has been prepared by
HMIE in accordance with the terms of the Act.
1.3 HM Inspectors undertook the following activities in considering the

educational aspects of the proposal:
• attendance at the public meeting held on 15 November 2010 in connection

with the council's proposals;
• consideration of all relevant documentation provided by the council in relation

to the proposal, specifically the educational benefits statement and related
consultation documents, written and oral submissions from parents and
others;
• consideration of further representations made directly to HMIE on relevant

educational aspects of the proposal;
• consideration of further information on all schools affected; and
• visits to the site of Princess Elizabeth Nursery School, Cameron House

Nursery School and Prestonfield Primary School Nursery Class, including
discussion with relevant consultees.
1.4 HMIE considered:
• the likely effects of the proposal for children and young people of the
school/centre; any other users; children likely to become pupils within
two years of the date of publication of the proposal paper; and other children
and young people in the council area;
• any other likely effects of the proposal;
• how the council intends to minimise or avoid any adverse effects that may
arise from the proposal; and
• benefits which the council believes will result from implementation of the
proposal, and the council's reasons for coming to these beliefs.
1
2. Consultation process
2.1 The City of Edinburgh Council undertook the initial consultation on its
proposals with reference to the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010.
2.2 Parents of children who attend Princess Elizabeth Nursery School

unanimously oppose the proposal. They have concerns that children may not
receive the same quality of education in the receiving nurseries. Issues which
parents raise concern about include the community losing a nursery which had
served children well over the last 80 years. They believe the nursery has a very
good range of facilities particularly the opportunities for learning outdoors in the very
well-developed nursery garden area. They feel that Princess Elizabeth Nursery
School has a very caring ethos and staff support children and families well. Many
parents chose to send their children to Princess Elizabeth Nursery School because
of the inclusive atmosphere within the nursery and the small number of children
attending. They questioned the proposed benefits of children attending a nursery
class as opposed to attending a nursery school. Parents did not feel that the difficult
access to the garden by stairs, as stated in the proposal, was a particular concern
and had not caused any problems. Parents were unclear as to the exact financial
savings and educational benefits of the proposal.
2.3 Although staff have been assured job security, they did not agree with the
proposal. They would prefer Princess Elizabeth Nursery School to remain open and
continue operating as a nursery. They believed that children within the nursery
would need to learn in a much larger environment with a greater number of children.
Due to the retirement of the headteacher there is currently no permanent
headteacher in Princess Elizabeth Nursery School.
2.4 The Parent Council of Prestonfield Primary School expressed the view that a
rationalisation of nursery provision in the area was necessary.
3. Educational aspects of the proposal
3.1 Princess Elizabeth Nursery School is a long-standing nursery and has

recently celebrated serving the community for 80 years. It was originally established
by a charitable trust. Prestonfield Primary School Nursery Class and Cameron
House Nursery School are all within a short walking distance from Princess Elizabeth
Nursery School.
3.2 The proposal sets out a number of potential educational benefits. Children
who will attend Prestonfield Primary School Nursery Class will have opportunities for
an enhanced transition into primary school. Overall, there should be no detriment to
the quality of education provided to children by the implementation of this proposal.
3.3 If this proposal goes ahead and Princess Elizabeth Nursery School closes
then ten part time places will be made available at Cameron House Nursery School
and ten part time places in both the morning and the afternoon sessions at
Prestonfield Primary School Nursery Class. Many children who attend Princess
Elizabeth Nursery School do not live within the immediate area around the nursery.
2
3.4 The main focus of this proposal to close Princess Elizabeth Nursery School is
a financial saving to the council. This is stated as the main educational benefit. This
would benefit other children and young people in the council area. If the proposed
closure goes ahead then the council intends to sell the Princess Elizabeth Nursery
School building and garden area. It is intended that the revenue will be retained
within the council's early years provision. The Princess Elizabeth Nursery School
building will require upgrade over the next few years to meet legislation regarding
access for users with a physical disability.
3.5 The council intends to minimise any disruption by ensuring the proposed
closure is at the end of a school session. Support will be given to both parents and
children in the transfer to a new nursery ensuring that children get to know children
in the receiving nurseries. The council intend to give particular support to parents
who do not speak English as their first language. The council will meet with parents
and discuss their preferred receiving nursery or the possibility of attending other
nurseries in the council area.
4. Summary
The council has set out a case that the implementation of the proposal would
contribute to securing best value of its resources by reducing nursery capacity in the
area. Following visits to all nurseries involved, HMIE is of the opinion that children
affected will continue to receive an appropriate educational experience. In taking
forward the proposal it will be important for the council to:
• set out clearly the arrangements for supporting parents and children in their anti
pre-school year to ensure a smooth transition to another nursery and continuity .in
their learning;
• sets out more clearly the financial benefits of the closure of Princess Elizabeth
Nursery School, and
• provide appropriate support for staff through the transition period.
HM Inspectorate of Education
January 2011

Edinburgh Nursery Closures Report March 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edinburgh Nursery Closures Report March 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

·EDINBVRGH·

THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL

Outcome of the Consultation Process for the

The City of Edinburgh Council

2.1 The Council conducted a statutory consultation in autumn 2010 on a proposal

• Children will continue to receive an appropriate educational experience

• Implementation of the proposal would generate £92,511 of annual net

3.2 A total of 7 written representations were received objecting to the proposal.

Issue 1: Strategic and demographic

• There is a projected increase in the birth rate and therefore increased

• The City of Edinburgh Council has restricted the numbers of places

• Research evidence points to the effectiveness of the nursery school setting

• Concern is expressed about the impact of the closure on choices for

Council response on the demographic and strategic issues raised

Council's strategy for early years services

Projected increase in birth rate

Restricting the number of places through low staffing allocations

Impact of the reduction of free full time places on allocation to children

The effectiveness of the nursery school setting on long term outcomes

Impact on parental choice

Issue 2: Impact on Quality and Educational Benefit

• A comparison was made of the inspection reports received by Prestonfield

• Concern is expressed about children having to access larger settings and

• Concern expressed about the support available to parents in encouraging

• Concern expressed about the emphasis placed on the Princess Elizabeth

Council response to the quality impact issues raised

Care Commission Inspection Reports

Impact of larger nursery settings

Support for nursery children and families

Support for staff

Issue 3: Financial questions and issues

• Clarity requested about the amount of maintenance budget required.

• Clarification sought about savings related to staffing costs bearing in mind

Council Response to the financial questions

Building related costs and savings

Cost per place

• Additional places will be created in Prestonfield Primary School Nursery

Gross Revenue Cost Savings

Table 4.1: Gross Predicted Full Year Revenue Savings

Staff Savings 83,876

Capital Investment Required

Funding of Capital Works

6.3 Children will experience continued developments associated with Curriculum

7.1 It is recommended that:

a) Princess Elizabeth Nursery School is closed at the end of the current

ContactJTel Aileen Mclean, Head of Early Stages

Wards affected 10 - Meadows/Morningside 15 - Southside Newington

Background Nursery School Estate Review 12 October 2010

Proposals for the Closure of Princess Elizabeth Nursery

1. Introduction & Context

Format of Consultation Paper

1 Introduction & Context

Appendix 3.1 Location of Proposed Receiving Nursery Schools and Classes

Rationalisation of the Nursery School Estate

1.10 A public meeting detailed in Section 8, will be held as follows:

2.1 The proposal is that:

3. Princess Elizabeth Nursery School- Case for _._"... _.

Nursery School Capacity and School Roll

Suitability Assessment - Princess Elizabeth Nursery

Building Condition and Previous Works

Future Building Investment and Public Accessibility

Proposed Closing Nursery