The City of Edinburgh Council

Notice of meeting and agenda

10.00 am, Thursday 1 May 2014 Council Chamber, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh

This is a public meeting and members of the public are welcome to attend

C o n tac t Contact E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: 0131 529 4246 1. Order of business

1.1 Including any notices of motion and any other items of business submitted as urgent for consideration at the meeting.

2. Declaration of interests

2.1 Members should declare any financial and non-financial interests they have in the items of business for consideration, identifying the relevant agenda item and the nature of their interest.

3. Deputations

3.1 Wardie Parent Council – e-mail dated 17 April 2014 (circulated)

4. Minutes

4.1 The City of Edinburgh Council of 13 March 2014 (circulated) – submitted for approval as a correct record

5. Questions

5.1 By Councillor Heslop – Deposit Refund Scheme – for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee

5.2 By Councillor Heslop – Rat Population – for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee

5.3 By Councillor Rose –Council Employee Numbers – for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee

5.4 By Councillor Whyte – ICT Strategy – for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee

6. Leader’s Report

6.1 Leader’s report (circulated)

7. Appointments

7.1 Review of Appointments to Committees, Boards and Joint Boards for 2014/2015 – report by the Director of Corporate Governance (circulated)

7.2 Appointments to Outside Bodies - Social Enterprise Strategy Implementation Group – report by the Director of Economic Development (circulated)

7.3 Appointment of Non Executive Directors for the EDI Group Limited – report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated) The City of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 2 of 4 7.4 Chair of Marketing Edinburgh – report by the Director of Economic Development (circulated)

8. Reports

8.1 Polling Places for Polling Districts SS10H Meadows/Morningside Ward and NC11A City Centre Ward - report by the Chief Executive (circulated)

8.2 Outcome of the Consultation Process for the Proposal to Establish a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School – report by the Director of Children and Families (circulated)

8.3 Outcome of the Consultation Process for the Proposal to Establish a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools – report by the Director of Children and Families (circulated)

8.4 Outcome of the Consultation Process for the Proposal to Close Wellington Special School in Midlothian – report by the Director of Children and Families (circulated)

8.5 Prudential Borrowing for 3G Synthetic Pitch at Malleny Park, Balerno – referral from the Finance and Resources Committee (circulated)

8.6 The Edinburgh 12 – Progress Report – report by the Director of Economic Development (to follow)

8.7 Riddle’s Court and 4-6 Victoria Terrace, Edinburgh – report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated)

9. Motions

9.1 If any

Carol Campbell Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance

Information about the City of Edinburgh Council meeting

The City of Edinburgh Council consists of 58 Councillors and is elected under proportional representation. The City of Edinburgh Council usually meets once a month and the Lord Provost is the Convener when it meets.

The City of Edinburgh Council usually meets in the Council Chamber in the City Chambers on the High Street in Edinburgh. There is a seated public gallery and the Council meeting is open to all members of the public.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 3 of 4 Further information

If you have any questions about the agenda or meeting arrangements, please contact Allan McCartney, Committee Services, City of Edinburgh Council, Business Centre 2.1, Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh EH8 8BG, Tel 0131 529 4246, e-mail [email protected].

A copy of the agenda and papers for this meeting will be available for inspection prior to the meeting at the main reception office, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh.

The agenda, minutes and public reports for this meeting and all the main Council committees can be viewed online by going to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/cpol.

Webcasting of Council meetings

Please note: this meeting may be filmed for live and subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site – at the start of the meeting the Lord Provost will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed.

You should be aware that the Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act 1998. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council’s published policy including, but not limited to, for the purpose of keeping historical records and making those records available via the Council’s internet site.

Generally the public seating areas will not be filmed. However, by entering the Council Chamber and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the use and storage of those images and sound recordings and any information pertaining to you contained in them for web casting and training purposes and for the purpose of keeping historical records and making those records available to the public.

Any information presented by you to the Council at a meeting, in a deputation or otherwise, in addition to forming part of a webcast that will be held as a historical record, will also be held and used by the Council in connection with the relevant matter until that matter is decided or otherwise resolved (including any potential appeals and other connected processes). Thereafter, that information will continue to be held as part of the historical record in accordance with the paragraphs above.

If you have any queries regarding this, and, in particular, if you believe that use and/or storage of any particular information would cause, or be likely to cause, substantial damage or distress to any individual, please contact Committee Services on 0131 529 4105 or [email protected].

The City of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 4 of 4 Notice of meeting and agenda

The City of Edinburgh Council

10.00 am, Thursday 1 May 2014 Council Chamber, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh

This is a public meeting and members of the public are welcome to attend

C o n tac t Contact E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: 0131 529 4246 1. Order of business

1.1 Including any notices of motion and any other items of business submitted as urgent for consideration at the meeting.

2. Declaration of interests

2.1 Members should declare any financial and non-financial interests they have in the items of business for consideration, identifying the relevant agenda item and the nature of their interest.

3. Deputations

3.1 Wardie Parent Council – e-mail dated 17 April 2014 (circulated)

4. Minutes

4.1 The City of Edinburgh Council of 13 March 2014 (circulated) – submitted for approval as a correct record

5. Questions

5.1 By Councillor Heslop – Deposit Refund Scheme – for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee

5.2 By Councillor Heslop – Rat Population – for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee

5.3 By Councillor Rose –Council Employee Numbers – for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee

5.4 By Councillor Whyte – ICT Strategy – for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee

6. Leader’s Report

6.1 Leader’s report (circulated)

7. Appointments

7.1 Review of Appointments to Committees, Boards and Joint Boards for 2014/2015 – report by the Director of Corporate Governance (circulated)

7.2 Appointments to Outside Bodies - Social Enterprise Strategy Implementation Group – report by the Director of Economic Development (circulated)

8. Reports

8.1 Polling Places for Polling Districts SS10H Meadows/Morningside Ward and NC11A City Centre Ward - report by the Chief Executive (circulated)

8.2 Outcome of the Consultation Process for the Proposal to Establish a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School – report by the Director of Children and Families (circulated)

8.3 Outcome of the Consultation Process for the Proposal to Establish a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools – report by the Director of Children and Families (circulated)

8.4 Outcome of the Consultation Process for the Proposal to Close Wellington Special School in Midlothian – report by the Director of Children and Families (circulated)

8.5 Prudential Borrowing for 3G Synthetic Pitch at Malleny Park, Balerno – referral from the Finance and Resources Committee (circulated)

8.6 The Edinburgh 12 – Progress Report – report by the Director of Economic Development (to follow)

8.7 Riddle’s Court and 4-6 Victoria Terrace, Edinburgh – report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated)

9. Motions

9.1 If any

Carol Campbell Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance

Information about the City of Edinburgh Council meeting

The City of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 3 of 4 Further information

A copy of the agenda and papers for this meeting will be available for inspection prior to the meeting at the main reception office, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh.

The agenda, minutes and public reports for this meeting and all the main Council committees can be viewed online by going to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/cpol.

Webcasting of Council meetings

The City of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 4 of 4 ITEM NO 3.1

From: Peter Moir Sent: 17 April 2014 12:44 To: Allan McCartney Subject: Council committee Wardie Parent Council

Hi Allan

I would like to ask if a deputation from Wardie Parent Council could speak/ present at the committee meeting on 1st May. The committee is to decide on the proposal to build a nursery at Wardie Primary School.

Kind regards

Peter Moir

Wardie Parent Council

Minutes Item No 4.1

The City of Edinburgh Council

Edinburgh, Thursday 13 March 2014

Present:-

LORD PROVOST

The Right Honourable Donald Wilson

COUNCILLORS

Elaine Aitken Ricky Henderson Robert C Aldridge Dominic R C Heslop Norma Austin Hart Lesley Hinds Nigel Bagshaw Sandy Howat Jeremy R Balfour Allan G Jackson Gavin Barrie Karen Keil Angela Blacklock David Key Chas Booth Richard Lewis Mike Bridgman Alex Lunn Deidre Brock Melanie Main Steve Burgess Mark McInnes Andrew Burns Adam McVey Ronald Cairns Eric Milligan Steve Cardownie Joanna Mowat Maggie Chapman Gordon J Munro Maureen M Child Jim Orr Bill Cook Lindsay Paterson Nick Cook Ian Perry Gavin Corbett Alasdair Rankin Cammy Day Vicki Redpath Denis C Dixon Cameron Rose Karen Doran Frank Ross Paul G Edie Jason G Rust Catherine Fullerton Alastair Shields Nick Gardner Stefan Tymkewycz Paul Godzik David Walker Joan Griffiths Iain Whyte Bill Henderson Norman Work

1. Minutes

Decision

To approve the minutes of the Council of 6 and 13 February 2014.

2. Questions

The questions put by a member to this meeting, written answers and supplementary questions and answers are contained in Appendix 1 to this minute.

3. Leader’s Report

The Leader presented his report to the Council. The Leader commented on:

• The “This is Edinburgh” campaign

• Edinburgh still the second best City in the UK outside of London for Gross Value Added (GVA) per resident

The following comments were made:

Councillor Rose - Shared Repairs Service – Statutory Notices

Councillor Burgess - Resignation of Vice-Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee – Continuation of key policy initiatives

Councillor Aldridge - Congestion on the A8

Councillor Tymkewycz - Situation in the Ukraine – Support from the Council

Councillor Bill Henderson - Bus Link to the Airport – Charges for Park and Ride

Councillor Orr - Character and Purpose of Full Council – Leader’s report – Parks and Greenspace management

Councillor Cardownie - Edinburgh Marathon – Councillor Burns

4. Appointments to Committees and the Board of FETA etc

The Lord Provost ruled in terms of Standing Order 27(1), that this item, which, if agreed, would require a change to the Act of Council No 7 of 12 December 2013, should be considered as there had been a change in circumstances in this matter, namely the requirement to change the composition of the Board of FETA.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 13 March 2014 Page 2 of 15 The Council had made appointments to its Committees, Boards and Joint Boards on 2 May 2013.

Councillor Orr had now resigned from the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee, the Transport and Environment Committee, the Governance, Risk and Best Value Committee, the Pensions Committee, the Petitions Committee and the Board of FETA, and the Council was invited to appoint members in his place.

The Council was further invited to appoint a Vice-Convener to the Transport and Environment Committee.

Decision

1) To appoint Councillor McVey to the vacancy on the Transport and Environment Committee and appoint him as Vice Convener of that Committee.

2) To note that the political composition of FETA agreed by the Council on 12 December 2013 was 1 Labour, 2 SNP and 1 Conservative and agree to change the composition to 2 Labour, 1 SNP and 1 Conservative.

3) To appoint Councillor Keil to the vacancy on the Board of FETA.

4) To note that the remaining vacancies would be dealt with when the Council reviewed Committee membership on 1 May 2014.

(References - Acts of Council No 6 of 2 May 2013 and No 7 of 12 December 2013; report by the Director of Corporate Governance, submitted)

5. Appointment to the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF)

The Pensions Committee had endorsed the appointment of Councillor Rose to the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF) Executive Committee. At their meeting on 22 January 2014 the LAPFF had re-appointed Councillor Rose to its Executive Committee as one of two Vice Chairs and the Council was asked to ratify this appointment.

Decision

To approve the appointment of Councillor Rose as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee of the LAPFF.

(References – Pensions Committee 18 December 2013 (item 8); report by the Director of Corporate Governance, submitted)

The City of Edinburgh Council – 13 March 2014 Page 3 of 15 6. Edinburgh Tram Project – Update Report

An update was provided on the progress of the Edinburgh Tram project as it headed toward completion of testing, commissioning and shadow running and to entering revenue service in May 2014. Details were also provided on the discussions which had taken place with Edinburgh Airport Limited together with the process to progress the provisions of an agency agreement to deliver best value from naming rights and media rights contracts.

Decision

1) To note that the present detailed project governance and controls would remain in place until commencement of revenue service.

2) To note that the Council continued its partnership working with Infraco, CAF, Transport Scotland and Transport for Edinburgh to endeavour to secure the earliest possible date for revenue service.

3) To note the commitment to deliver revenue services to a client target date of May 2014; all subject to the achievement of all consents and issue of the letter of no objection from the Independent Competent Person.

4) To delegate authority to the Chief Executive to conclude agreement on a Tram “Naming Rights” media proposal; this was to be done in consultation with the Convener and Vice-Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee.

5) To delegate authority to the Chief Executive to finalise the design criteria and commit to the provision of the Airport Tram Interface canopy; this was to be done in consultation with the Convener and Vice-Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee.

6) To note the continuation of the process of reaching an early agreed project final account by summer 2014 within the revised approved budget of £776m.

7) To delegate authority to the Chief Executive to determine and finalise the most effective management arrangements for the New Ingliston park and ride car park; this was to be done in consultation with the Convener and Vice-Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee.

(References - Act of Council No 5 of 26 September 2013; report by the Chief Executive, submitted)

7. Elected Members Remuneration

Details were provided on the Scottish Parliament’s agreement for an increase of 1% in remuneration for Councillors in 2013/14 and 2014/15.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 13 March 2014 Page 4 of 15 Decision

To note the increase in Elected Members Remuneration as set out in Appendix 1 to the report by the Director of Corporate Governance.

(Reference - report by the Director of Corporate Governance, submitted)

8. Council Diary 2014-15

The Council had reviewed and agreed revised political management arrangements on 24 October 2013. The draft Council diary for 2014-2015 was presented.

Decision

1) To approve the Council diary for August 2014 to August 2015 as set out on Appendix 1 to the report by the Director of Corporate Governance.

2) To authorise the Director of Corporate Governance to make minor changes to the Council diary as required.

3) To note that the diary arrangements would be reviewed in six months.

(References – Act of Council No 12 of 24 October 2013; report by the Director of Corporate Governance, submitted)

9. Annual Treasury Strategy 2014-15

A Treasury Management Strategy for 2014/15 was proposed. The Strategy included estimates of funding requirements, an economic forecast and borrowing and investment strategies.

Decision

1) To approve the Treasury Management Strategy for 2014/15.

2) To approve the Treasury Policy Statements.

3) To remit the report by the Director of Corporate Governance to the Governance, Risk and Best Value Committee for its scrutiny.

(Reference - report by the Director of Corporate Governance, submitted)

10. Former Property Conservation Service – Establishment of a New Service

The Council had agreed to a report on the Coalition’s intention, to have an enforcement service up and running in the course of 2014, fully developed and including appropriate ways to mitigate risk and the possibility of using partnership models.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 13 March 2014 Page 5 of 15 Details were provided on the development of the new service.

Motion

1) To note the risks associated with an enforcement service as set out in Appendices 1 and 5 to the report by the Director of Services for Communities and the advice of the Corporate Management Team as detailed in the report.

2) To note that following consideration of the balance of risk, to proceed with the development of a new enforcement service as set out in the report and consistent with decision 3 below.

3) To instruct the Director of Services for Communities to take forward the new Enforcement Service so as to mitigate the risk to the Council as far as possible, and in particular to ensure careful planning and execution of the organisational design, financial modelling, procurement strategy and operational procedures of the new service.

4) To agree the service objectives as set out in section 2.17 of the report, in particular the principle that the service would seek to encourage and assist owners to take responsibility for property issues themselves, with Council intervention as a last resort.

5) To agree that a detailed report on the project to work through outstanding notices would be brought to the Property Sub-Committee within the next two months.

6) To agree to consider further the delivery approach of establishing a Special Purchase Vehicle (SPV) and that activities would start immediately to determine the form of this, noting that a further report would be submitted to the Finance and Resources Committee within three months.

7) To note the estimated financial implications of developing a new enforcement service and that further financial due diligence would be undertaken and reported back to Committee along with proposals for how compensatory savings could be achieved within the approved revenue budget for Services for Communities.

8) To agree that a further report on the establishment of the service would be submitted to the Finance and Resources Committee within three months.

- moved by Councillor Rankin, seconded by Councillor Bill Cook

Amendment

2) To note that following consideration of the balance of risk, to proceed with the development of a new enforcement service as set out within the report.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 13 March 2014 Page 6 of 15 3) To agree that a detailed report on the project to work through outstanding notices would be brought to the Property Sub-Committee within the next two months.

4) To agree that a further report on the establishment of the service would be submitted to the Finance and Resources Committee in three months.

5) Before entering stage 4 as outlined in paragraph 2.28 of the report, approval of Finance and Resources Committee would be required on any scheme over the value of £75,000.

6) To instruct the Director of Services for Communities to take forward a new in- house enforcement service so as to mitigate the risk to the Council as far as possible and in particular to ensure careful planning and execution of the organisational design, financial modelling and operation procedures of the new service.

7) To ask that an annual report on the service be produced for the Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee to show how the service was performing, with figures showing the cases dealt with.

- moved by Councillor Balfour, seconded by Councillor McInnes

Voting

The voting was as follows:

For the motion - 43 votes For the amendment - 14 votes

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Rankin.

(References - Act of Council No 2 of 24 October 2013; report by the Director of Services for Communities, submitted)

11. Review of Council Grants to Third Parties 2013-14 – Final Report – referral from the Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee

The Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee had referred a report which provided the up-to-date position on the review of grants to third parties during 2013/14 and details of a proposed new policy framework with a completion date of April 2016 for approval of the change in the Committee terms of reference.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 13 March 2014 Page 7 of 15 Motion

1) To approve the change in the Committee terms of reference as detailed in the report by the Director of Corporate Governance.

2) To welcome the commitment to 3 year funding.

3) To note the concerns expressed around larger, national, organisations displacing smaller local organisations in receiving grants; and that third sector organisations with cross-cutting work might not easily fit any one Committee's priorities.

4) To agree therefore that the extent to which those concerns were realised was explicitly assessed in each of the annual "state of the voluntary sector" reports.

- moved by Councillor Burns, seconded by Councillor Cardownie

Amendment

1) To note the decisions taken on this report by the Communities and Neighbourhoods Committee and the Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee.

2) To agree that responsibility for making future grant awards would be with the Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee.

3) To agree that between 1% and 3% of the total grant funding remained uncommitted for any organisations which were deemed to be suitable for grant assistance during the three your period.

- moved by Councillor Jackson, seconded by Councillor Mowat

Voting

The voting was as follows:

For the motion - 45 votes For the amendment - 11 votes

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Burns.

(References – Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee 25 February 2014 (item 4); referral report from the Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee, submitted)

Declaration of Interests

Councillor Aldridge declared a financial interest in the above item as the Chief Executive of an organisation which received a grant.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 13 March 2014 Page 8 of 15 Councillor Bagshaw declared a non-financial interest in the above item as a member of Transport for Edinburgh.

Councillor Edie declared a non-financial interest in the above item as a member of the Corstorphine Youth Centre Management Committee.

12. Women onto Work (WOW) – Motion by Councillor Hinds

The following motion by Councillor Hinds was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council congratulates WOW (Women onto Work) for its 25 years of serving the women of Edinburgh. WOW was established in 1989 with support from Edinburgh District Council and is Scotland's only women-only employment support project. Nearly 3,000 women have benefited from WOW’s services since its establishment.

WOW’s first training course took place in Wester Hailes and supported women over 25 into work. Based on the success of that first course, the service was extended to Craigmillar and Pilton/Muirhouse as well as being offered on a city wide basis for women with disabilities and women from minority ethnic groups.

From its base in Norton Park, WOW now offers its services to all women across the city, with a particular focus on women over 50, parents and women living with mental health problems. Every woman gets a personal coach to guide and support her through a range of courses, work placements and job search. Travel allowances and on-site childcare are also offered.

Council acknowledges the success of WOW over the past 25 years, thanks all those who have contributed towards this success and asks the Lord Provost to recognise this in an appropriate manner.”

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Hinds.

13. Pilton Equalities Projects (PEP) – Motion by Councillor Day

The following motion by Councillor Day was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“Council congratulates the Pilton Equalities Project (PEP) for reaching its 25 year milestone in 2014. Council commends PEP for its outstanding work in North Edinburgh, including the provision of:

• key services for older and other vulnerable adults of the community. • a range of groups and services, including lunch groups, mental health support and shopping trips to various outlets across Edinburgh • an accessible transport service which enables many older and other vulnerable adults in the north of Edinburgh to remain socially active in the community and reduce isolation. Community transport plays a pivotal role in the health and well-

The City of Edinburgh Council – 13 March 2014 Page 9 of 15 being of citizens in local communities, allowing many to remain as independent as possible and to engage in social groups with peers. • innovative lifelong learning opportunities, providing classes in a range of topics, including IT, literacy, numeracy, exercise, home care training and ESOL(English for Speakers of Other Languages).

Council thanks all individuals who have been involved in PEP over the years for their hard work, dedication and professionalism and asks the Lord Provost to recognise this in an appropriate manner.”

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Day.

14. Oxgangs Neighbourhood Centre (ONC) – Motion by Councillor Rust

The following motion by Councillor Rust was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:

“This Council

Congratulates Oxgangs Neighbourhood Centre (ONC) on being awarded £52,240 from the STV appeal.

Notes that projects are already being developed by ONC staff and committee thanks to the STV funding, including a Friday Kids club, healthy cooking project and over 50s social time, with further projects being considered for development including a Job Club, Garden Project, Credit Union Information service, youth arts projects etc.

Considers this award will allow ONC to continue its good work in the local community and allow for increased support and engagement with vulnerable people.”

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Rust.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 13 March 2014 Page 10 of 15 Appendix 1 (As referred to in Act of Council No 2 of 13 March 2014)

QUESTION NO 1 By Councillor Rust for answer by the Convener of the Economy Committee at a meeting of the Council on 13 March 2014

Question (1) Given they employ around 5,000 people in Edinburgh, has the Convener of the Economy Committee or any senior member of the Administration met with representatives from Standard Life to clarify that company's position in light of comments in their 2013 Annual Report in relation to independence?

Answer (1) The Convener of the Economy Committee has not met with representatives from Standard Life.

Question (2) When did the Convener of the Economy Committee last meet with representatives of Standard Life?

Answer (2) The Convener met with Sandy Begbie, the Group People and Transformation Director at Standard Life on 26th November 2013.

Question (3) On what basis did the Convener comment to the media, "As far as I can see there would appear to be no threat to jobs whatsoever" (28 February) and is this the stance of the Council Administration?

Answer (3) The statement quoted in the question is based on an answer the Convener gave to a question about the number of job losses quoted in the Standard Life official release in relation to the Referendum Vote on September 18th 2014.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 13 March 2014 Page 11 of 15

QUESTION NO 2 By Councillor Aitken for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 13 March 2014

Question What is the current policy for removal of excess waste left beside containers at communal bins, recycling points and recycling centres?

Answer Excess waste should not be left beside communal bins or recycling points but this will be removed by waste crews at the time of collection or by task force teams in the intervening periods.

Environmental Wardens will investigate cases of excess waste left beside bins or recycling points, with the potential to issue a fixed penalty notice.

Fixed penalty notices will be used as a last resort, when residents have been unwilling to engage with us about how to reduce their waste and make use of their recycling services.

Supplementary Members of the public often don’t realise that leaving excess Question waste at recycling locations is fly-tipping, so to help with this, the Community Safety Sub-Group of Pentland Neighbourhood Partnership requested that warning signs, just warning of the likelihood of getting a fine for leaving excess waste were put up at various locations. So would the Convener consider putting up the signs in all locations throughout the City and also would the Convener please ensure that the responsibility of picking up that excess waste is reinforced with the two teams involved, the task force team and the waste crews because there seems to be a bit of confusion in certain areas which results in neither accepting responsibility and the excess waste is left there.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 13 March 2014 Page 12 of 15 Supplementary Obviously I would consider whether we are. Actually looking Answer at some of our communal bins in particular, there is a report to the Transport and Environment Committee next week and obviously we need to look at the signage for them to make it easier for people to recycle but also on residual waste as well. Perhaps we could consider doing it there, maybe in the two pilot schemes and if that does helps, to give a commitment to give to the whole City, whether we know if that would help or work as well, I am happy to take that away and speak to officers on those issues.

You are right, in terms of it doesn’t matter who picks it up so long as it does get picked up but also the responsibilities of people who dumped it as well and not just us in the Council or the people who have to consider that, and that is why they will go through and they will fine people if they are dumping and it can be proved that they have dumped and are fly-tipping.

Also next Tuesday as well, the fines are going up so instead of being I think £50, it is £80 and instead of £100 it is now £200. So it is quite an increase in the actual fine so hopefully that can deter people as well if they know what the fines are likely to be, but I’ll take on your suggestion.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 13 March 2014 Page 13 of 15

QUESTION NO 3 By Councillor Heslop for answer by the Leader of the Council at a meeting of the Council on 13 March 2014

Question What recent discussions has he had with other council leaders regarding the future of COSLA

Answer I have entered into no discussions with council leaders regarding the future of COSLA.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 13 March 2014 Page 14 of 15

QUESTION NO 4 By Councillor Heslop for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 13 March 2014

Question What recent discussions have taken place with SEPA regarding flooding?

Answer The City of Edinburgh Council (CEC) has been appointed as the Lead Authority under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 for the Forth Estuary District. SEPA are named as the Competent Authority under this legislation and Council Officers are frequently in contact with staff from SEPA.

It is CEC that will publish the Flood Risk Management Plans when they are available, which will cover the Forth Estuary District. At present CEC is working closely with other Local Authorities in the Forth Estuary, Scottish Water and SEPA to identify sources and likelihood of flooding. Vulnerable properties will be identified and objectives agreed and set.

Recent discussions Include

• Informal discussions on 6 February 2014 on the process of identifying potential sources of flooding and the receptors that could be impacted (commercial and domestic properties, infrastructure etc) across Scotland.

• Lead Local Authority Forum (LLAF) on 19 February 2014.

• SCOTS Flood Group on 20 February 2014.

Many telephone conversations and emails. For example since 20 February 2014 the Council has received 13 emails from SEPA.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 13 March 2014 Page 15 of 15 Item no 5.1

QUESTION NO 1 By Councillor Heslop for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 1 May 2014

Question What recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Government regarding the proposed Deposit Refund Scheme?

Answer

Item no 5.2

QUESTION NO 2 By Councillor Heslop for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 1 May 2014

Question Further to your answers of 22nd of August 2013, regarding the rat population in Edinburgh, can you now confirm that there has been an increase of rat infestations across the City?

Answer

Item no 5.3

QUESTION NO 3 By Councillor Rose for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee at a meeting of the Council on 1 May 2014

Question What is the total number of employees of City of Edinburgh Council over each of the last 5 years? Please include the total number of employees and the full time equivalent?

Answer

Item no 5.4

QUESTION NO 4 By Councillor Whyte for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee at a meeting of the Council on 1 May 2014

Question (1) Notes that the ICT contract is for £630m - £2Bn, so what is the justification for such expense given the maximum contract value should not exceed £100m as stated in Cabinet Office Guidelines?

Answer (1)

Question (2) How can we know that the new contract which is designed to run for between 7 and 19 years will remain “fit for purpose” in terms of efficiency and innovation when ICT is always changing?

Answer (2)

April 2014 Keane Wallis-Bennett

I, like everyone across the city and across the country, was truly shocked and saddened by the tragic incident at Liberton High School earlier this month. My thoughts and deepest sympathies are with Keane Wallis-Bennett’s family, friends and the whole school community.

The Council has since inspected over 200 schools and other facilities across the city, focusing on free- standing walls, and various precautionary works were carried out over the Easter holidays.

We are determined to provide reassurance to parents, pupils and the people of Edinburgh that we will do everything in our power to prevent anything like this happening again.

It’s vitally important that we understand the cause of this tragedy and we are continuing to work very closely with Police Scotland, and the Health and Safety Executive, as part of their ongoing investigations. As a parent of a Secondary School child myself, I know just how important it is that we find out exactly what happened. ______

Margo MacDonald

I’m sure I speak for everyone at the Council when I say that Edinburgh, and indeed Scotland, has lost one of our finest public servants following the passing of Margo MacDonald, whose memorial service was held earlier today.

Margo was a principled and committed politician who worked tirelessly to champion the Capital’s interests at a national level. She was truly one of a kind, both passionate and courageous, and she will be very much missed. Our thoughts are with her family and friends. ______

Mortonhall report

As you may have read, our Chief Executive, Sue Bruce, has received Dame Elish Angiolini’s report into Mortonhall Crematorium.

The report is lengthy and wide-ranging and Sue needed time to read it thoroughly before setting a publication date, which is now expected to be next Wednesday, 30 April. Parents will receive a personal copy that morning, ahead of wider publication. I understand how anxious they are to receive the report and hope this timescale will reassure them. ______

Tram project latest

Tram testing and driver training continues apace. Each of the 40 drivers is busy clocking up their required 60 hours’ driving time, getting them used to interacting with other road users, especially along the city centre section of the route.

Pedestrians, drivers and cyclists are also becoming accustomed to the return of trams to our streets and we’ve refreshed our safety campaign with a new #carefulnow hashtag to add to the popular #dingding and help raise awareness of how to walk, cycle and drive safely around trams.

We’re now gearing up towards the launch of passenger services, the exact date of which will be announced very soon – watch this space. Remember you can keep up-to-date with the latest tram news by following @edinburghtrams on Twitter. ______

Use your vote

With both the European Parliamentary Elections and the Scottish Independence Referendum taking place this year, it’s important that you are registered to vote.

This is your opportunity to be part of our democracy and make your vote count. Registering only takes a few minutes and being on the Electoral Register has other benefits such as helping improve your credit rating and for background checks such as Disclosure Scotland and applying for benefits.

Contact the Electoral Registration Office by calling 0131 344 2500 or visit www.lothian-vjb.gov.uk by 6 May to register, or to apply to vote by post or proxy by 7 May. ______

Our new website

The launch of our new ‘responsive’ website earlier this month marks a real milestone in the Council’s ambitious ICT plans. The design and functionality of the site, which is easy to access on smart phones and tablet/iPads, is based on extensive customer research. In time, benefits to customers will include faster, automatic responses to online enquiries, a single record of contact with the Council and a secure ‘myaccount' function.

Please do take the time to have a browse – we’d be grateful for your feedback. ______

Stay in the picture

Keep yourself in the picture with our news section online. If you wish to unsubscribe please email us. Watch live full Council and some committee meetings on our webcast. Join the debate on Twitter #edinwebcast

The City of Edinburgh Council

10.00am, Thursday 1 May 2014

Review of Appointments to Committees, Boards and Joint Boards for 2014/2015

Item number Report number Executive/routine Wards None

Executive summary

Standing Order 3.2 requires the Council to make various appointments at its first ordinary meeting in May. The Council is invited to review its appointments to Committees, Boards and Joint Boards for 2014/2015.

Links

Coalition pledges Council outcomes Single Outcome Agreement

Report

Review of Appointments to Committees, Boards and Joint Boards for 2014/2015

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that the Council specifies its appointments to the following positions for 2014/2015: (a) The Leader and Depute Leader of the Council; (b) Conveners and Vice Conveners of the Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee, Executive Committees and other Committees of the Council (c) Members of the Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee, Executive Committees and other Committees of the Council; (d) Members of the Neighbourhood Partnerships; (e) Members of the Licensing Board (see paragraphs 3.4-3.6 below), Joint Boards (see paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 below) and Joint Committees.

Background

2.1 On 2 May 2013 the Council made appointments to Committees, Boards and Joint Boards for 2013/2014. 2.2 Some adjustments to Committee memberships and Conveners were also agreed at Council meetings on 27 June, 22 August, 24 October and 12 December 2013 and 13 March 2014.

Main report

3.1 Standing Order 3.2 requires the Council to make various appointments at its first ordinary meeting in May. The Council is invited to specify its appointments to the following positions for 2014/2015: • The Leader and Depute Leader of the Council; • Conveners and Vice Conveners of the Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee, Executive Committees and other Committees of the Council (Appendix 1 details current Conveners and Vice Conveners and the Council’s previous decision on Group allocations);

Page 2

• Members of the Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee, Executive Committees and other Committees of the Council (Appendix 2 details current membership); • Members of Neighbourhood Partnerships (Appendix 3 details current membership); • Members of the Licensing Board, Joint Committees and Joint Boards that the Council should appoint (see paragraphs 3.2 - 3.6 below) (Appendix 4 details current membership) Joint Boards 3.2 Standing Order 3.2 requires the appointment of members of Joint Boards but, in each case, the appropriate legislation provides for the members first appointed to them to hold office for the life of the Council. 3.3 If there is to be any change in the Council’s membership of the Joint Boards, the co-operation of existing members is required by their resigning from the particular Board. New appointments cannot be made until a letter of resignation is received. Licensing Board 3.4 Similar provisions apply to the membership of the Licensing Board. Section 5 and Schedule 1 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 require that a vacancy on the Licensing Board must formally exist. In this connection, any member intending to resign from the Licensing Board must do so in writing to the Clerk and ensure that their letter is received before 1 May 2014. 3.5 The Act also states that any member appointed to the Licensing Board cannot take their place on the Board until they have completed an external training course and passed an examination. 3.6 A councillor who is a premises licence holder, or the employee of a premises licence holder and works as such in licensed premises, whether alone or in partnership with another person engaged in the business of producing or selling alcohol, or a director or other officer of a company so engaged or an employee of any person so engaged and working as such in that business, shall not act as a member of a Licensing Board for any purpose under the Act. Senior Councillor Allowances 3.7 When specifying appointments, the Council can appoint 24 Senior Councillors within maximum budget set out in the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 (Remuneration) Amendment Regulations 2013.

Measures of success

Not applicable.

Page 3

Financial impact

Not applicable.

Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact

Not applicable.

Equalities impact

Not applicable.

Sustainability impact

Not applicable.

Consultation and engagement

Not applicable.

Background reading / external references

Not applicable

Alastair D Maclean Director of Corporate Governance Contact: Louise Williamson, Assistant Committee Officer, Committee Services E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 4264

Page 4

Links

Coalition pledges Council outcomes Single Outcome Agreement Appendices Appendix 1 – Conveners and Vice Conveners of Committees Appendix 2 – Membership of Committees Appendix 3 – Members of Neighbourhood Partnerships Appendix 4 – Joint Committees and Boards, The Licensing Board and Lothian and Borders Community Justice Authority

Page 5

APPENDIX 1

APPOINTMENTS FOR 2013/2014

CONVENERS AND VICE CONVENERS OF COMMITTEES

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES

Corporate Policy and Strategy Convener: Councillor Burns (Leader and Deputy Leader of the Vice-Convener: Councillor Cardownie Council as Convener and Vice Convener)

Communities and Neighbourhoods Convener: Councillor Child (Capital Coalition members) Vice-Convener: Councillor Bill Henderson

Culture and Sport Convener: Councillor Lewis (Capital Coalition members) Vice-Convener: Councillor Austin Hart

Economy Convener: Councillor Ross (Capital Coalition members) Vice-Convener: Councillor Munro

Education, Children and Families Convener: Councillor Godzik (Capital Coalition members) Vice-Convener: Councillor Fullerton

Finance and Resources Convener: Councillor Rankin (Capital Coalition members) Vice Convener: Councillor Bill Cook

Health, Social Care and Housing Convener: Councillor Ricky Henderson (Capital Coalition members) Vice-Convener: Councillor Day

Transport and Environment Convener: Councillor Hinds (Capital Coalition members) Vice-Convener: Councillor McVey

OTHER COMMITTEES

Governance, Risk and Best Value Convener: Councillor Balfour (Conservative Group member as Convener)

Police and Fire Scrutiny Committee Convener: Councillor Bridgman Vice-Convener: Councillor Redpath Leadership Advisory Panel Convener: Councillor Burns (Leader of the Council as Convener)

Petitions Convener: Councillor Chapman (Green Group member as Convener)

Pensions Convener: Councillor Rankin (Capital Coalition member as Convener)

Planning/Development Convener: Councillor Perry Management Sub Vice-Convener: Councillor Howat

Regulatory/Licensing Sub Convener: Councillor Barrie Vice Convener: Councillor Blacklock

Committee on the Jean F Watson Convener: To be appointed from Bequest agreed Committee membership

APPEALS

Committee on Discretionary Rating Convener: To be appointed from Appeals agreed Committee membership Personnel Appeals Committee Convener: Councillor Austin Hart

Committee on Pupil/Student Convener: Councillor Godzik Support

Placing in Schools Appeals Independent Chairperson

Social Work Complaints Review Independent Chairperson Committee

RECRUITMENT

Recruitment Committee Convener: Council Leader

APPENDIX 2

APPOINTMENTS 2013/14

MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES

Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee – 15 members – 5 Labour, 4 Scottish National Party, 3 Conservative, 2 Green, 1 Scottish Liberal Democrat

Leader of the Council (Councillor Burns) Convener of the Health, Social Care and (Convener) Housing Committee (Councillor Ricky Deputy Leader of the Council (Councillor Henderson) Cardownie) (Deputy Convener) Convener of the Transport and Convener of the Communities and Environment Committee (Councillor Neighbourhood Committee (Councillor Hinds) Child) Councillor Rose Convener of the Culture and Sport Councillor Mowat Committee (Councillor Lewis) Councillor Nick Cook Convener of the Economy Committee Councillor Burgess (Councillor Ross) Councillor Chapman Convener of the Education, Children and Councillor Edie Families Committee (Councillor Godzik) Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee (Councillor Rankin)

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES

Communities and Neighbourhoods Committee – 13 members – 5 Labour, 4 Scottish National Party, 2 Conservative, 1 Green, 1 Scottish Liberal Democrat

Councillor Austin-Hart Councillor McVey Councillor Child (Convener) Councillor Jackson Councillor Gardner Councillor McInnes Councillor Keil Councillor Bagshaw Councillor Walker Councillor Edie Councillor Bridgman Leader (ex officio) Councillor Cairns Deputy Leader (ex officio) Councillor Bill Henderson (Vice-Convener)

City of Edinburgh Council – Appointments 1 May 2014

Culture and Sport Committee – 13 members – 5 Labour, 4 Scottish National Party, 2 Conservative, 1 Green, 1 Scottish Liberal Democrat

Councillor Austin Hart (Vice Convener) Councillor Lewis (Convener) Councillor Doran Councillor Balfour Councillor Hinds Councillor Paterson Councillor Milligan Councillor Booth Councillor Munro Councillor Shields Councillor Cairns Leader (ex officio) Councillor Fullerton Deputy Leader (ex officio) Councillor Bill Henderson

Economy Committee – 13 members – 5 Labour, 4 Scottish National Party, 2 Conservative, 1 Green, 1 Scottish Liberal Democrat

Councillor Austin Hart Councillor Ross (Convener) Councillor Blacklock Councillor Paterson Councillor Gardner Councillor Rust Councillor Milligan Councillor Corbett Councillor Munro (Vice Convener) Councillor Edie Councillor Barrie Leader (ex officio) Councillor McVey Deputy Leader (ex officio) Councillor Rankin

Education, Children and Families Committee – 20 members – 7 Labour, 6 Scottish National Party, 4 Conservative, 2 Green, 1 Scottish Liberal Democrat

Councillor Austin-Hart Councillor Key Councillor Child Councillor Lewis Councillor Day Councillor Aitken Councillor Godzik (Convener) Councillor Nick Cook Councillor Milligan Councillor Jackson Councillor Redpath Councillor Rust Councillor Robson Councillor Corbett Councillor Brock Councillor Main Councillor Dixon Councillor Aldridge Councillor Fullerton (Vice-Convener) Leader (ex officio) Councillor Howat Deputy Leader (ex officio)

Added Members for Education Matters A Craig Duncan (Church of Scotland) John Swinburne (Teacher Representative) Ms Marie Allan (Roman Catholic) Lindsay Law (Parent representative) Rev Thomas Coupar (The Robin Chapel) Allan Crosbie (Teacher Representative)

City of Edinburgh Council – Appointments 1 May 2014

Finance and Resources Committee – 13 members – 5 Labour, 4 Scottish National Party, 2 Conservative, 1 Green, 1 Scottish Liberal Democrat

Councillor Bill Cook (Vice Convener) Councillor Ross Councillor Griffiths Councillor Jackson Councillor Godzik Councillor Whyte Councillor Ricky Henderson Councillor Corbett Councillor Walker Councillor Edie Councillor Dixon Leader (ex officio) Councillor McVey Deputy Leader (ex officio) Councillor Rankin (Convener)

Health, Social Care and Housing Committee – 15 members – 5 Labour, 4 Scottish National Party, 3 Conservative, 2 Green, 1 Scottish Liberal Democrat

Councillor Day (Vice Convener) Councillor Aitken Councillor Doran Councillor Heslop Councillor Gardner Councillor Rust Councillor Griffiths Councillor Chapman Councillor Ricky Henderson (Convener) Councillor Burgess Councillor Bridgman Councillor Shields Councillor Howat Leader (ex officio) Councillor Work Deputy Leader (ex officio) SNP Vacancy

Transport and Environment Committee – 15 members – 5 Labour, 4 Scottish National Party, 3 Conservative, 2 Green, 1 Scottish Liberal Democrat

Councillor Doran Councillor Jackson Councillor Gardner Councillor McInnes Councillor Hinds (Convener) Councillor Mowat Councillor Keil Councillor Bagshaw Councillor Perry Councillor Booth Councillor Barrie Councillor Aldridge Councillor Brock Leader (ex officio) Councillor Bill Henderson Deputy Leader (ex officio) Councillor McVey (Vice-Convener)

City of Edinburgh Council – Appointments 1 May 2014

OTHER COMMITTEES

Governance, Risk and Best Value Committee – 13 members – 5 Labour, 4 Scottish National Party, 2 Conservative, 1 Green, 1 Scottish Liberal Democrat

Councillor Blacklock Councillor Tymkewycz Councillor Child SNP Vacancy Councillor Gardner Councillor Balfour (Convener) Councillor Keil Councillor Whyte Councillor Munro Councillor Main Councillor Howat Councillor Shields Councillor Lunn

Police and Fire Scrutiny Committee – 10 members – 3 Labour, 3 Scottish National Party, 2, Conservative, 1 Green, 1 Scottish Liberal Democrat

Councillor Child Councillor Tymkewycz Councillor Redpath (Vice-Convener) Councillor Aitken Councillor Walker Councillor Mowat Councillor Barrie Councillor Main Councillor Bridgman (Convener) Councillor Edie

Petitions Committee – 10 members – 3 Labour, 3 Scottish National Party, 2 Conservative, 1 Green, 1 Scottish Liberal Democrat

Councillor Gardner Councillor Balfour Councillor Keil Councillor Paterson Councillor Redpath Councillor Chapman (Convener) Councillor Dixon Councillor Edie Councillor Key SNP Vacancy

Pensions Committee – 5 members – 2 Labour, 2 Scottish National Party, 1 Conservative (plus 2 external members)

Councillor Child SNP Vacancy Councillor Bill Cook Councillor Rose Councillor Rankin (Convener)

External Members John Atoni Darren May

City of Edinburgh Council – Appointments 1 May 2014

Planning Committee/Development Management Sub-Committee 15 members – 5 Labour, 6 Scottish National Party, 3 Conservative, 1 Green

Councillor Blacklock Councillor Howat (Vice-Convener) Councillor Child Councillor McVey Councillor Milligan Councillor Ross Councillor Perry (Convener) Councillor Heslop Councillor Robson Councillor Mowat Councillor Brock Councillor Rose Councillor Cairns Councillor Bagshaw Councillor Dixon

Planning Local Review Body – All members of the Planning Committee comprising three panels as follows:

Panel 1 Councillor Perry Councillor Dixon Councillor Cairns Councillor Mowat Councillor Griffithe

Panel 2 Councillor Ross Councillor Blacklock Councillor Milligan Councillor Rose Councillor McVey

Panel 3 Councillor Child Councillor Heslop Councillor Brock Councillor Bagshaw Councillor Howat

Regulatory Committee/Licensing Sub-Committee – 9 members – 3 Labour, 3 Scottish National Party, 2 Conservative, 1 Green

Councillor Blacklock (Vice-Convener) Councillor Bill Henderson Councillor Gardner Councillor Aitken Councillor Redpath Councillor Heslop Councillor Barrie (Convener) Councillor Burgess Councillor Cairns

Leadership Advisory Panel – 5 members of the Council plus 3 statutory representatives, appointed by the Education, Children and Families Committee when considering education business

Leader of the Council (Convener) Green Group Leader Deputy Leader of the Council Scottish Liberal Democrat Group Leader Conservative Group Leader

City of Edinburgh Council – Appointments 1 May 2014

Administration of Trust Funds

Committee on the Jean F Watson Bequest – 8 members plus one nominee of Friends of the City Arts Centre and two nominees of Director of Corporate Governance – 3 Labour, 2 Scottish National Party, 2 Conservative, 1 Green

Councillor Doran Councillor Fullerton Councillor Keil Councillor Aitken Councillor Redpath Councillor Paterson Councillor Lewis Councillor Burgess

Reviews and Appeals

Committee on Discretionary Rating Relief Appeals – 5 members – 2 Labour, 2 Scottish National Party, 1 Conservative

Councillor Day Councillor Work Councillor Griffiths Councillor Whyte Councillor Tymkewycz

Personnel Appeals Committee – 9 members – 3 Labour, 3 Scottish National Party, 2 Conservative, 1 Green

Councillor Austin Hart (Convener) Councillor Key Councillor Perry Councillor Aitken Councillor Redpath Councillor Balfour Councillor Barrie Councillor Chapman Councillor Howat

Committee on Pupil and Student Support – 5 members and one religious representative – 2 Labour, 2 Scottish National Party, 1 Conservative

Councillor Godzik (Convener) Councillor Key Councillor Keil Councillor Rust Councillor Dixon One religious representative

Placing in Schools Appeals Committee – 3 persons drawn from three Panels as described in Committee Terms of Reference and Delegated Functions number 17

Panel 1 – All members of Council and religious and teacher representatives on the Education, Children and Families Committee

Social Work Complaints Review Committee – 3 persons drawn from a panel approved by the Council (including all Councillors who are not members of the Education, Children and Families or Health, Social Care and Housing Committees)

City of Edinburgh Council – Appointments 1 May 2014

Recruitment

Recruitment Committee

Leader of Council (Convener), Deputy Leader of the Council, Convener of the Finance and Budget Committee and the appropriate Executive Committee Convener and relevant opposition spokespersons (or nominees)

City of Edinburgh Council – Appointments 1 May 2014 APPENDIX 3

APPOINTMENTS 2013/14

MEMBERS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTNERSHIPS

ALMOND

Councillor Paterson Councillor Work Councillor Shields

CITY CENTRE

Councillor Doran Councillor Rankin Councillor Mowat

CRAIGENTINNY/DUDDINGSTON

Councillor Griffiths Councillor Tymkewycz Councillor Lunn

FORTH

Councillor Cardownie Councillor Jackson Councillor Day Councillor Redpath

INVERLEITH

Councillor Bagshaw Councillor Hinds Councillor Barrie Councillor Whyte

PENTLANDS

Councillor Aitken Councillor Heslop Councillor Bill Henderson Councillor Lewis Councillor Ricky Henderson Councillor Rust

LEITH

Councillor Blacklock Councillor Gardner Councillor Brock Councillor McVey Councillor Booth Councillor Munro Councillor Chapman

City of Edinburgh Council – Appointments 1 May 2014

LIBERTON/GILMERTON

Councillor Austin Hart Councillor Nick Cook Councillor Bill Cook Councillor Robson

PORTOBELLO/CRAIGMILLAR

Councillor Bridgman Councillor Walker Councillor Child

SOUTH CENTRAL

Councillor Burgess Councillor McInnes Councillor Godzik Councillor Orr Councillor Howat Councillor Perry Councillor Main Councillor Rose

SOUTH WEST

Councillor Burns Councillor Key Councillor Corbett Councillor Milligan Councillor Dixon Councillor Wilson Councillor Fullerton

WESTERN EDINBURGH

Councillor Aldridge Councillor Edie Councillor Balfour Councillor Keil Councillor Cairns Councillor Ross

City of Edinburgh Council – Appointments 1 May 2014 APPENDIX 4

APPOINTMENTS 2013/14

JOINT COMMITTEES AND BOARDS, THE LICENSING BOARD AND LOTHIAN AND BORDERS COMMUNITY JUSTICE AUTHORITY

Lothian Valuation Joint Board/Lothian Electoral Joint Committee – 9 members – 3 Labour, 3 Scottish National Party, 2 Conservative, 1 Green

Councillor Ricky Henderson Councillor Work Councillor Keil Councillor McInnes Councillor Perry Councillor Rust Councillor Howat Councillor Bagshaw Councillor McVey

Forth Estuary Transport Authority – 4 members – 2 Labour, 1 Scottish National Party, 1 Conservative Councillor Hinds Councillor Work Councillor Keil Councillor Paterson

Licensing Board – up to 10 members – 3 Labour, 3 Scottish National Party, 2 Conservative, 1 Green

Councillor Day Councillor Work Councillor Milligan Councillor Balfour Councillor Walker Councillor Nick Cook Councillor Barrie Councillor Booth Councillor Bridgman

SEStran (South East of Scotland Regional Transport Partnership) – 5 members – 2 Labour, 2 Scottish National Party, 1 Conservative

Councillor Gardner Councillor Hinds Councillor Bill Henderson Councillor Orr Councillor Mowat

Lothian and Borders Community Justice Authority – 1 member

Substantive member Substitute member Convener of Health, Social Care and Councillor Bill Cook Housing Committee

City of Edinburgh Council – Appointments 1 May 2014

Health and Social Care Partnership – 7 elected members – Convener and Vice Convener of the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee, 2 Capital Coalition members, 1 Conservative, 1 Green, 1 Scottish Liberal Democrat

Councillor Day Councillor Aitken Councillor Ricky Henderson (Convener) Councillor Chapman Councillor McVey Councillor Shields Councillor Work

City of Edinburgh Council – Appointments 1 May 2014 The City of Edinburgh Council

10.00am, Thursday, 1 May 2014

Appointments to Outside Bodies - Social Enterprise Strategy Implementation Group

Item number Report number Executive/routine Wards All

Executive summary

The City of Edinburgh Council endorsed the Edinburgh Compact Social Enterprise Strategy – Enabling Enterprise at its meeting on 6 February 2014 and committed to play a key role in the implementation going forward. The Chair of the Social Enterprise Strategy Implementation Group has approached the Council Leader to request representation on this group from the Council.

Links

Coalition pledges P15, P28 Council outcomes CO8 Single Outcome Agreement SO1

Report

Appointments to Outside Bodies - Social Enterprise Strategy Implementation Group

Recommendations

1.1 To approve the appointment of four representatives of the City of Edinburgh Council to the Social Enterprise Strategy Implementation Group as outlined in paragraph 3.3.

Background

2.1 The City of Edinburgh Council endorsed the Edinburgh Compact Social Enterprise Strategy – Enabling Enterprise on 6 February. In so doing, the Council committed to playing a key role in the implementation of this strategy going forward.

Main report

3.1 An implementation group is now being established to oversee the delivery of the strategy and will include representatives from the Social Enterprise and private sector. The implementation group will meet under the auspices of the Edinburgh Compact Partnership and will meet on a quarterly basis. 3.2 The City of Edinburgh Council has been asked to nominate representatives to provide a strategic overview of Council and Community Planning policies and to assist in driving the strategy forward. 3.3 It is proposed that the following people be approved to join this group: • Convener of Communities and Neighbourhoods Committee – Councillor Maureen Child • Convener of Economy Committee – Councillor Frank Ross • Director of Economic Development – Greg Ward • Head of the Cooperative Development Unit – Nick Croft.

Measures of success

4.1 The objectives of the 2013-18 Social Enterprise strategy for Edinburgh are achieved.

The City of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 2

Financial impact

5.1 There are no financial impacts arising from these appointments.

Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact

6.1 The strategy was developed in consultation with the Council and has direct relevance to the Cooperative Capital approach and the Economic Strategy 2012 -2017. 6.2 The appointment of two elected members and two officers to this group will ensure that the Council outcomes are reflected in the implementation of the strategy.

Equalities impact

7.1 The development and implementation of the strategy will assist the Council to deliver key equality and rights outcomes, and meet the public sector equality duties to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations.

Sustainability impact

8.1 This strategy will contribute to Council efforts in support of the city’s sustainable development objectives, in particular the advancement of vibrant flourishing communities, social and economic wellbeing and an efficient and effectively managed city.

Consultation and engagement

9.1 This strategy was prepared for the Edinburgh Compact by a range of representatives from across the city with a knowledge of, and interest in, Social Enterprises. A working group of representatives from all Council Directorates contributed to the preparation of this strategy. 9.2 The Social Enterprise Strategy Implementation Group will comprise representatives from the Social Enterprise and private sectors as well as the City of Edinburgh Council.

Background reading/external references

The Edinburgh Compact Enterprise Strategy: Enabling Enterprise

The City of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 3

Greg Ward Director of Economic Development Contact: Alison Coburn, Principal Officer E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 3149

Links

Coalition pledges P15 - Work with public organisations, the private sector and social enterprise to promote Edinburgh to investors P28 - Further strengthen our links with the business community by developing and implementing strategies to promote and protect the economic well being of the city Council outcomes CO8 - Edinburgh’s economy creates and sustains job opportunities Single Outcome S01 - Edinburgh's Economy Delivers increased investment, jobs Agreement and opportunities for all Appendices None

The City of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 4

The City of Edinburgh Council

10.00am, Thursday, 1 May 2014

Appointment of Non-Executive Directors for the EDI Group Limited

Item number Report number Executive/routine Executive Wards All

Executive summary

As part of the rationalisation and restructure of the Council’s arms length property companies, the board of the EDI Group Limited has been reconstituted. The Council’s Recruitment Committee has carried out the recruitment process for three Non-Executive Directors as instructed by Council on 12 December 2013. This report seeks Council approval to the appointments of three Non-Executive Directors to the board of the EDI Group Limited.

Links

Coalition pledges P17 Council outcomes CO7, CO8, CO19, CO25 Single Outcome Agreement SO1

Report

Appointment of Non-Executive Directors for the EDI Group Limited

Recommendations

1.1 The Recruitment Committee has recommended that Council approve the appointment of the following three Non-Executive Directors to the Board of EDI Group Limited and its subsidiaries (in so far as this is possible, taking account of existing joint ventures), for a period of two years effective from 5 May 2014: • Deborah Benson • Hugh Rutherford • John Watt 1.2 It is recommended that authority is delegated to the Director of Services for Communities to take all necessary steps to achieve the same.

Background

2.1 On 6 February 2014, Council considered a report on the rationalisation and restructure of the Council’s arms length property companies and agreed a number of recommendations relating to the structure and governance of these companies. 2.2 At that meeting, Council instructed that three external individuals, with suitable property industry experience, should be recruited to the board of the EDI Group Limited as Non-Executive Directors and that this recruitment should take place through the Council’s Recruitment Committee.

Main report

3.1 Following the February Council meeting, the recruitment process for the Non- Executive Directors commenced. 3.2 The recruitment process was completed by the Recruitment Committee and interviews were held on 22 and 23 April 2014. 3.3 It is now recommended that Council approves the appointment of the following individuals to serve as Non-Executive Directors on the Board of the EDI Group

The City of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 2

Limited and its subsidiaries (in so far as this is possible, taking account of existing joint ventures), for a period of two years effective from 5 May 2014: • Deborah Benson • Hugh Rutherford • John Watt Measures of success

4.1 The EDI Group will have a strong, experienced and skilled Board of Directors to lead the company in the achievement of its aims and objectives.

Financial impact

5.1 There is no significant financial impact arising from this report as the Non- Executive Director posts are not remunerated.

Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact

6.1 The appointment of the three Non-Executive Directors completes the reconstitution of the EDI Group Limited Board of Directors and is in line with the instruction of Council on 6 February 2014.

Equalities impact

7.1 The recruitment process meets the requirements of equalities legislation.

Sustainability impact

8.1 There is no sustainability impact arising from this report.

Consultation and engagement

9.1 None.

Background reading/external references

• City of Edinburgh Council – 13 December 2012 – Council Companies • Economic Policy Development and Review Sub-Committee - 5 February 2013 - Rationalisation and Restructure of Council Arms Length Property Companies – Progress Report

The City of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 3

• Audit Scotland – June 2011 – Arm’s-length external organisations (ALEOs): Are You Getting It Right? • HM Treasury – June 2010 - Reforming Arm’s Length Bodies • National Audit Office – December 2010 – Short Guide to Reorganising Arm’s Length Bodies • National Audit Office – December 2010 – National Audit Office memorandum for the Public Administration Select Committee: Assessing Business Cases for Changes to Arm’s Length Bodies • City of Edinburgh Council – 27 June 2013 – Council Companies • Invercap report (Draft) – Arms Length External Organisations

Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities Contact: Peter Watton, Acting Head of Corporate Property E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 5962

Links

Coalition pledges P17 – Continue efforts to develop the city’s gap sites and encourage regeneration. Council outcomes CO7 – Edinburgh draws new investment in development and regeneration. CO8 – Edinburgh’s economy creates and sustains job opportunities. CO19 – Attractive Places and Well Maintained – Edinburgh remains an attractive city through the development of high quality buildings and places and the delivery of high standards and maintenance of infrastructure and public realm. CO25 – The Council has effective and efficient services that deliver on objectives. Single Outcome SO1 – Edinburgh’s Economy Delivers increased investment, Agreement jobs and opportunities. Appendices

The City of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 4

The City of Edinburgh Council

10.00am, Thursday, 1 May 2014

Chair of Marketing Edinburgh

Item number Report number Executive/routine Wards All

Executive summary

Council is asked to note the appointment of a new Chair of Marketing Edinburgh. Contrary to the Council’s decision of December 2012 that a councillor director should chair arms length companies, the appointment of a non elected member as Chair of Marketing Edinburgh is now considered preferable in grounding the destination promotion body firmly within the city’s wider business sector.

Links

Coalition pledges P15 Council outcomes CO7, CO8, CO25, CO26 Single Outcome Agreement SOA1

Report

Chair of Marketing Edinburgh

Recommendations

1.1 Members of the Council are requested to: • Note the appointment of a new Chair of Marketing Edinburgh; • Note that the Chair is not one of the councillor directors, as previously agreed by the Council on 13 December 2012; • Agree that the appointment of a non elected member representative from the Board as Chair, fits with both the Council’s and Marketing Edinburgh’s objectives to enhance the status of Marketing Edinburgh amongst the city’s business community and to leverage income from the private sector for the city’s destination promotion activities.

Background

2.1 At its meeting on 13 December 2012, the Council agreed that elected members would participate directly in decision-making as directors of Council companies. It was further agreed that three elected members would sit on the board of each Council company; one member from each of the Capital Coalition groups and one from an opposition group. Three elected members have therefore been appointed to the Board of Marketing Edinburgh. In addition, Council agreed that one of the councillor directors should act as chair of the company. Main report

3.1 At the Marketing Edinburgh board meeting of 21 March 2014 the Chair of Marketing Edinburgh, Alan Johnstone, stood down. Gordon Robertson of Edinburgh Airport was elected unanimously as the new Chair. The elected members on the Board welcomed this further appointment from the private sector, as it reflects the strategic objectives of both the Council and Marketing Edinburgh; that Marketing Edinburgh should have a commercial culture, operate at arm’s length from the Council, and demonstrate a return on investment for its funders.

Measures of success

4.1 That Marketing Edinburgh is an established member of the city’s business community and raises funds from a wider base to add value to the core funding

Page 2

from The City of Edinburgh Council and to increase the Council’s return on grant investment.

Financial impact

5.1 The election of a further non Council representative as Chair of Marketing Edinburgh should stand Marketing Edinburgh in good stead in the drive to be recognised as a commercially sustainable arms length company which will draw greater investment into the promotion of the city.

Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact

6.1 Three elected members are councillor directors on the Board of Marketing Edinburgh. The Convener of Economy is the Vice Chair of the Marketing Edinburgh Board. 6.2 An officer from Economic Development also attends the Marketing Edinburgh Board meetings as an observer.

Equalities impact

7.1 There is no direct impact upon equalities resulting from the report’s contents.

Sustainability impact

8.1 There is no direct impact upon carbon reduction, adaptation to climate change or sustainable development resulting from the report’s contents.

Consultation and engagement

9.1 Marketing Edinburgh consults with the Council on its Business Plan and on city promotion activities, both of which are underpinned by the Council’s Economic Strategy.

Background reading/external references

Item 8.3, Council Companies http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/2865/city_of_edinburgh_council

Greg Ward Director of Economic Development Page 3

Contact: Elaine Ballantyne, Head of External Relations and Investor Support E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 3854

Links

Coalition pledges P15 - Work with public organisations, the private sector and social enterprise to promote Edinburgh to investors Council outcomes CO7 – Edinburgh draws new investment in development and regeneration CO8 – Edinburgh’s economy creates and sustains job opportunities CO25 – The Council has efficient and effective services that deliver on objectives CO26 - The Council engages with stakeholders and works in partnership to improve services and deliver on agreed objectives Single Outcome SOA1 - Edinburgh's Economy Delivers increased investment, Agreement jobs and opportunities for all

Appendices

Page 4

The City of Edinburgh Council

10:00, Thursday, 1 May 2014

Polling Places for Polling Districts SS10H, Meadows/Morningside Ward and NC11A, City Centre Ward

Item number Report number Executive/routine Wards 10 – Meadows/Morningside 11 – City Centre

Executive summary

A report to Council on 12 December 2013 proposed a polling scheme for the city, following a statutory review of polling districts and polling places. This was developed on the basis of research, a consideration of the experience of recent polls and comments from stakeholders during a three week public consultation. The Council agreed various revisions to the polling districts and places. However, consideration of the proposed Polling Place at South Morningside Primary School, was continued for a further report. A more extensive review of proposals for that district has been undertaken, with an assessment of alternative venues. In light of this further review the primary school will remain a polling place for polls in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Due to the sale of the St Stephen’s Centre in the New Town an alternative venue has also had to be identified for electors in this district. The Roxburghe Hotel has been booked as an initial replacement. Ward members have been consulted on both issues and are content with proposals.

Links

Coalition pledges Council outcomes Single Outcome Agreement

Report

Polling Places for Polling Districts SS10H, Meadows/Morningside Ward and NC11A, City Centre Ward Recommendations

1.1 To note the continued use of South Morningside Primary School as a polling place for polling district SS10H in Ward 10 Meadows/Morningside, following review of alternatives. 1.2 To note the use of the Roxburghe Hotel as a polling place for polling district NC11A in Ward 11 City Centre, after the sale of the St Stephen’s Centre. 1.3 To agree that all polling arrangements are kept under review to ensure that provision supports all electors in the city and encourages participation in the democratic process. 1.4 To agree that further changes may be required to take account of any ward boundary changes resulting from the ongoing Fifth Reviews of Electoral Arrangements by the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. Background

2.1 The Council considered a report on 12 December 2013 as a result of a statutory review of polling districts and polling places for the City of Edinburgh council area. 2.2 The report presented the outcome of that review, noted results of related public consultation and recommended a revised set of polling arrangements. 2.3 Following a deputation from the South Morningside Parent Council, Council agreed to all of the recommendations in that report except for the use of South Morningside Primary School as a polling place, with a request that further consideration be given to the polling provision for that district. Main report

3.1 Polling facilities are selected to support turnout and promote participation in electoral events. Ideally the venue chosen will provide: • an accessible building, available at short notice; • sufficient space to accommodate the required number of polling stations, with facilities for staff; • a recognisable locations;

City Of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 2

• a central location within the district (if possible), able to be reached by a reasonable walk, avoiding main roads, steep hills or other obstacles that may make access difficult; • convenient for public transport routes, and • with parking available or able to be facilitated. 3.2 South Morningside Primary School currently serves as the polling place for polling district SS10H of Ward 10, Meadows/Morningside. The polling district covers a large area, bounded by Comiston Road, Balcarres Street, Myreside and Greenbank Drive, within which there are no public buildings suitable for polling. The school is on the eastern edge of the district. Turnout has traditionally been high in this district at 73.9% for the UK Parliamentary election in 2010. The new electoral register published on 10 March 2014 records a total of 3427 electors in the district, 610 of whom are postal voters. Working on a turnout of 80%, as is anticipated for this year’s referendum, this will require a venue able to accommodate 4 polling stations. 3.3 Twenty one responses about South Morningside Primary were received as part of the review of polling places in 2013. Thirteen were requests to discontinue use of the school as a polling place. The parent council and an individual elector separately also requested that use of the school should cease. None of the respondents raised any problems with the quality of the building or location of the school as a polling place. The Parent Council proposed the use of Morningside Parish Church as an alternative venue. 3.4 The Department of Children and Families has now programmed in-service days for schools on the dates of future scheduled elections. This leaves only elections such as the Referendum and by-elections where schools will be closed at shorter notice. 3.5 Following the consultation responses received, other potential facilities were investigated in the area, one of which (the Parish Church) could feasibly provide accommodation for polling. However as schools will be closed on most future polling days, the report proposed that the school continued to be used. 3.6 It is also the most ideal location in the district: there were no complaints about the facilities, it is well located for the electors, accessible to disabled people, and a move could cause unnecessary disruption to voters potentially impacting turnout. 3.7 At the 12 December meeting, Council requested that further consideration was given to the use of South Morningside Primary School following a deputation from the Parent Council. The deputation was concerned that use of the school as a polling place, with the necessary closure of the school interrupted pupils’ education and necessitated childcare arrangements for parents and carers; 3.8 The deputation also suggested that schools would not be available in the event of an unscheduled poll.

City Of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 3

3.9 Following the decision of Council on 12 December 2013 the Elections Team gave further consideration to the polling arrangements for this district. In particular the facilities at Morningside Parish Church, the venue suggested by the Parent Council, were reviewed. 3.10 A table in Appendix 1 analyses the advantages and disadvantages of the two potential venues. In addition to these factors, the ongoing Fifth Reviews of Electoral Arrangements by the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland is expected to propose changes in councillor numbers and ward boundaries to be applied for the local government elections in May 2017. Any such change would require a new review of polling districts and places to be completed prior to those polls. 3.11 This information and analysis has been the subject of consultation with Ward Councillors. On the basis of this further analysis and consultation they agreed that voters in district SS10H will continue to use South Morningside Primary as a polling place for electoral events in 2014, 2015 and 2016. 3.12 As was noted in the report to Council on 12 December 2013, the closure of a school to allow polling can interrupt the pupils’ education and pose challenges for parents and carers in terms of childcare. This is held in tension with the Council’s responsibility to provide appropriate facilities for electors. Schools are often the ideal location for polling in a district, and are familiar to voters. The alignment of existing in-service training days with scheduled electoral events, where possible, should minimise the overall disruption over a school year. 3.13 While Council agreed to the use of the St Stephen’s Centre as a Polling Place for voters in district NC11A of the City Centre Ward at its meeting on 12December 2013, the building was subsequently sold and owing to refurbishment it will not be available for polling for the electoral events of 2014. 3.14 An alternative venue had therefore to be identified for the 2,874 electors registered to vote at that place. The Election Team undertook a survey of potential venues in the polling district. Several venues were inspected but most would have required a series of temporary ramps both internal and external to allow disabled access, involved a complex route through the building or did not offer sufficient space to accommodate the number of stations required for high turnout polls. 3.15 The Roxburghe Hotel (Crowne Plaza), 38 Charlotte Square has been identified as a replacement. It offers: • sufficient space to accommodate expected turnout at the next three scheduled electoral events; • access via a separate door on Charlotte Square rather than the principal entrance to the hotel, allowing good signposting; • a concierge to assist in directing voters; • accommodation that is accessible to disabled voters; and

City Of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 4

• a familiar location. 3.16 The hire costs for the hotel are also significantly lower than those applied for the St Stephen’s Centre. 3.17 Ward Councillors were consulted and agreed this proposal as an initial solution to be kept under review. There were some concerns raised that the location was distant from the bulk of electors in the district, but it was agreed that suitable accessible accommodation able to house four polling stations was not available any closer. 3.18 The Roxburghe Hotel will be used as a polling place for district NC11A. The use of the building will be monitored carefully at the European Parliamentary Elections in May and any improvements necessary will be applied for the Scottish Independence Referendum in September. Facilities in the area will also be kept under review and alternative venues will be assessed should they be identified. 3.19 A letter has been sent to all electors affected by the change in venue with an explanation of the new polling place’s location. Measures of success

4.1 The review of polling arrangements is a statutory responsibility under the Representation of the People Act (1983) and the Electoral Registration and Administration Act (2013). The aim is to ensure the optimal provision of facilities for voting in the City of Edinburgh to support turnout in electoral events. The polling arrangements that are proposed should support participation in the political process. Financial impact

5.1 The hire of polling places for the use at elections is a major cost element at each poll. For Parliamentary and Referendum polls these costs are recovered from Government. However they fall wholly to the Council for local government elections. Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact

6.1 The delivery of electoral events is monitored as part of the Council’s Corporate Risk Register. The provision of appropriate polling facilities is fundamental to the democratic process. Reviews of facilities are governed by Schedule A1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA 1983). Equalities impact

7.1 The local authority has a duty to review the accessibility of all polling places to disabled voters and to ensure that every polling place or prospective polling place for which it is responsible is accessible to disabled voters as far as is reasonable and practicable.

City Of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 5

All of the polling places that are proposed for use in this report as a result of this review have been assessed to ensure that they are appropriately accessible or would be with reasonable adjustments such as ramps. Sustainability impact

8.1 There are no direct sustainability impacts as a result of this report. Consultation and engagement

9.1 The 12 December 2013 Council report was the product of consultation with elected members, council officers and a three week public consultation period. Proposals were shared with stakeholders including community councils, neighbourhood partnerships, schools parent councils, disability organisations, polling staff and political parties. An on-line form was used to collect responses and seek suggestions for alternative polling places where appropriate. 9.2 Officers have consulted with Ward members regarding the two polling places proposed in this report. Background reading/external references

• Statutory Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places – report by the Chief Executive Item 8.3 The City Of Edinburgh Council 12 December 2013 • Electoral Commission Guidance on the Review of Polling Places

Sue Bruce Chief Executive Contact: Chris Highcock, Depute Returning Officer E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 3126

Links

Coalition pledges P33 Council outcomes CO24, CO25 Single Outcome SO4 Agreement Appendices 1 - Comparison of South Morningside Primary School and Morningside Parish Church as Polling Places

City Of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 6

Appendix 1 - Comparison of South Morningside Primary School and Morningside Parish Church as Polling Places

South Morningside Primary School

Advantages Disadvantages • Within polling district • Not central within polling district • Located with good transport links • Causes disruption to pupil education if • Accessible to disabled people unscheduled poll that is not aligned with • Sufficient space for required no of an in-service day polling stations • Requires alternate childcare • Good facilities for polling staff arrangements to be made • Recognisable to electors • Costs in terms of childcare etc • Available at short notice • Generally available without disruption to pupils • Free rental (only janitorial overtime costs) • Access can be guaranteed in the event of an unscheduled poll Morningside Parish Church (foot of Braid Road/Cluny Gardens)

Advantages Disadvantages • Accessible to disabled people • May not be available at short notice • Sufficient space for required no • Outwith polling district of polling stations • Communications required to voters • Good facilities for polling staff around new location • Recognisable to electors • Potential impact on turnout • Venue will have three polling stations at a high-turnout election in future, as an additional 1461 voters have transferred to Churchill Theatre Studio. Four further stations would be needed if SS10H voters transferred. • Potential confusion at polling place since it is already used for another district and the districts are too large to merge; need for clear signage and direction of voters • Additional rental charged for additional facilities • Second hall is used by an after schools club. Transferring voters here would necessitate use of second hall, so displacing these children.

City Of Edinburgh Council – 1 May 2014 Page 7

The City of Edinburgh Council

10am, Thursday, 1 May 2014 Outcome of the Consultation Process for the Proposal to Establish a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School

Item number Report number Executive/routine Wards Forth

Executive summary The purpose of this report is to advise on the outcome of the statutory consultation exercise in respect of the proposal to establish a nursery class at Wardie Primary School. The report responds to the main issues raised during the consultation and provides recommendations on how to proceed. Higher births across the city are generating greater demand for uptake of nursery places. A nursery with 80 places within the Wardie area will provide additional capacity in an area where Council nursery provision is currently limited but where demand is high. HM inspectors found that the proposal to establish a nursery class at Wardie primary School to be of overall benefit to the children affected by it. They recognise that the proposed nursery class will increase the capacity across the city by providing 40 full- time places or 80 part- time places. The Council is confident issues identified through the consultation have either already been addressed or there are plans are in place to do so. After taking account of the representations made, and the issues arising, the Director of Children and Families considers that the case has been made for a new nursery class to be established. Links

Coalition pledges P4, P5 Council outcomes CO1- CO2 Single Outcome SO3 Agreement

Page 1

Report

Outcome of the Consultation Process for the Proposal to Establish a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School

Recommendations 1.1 Council is asked to approve that a new 40/40 nursery class is established at Wardie Primary School. Background

Statutory Consultation Exercise 2.1 The City of Edinburgh Council Early Years Strategy that was launched in January 2010 sets out a vision and long term commitment to improve the life chances for children, supporting the coalition agreement to ensure every child has the best start in life. 2.2 One of the aims of the strategy is to develop integrated, flexible services to provide effective early learning and childcare for all children and families. To enable the delivery of this aim the Council’s stated ambition is to ensure that each neighbourhood, community or cluster has access to integrated flexible early years services. 2.3 The proposals in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill sets out a requirement to expand free nursery provision from 475 hours to 600 hours a year in August 2014 for all three and four year olds and for two year olds who are, or have been at any time since turning two, looked after or subject to a kinship care order. This will add to pressure on the provision of nursery places in the city. Recent announcements from the Scottish Government indicate that we will be required to provide 600 hours of early learning and childcare for 15% of two year olds from August 2014 increasing to 27% of two year olds from August 2015. 2.4 Higher births across the city are generating greater demand for uptake of nursery places. A nursery with 80 places within the Wardie area will provide additional capacity in an area where council nursery provision is currently limited but where demand is high. 2.5 In light of the above, careful consideration was given to planning the introduction of a new nursery class at Wardie Primary School.

Page 2

Main report 3.1 On 10 December 2013 the Education, Children and Families Committee approved that a statutory consultation should be carried out regarding the proposed new nursery class at Wardie primary School. The statutory consultation period ran from 16 December 2013 to Wednesday 12 February 2014. The rationale for the proposal is set out in the full consultation report which is included in Appendix 1. 3.2 A public meeting was held in respect of the proposals at Wardie Primary School on 27 January 2014 and was attended by approximately 40 members of the public. The meeting was independently chaired. A record of the meeting is included in Appendix 2. 3.3 Representations were also invited by letter and by e-mail. A total of 44 written representations were received. A copy of all submissions is included as an Appendix 3. Copies of the full submissions will be available in the Elected Members Lounge for reference. 3.4 A consultation exercise was undertaken with a group of 12 children from P1 – P7 the details of which are provided later in this report. 3.5 During the week commencing 24 February 2014 Education Scotland carried out visits to Wardie Primary School and the existing Wardie Nursery, including discussion with relevant consultees in preparation of their report on the educational aspects of the proposal. 3.6 Responses to issues raised during the consultation process, together with the Council’s response to Education Scotland’s report on the educational aspects of the proposals, are considered in the ‘Key Themes and Issues and Council Responses’ section of this report Education Scotland 3.7 The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 (‘The Act) requires that the authority refer the proposals to Education Scotland so that they may prepare a report on the educational aspects. In producing their report, which is included in Appendix 4, Education Scotland considered the proposals of the authority as set out in the consultation document and the verbal and written responses received during the consultation period. 3.8 In their summary HM Inspectors state: • The Council has outlined relevant educational benefits of its proposal. • In progressing this proposal further, the Council needs to clarify the uncertainty around their projections of increased demand for nursery places in the Wardie area.

Page 3

• The Council needs to involve more fully stakeholders in the further development of the proposal, particularly the parents of Wardie Primary School pupils who are concerned about the loss of green space. • The headteacher, staff, parents and council need to work together to ensure best use is made of the remaining green space for all children. • The management committee of the existing Wardie Nursery need to be included in further discussions as the proposals progress to ensure that the perception that this is currently a threat to their provision is managed, and potential opportunities for greater partnership working are fully explored. • Concerns around congestion and children’s safety caused by increased traffic need to be managed carefully by the council and other agencies to ensure that the safety of children is paramount. This will include further consideration of staggered start times. 3.9 The Act requires that the Council’s consultation report includes ‘a statement of the authority’s response to Education Scotland’s report. 3.10 The various issues, and the Council response to them, are set out below in the order in which they appear in the Education Scotland report with references being quoted from that report. The Council is confident that all the issues identified have or will be addressed. As a consequence, the Council remains confident that the educational benefits identified in the proposal will be fully realised. Key Themes and Issues and Council Responses 3.11 A number of the issues that were highlighted in the Education Scotland report were also raised in the 44 written representations and in the public meeting. This section draws out the main themes and issues together with the Council’s response. Quotes have been included to illustrate the main themes raised in responses and are included as consultation comments. 3.12 Theme: The need to provide more early learning and childcare in the area

Issue raised by Paragraph 2.4 - Many respondents were not confident that the Education forecast demand figures provided by the Council as part of the Scotland consultation proposal were accurate, or supported by robust research. Those who also attended the public consultation meeting were dissatisfied with the responses from Council officers when challenged on the accuracy of the figures they were using.

Consultation “I do not feel the demand for a nursery is sufficiently well comments established” “the nursery planned is in response to an increase in city wide

Page 4

birth rate, but no plan is in place for how to respond to a parallel increase in demand for catchment primary school places - P1 at Wardie is already circa 70-85 children and requires three full classes and one composite to cope” “Do our local provider nurseries provide adequate capacity for this group of children/parents already”? “We question how waiting lists can be interpreted as parents will tend to put their child’s name on multiple lists, including local authority nurseries”.

Council The main driver underpinning demand for nursery places in response the City of Edinburgh Council area has been the increase in number of births. Citywide births have risen by 25% from 2002 to 2012 (see Figure 1). Births for 2013 show a slight drop but there is still a six year period where births have remained around 5,500.

Figure 1: Births in the City of Edinburgh Council Area

6,000 5,605 5,500 5,000 4,500 4,477 4,000 3,500

3,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

The number of births is not evenly spread throughout the city and some parts of the city have experienced a sharp increase in births and this includes the north side of the city around Wardie. Within the city there are large migration flows between sectors and areas of high births tend to lose numbers in subsequent years. However, given the high overall numbers, those remaining are still well up on earlier years. Taking account of Wardie and the three adjacent primary school catchments of Granton, Victoria and Trinity, the number of births in this part of North Edinburgh has risen by some 80% from 2002-03 and 2011-12 (see Figure 2).

Page 5

Figure 2: Births in the North Edinburgh

600 494 500 400 300 200 272 100 0

Note: Data relates to primary school catchments covered by Wardie, Trinity, Victoria and Granton. Birth data is from March to March rather than actual year The potential impact of the high births working through to the number of children aged three-four attending nursery is shown in Figure three. The scale of the increase from 2007 to 2014 is around 60%, so even with some drop off, the demand for places is considerable hence the requirement for additional nursery provision to serve the area. Figure 2: Potential Number of 3-4 Years Olds in North Edinburgh

1200 969 1000

800 599 600

400

200

Note: Data relates to school catchments covered by Wardie, Trinity, Victoria and Granton

Birth data is from March to March rather than actual year

3.13 Theme: The loss of green space in the school grounds and perceived reduction of physical activity of the school pupils

Page 6

Issue raised by Paragraph 2.5 - Almost all respondents highlighted the loss of Education green space for Wardie Primary School pupils and the Scotland negative impact that might have on their potential to further benefit from outdoor activity. Paragraph 3.4 -The new building will cause the primary school to lose some of the existing playing fields. However, children are only allowed on these playing fields in the summer weather, when it is dry.

Consultation “How can the Council get round its development of playing comments fields policy? As you know the loss of the playing field is the biggest issue for many parents. “While I recognise the increase in birth rate, I feel that the quality of outdoor space for the primary children to play in far outweighs the extra choice given to parents of preschool aged children in selecting a nursery place. The school roll is on the increase but the building of a nursery, on top of the building of essential classrooms, means there will be substantially far less playground space for more children”. “The green space at Wardie is of a huge benefit to the children I look after - they are running and playing in this space every day, in all seasons and most weathers, along with a lot of other children. For the children to potentially loose this quality of play space would be a real shame.” “The green space around Wardie is part of what makes the school special to us, our children and future children attending the school. The playing field is used at break and lunchtime, for sports as well as football club at the weekend. It is also used for events such as the May Fair and the “Wardie Olympics”.

Council The council is committed to the promotion of physical activities response in all schools and this would continue to be the case in Wardie Primary Schools. The head teacher has commented that the school does have significant outdoor space which the school team are keen to develop in the future and feel there would be an opportunity here to create a much better outdoor learning environment than the schools currently have. Wardie Primary also has a site area of approximately two hectares (this includes the schools own playing fields but excludes the large area of playing fields immediately adjacent to the school). A desktop study suggests that the areas designated as playground or outdoor activity space for primary

Page 7

pupils (excluding playing fields, the area designated for building expansion (rising rolls phase two), parking, etc.) has an estimated area of 4,500m². Taking account of the roll at the time of the Sept 2013 census, the available play area is approximately 10.3m² per pupil. By way of comparison, Flora Stevenson Primary School is on a site of approximately 0.8 hectares and has an estimated 6.3m² per pupil with no playing field space. The Education Scotland report also highlights that “Regardless of the nursery development, the head teacher and staff of Wardie Primary School recognise that better use needs to be made of this green space. The reduction in space still leaves considerable potential”. Some responders were concerned by the foot print of the nursery class and were unaware that half of the proposed site would be outdoor play space. The school grounds perimeter is covered by a wooded area that the children call the “forest”. This area will remain for the children to play in. The nursery building will provide an exciting learning environment, a separate room for meetings, parent groups and other activities, as well as a separate outdoor learning and play area.

3.14 Theme: The location of the building particularly in relation to the rising school rolls buildings

Issue raised by Many commented that the proposal was yet another ‘ad hoc’ Education addition to the Wardie Primary School estate, similar to Scotland expansions in the recent past. Respondents suggested that a more strategic approach by The City of Edinburgh Council for the further development of the Wardie Primary School estate is required.

Consultation “The loss of existing green space on the playing field - and comments further piecemeal development of the school campus is steadily eroding green space at the school - one if it's major assets. Why cannot brown space be used”? “Immediately surrounding the school are several potential tarmac sites that could accommodate a small new building on or near the site of the school”. “It was obvious from the meeting I attended a couple of weeks ago that there are much better and more sensible places to put

Page 8

the nursery around the school”.

Council The location of the nursery within the school grounds will be response considered in the context of the previously approved plans for further expansion the school as a result of the rising primary school roll in the area.

3.15 Theme: Safety and access to the school particularly increased traffic in the area

Issue raised by Paragraph 2.6 highlights that a significant number of Education respondents highlighted concern around the safety of an Scotland already busy drop-off period for the existing primary pupils, with the addition of nursery children potentially using an already busy pupil entrance. This risk would be exacerbated by the inadequate parking for cars on the main road to the primary school.

Consultation “The currently closed south gate should be reopened. Approx comments 40% of catchment could use this entrance were it reopened; easing main gate congestion and we have a school roll that is only going to rise”. “The biggest issues are likely to be in relation to increased car traffic and also congestion on the pavements leading to the school. The pavements along Granton Road are already full to capacity around school start and end times, and it is not an infrequent sight to see children and adults moving into the road to by-pass slow moving groups of children”.

Council Education Scotland found that the headteacher and staff of response Wardie Primary School are confident that these concerns can be managed to minimise concerns and the risks to children. For example, consideration could be given to staggering the start times for some children. The purpose of the statutory consultation process is to establish if a new nursery class should be established at Wardie Primary School. If approved, the actual detailed design process for a new nursery would be progressed during which any potential issues relating to traffic and road safety would be fully considered and any mitigating actions necessary identified. Once completed, the detailed designs for any new nursery would then be subject to the usual planning process during which local residents would have the opportunity to comment on the final proposals. The nursery opening time will not be exactly the same as the

Page 9

primary school and this will allow opportunities for a staggered start. The school travel plan encourages pupils to walk cycle or scoot more to and from school.

3.16 Theme: Impact on existing Wardie Nursery a partner provider next to the school

Issue raised by Paragraph 2.8 - The existing Wardie Nursery, is a registered Education charity, run as a voluntary organisation by a management Scotland committee, and is a partner provider with The City of Edinburgh Council. Wardie Nursery has concerns about their continued viability if the new nursery is established just 150 metres away from them. They currently have spaces available in their nursery and have concerns about how robust the increased demand figures forecast by the council are.

Consultation “This will result immediate resulting closure of Wardie comments Nursery, a local employer of 5 staff, embedded in the community, with 10's of families volunteering over a 30 year period to provide a community nursery in lieu of other council provision” “Spending a large sum of money on a new 80 child nursery should be lauded but it will cause the closure of an existing 35 child community nursery within sight of the proposal. So in reality the costs per child have almost doubled as the proposal will only add an extra 45 places”. “The Wardie Residents’ Club building is adjacent to the school and is, I believe, currently used as a nursery. Has consideration been given to adapting or extending this to accommodate the nursery”? “The neighbouring Wardie Resident’s Club has had adverts outside for months saying ‘nursery places available”.

Council The voluntary partner providers were asked if they could response provide more spaces however the building and the other community use prohibited any extension to the service. The increase numbers of children in the area and the demand that will be created through the delivery of 600 hours for two year old children will ensure the requirement to continue with the current Wardie Nursery. The Council is committed to support and work with the current

Page 10

Wardie Nursery in order to provide a flexible, integrated and effective learning and childcare service for the children and families across this area of the city.

Other Themes and Issues raised through the consultation 3.23 Additional points were recurrent in the public meeting, the consultation undertaken with pupils and in the responses received during the consultation period but were not mentioned by Education Scotland in their report. This section draws out the main themes and issues together with the Council’s response. 3.24 Theme: Feasibility Study and Consultation Process

Issue raised Some respondents raised their concerns about the consultation process and their desire to be more involved in particularly in deciding the location of the nursery. This was particularly important due to the additional buildings that have already been erected for the increase in school roll. There are plans for more classrooms to be built in the near future

Council response A Council officer met with the parents committee of Wardie Nursery to update them on the proposals prior to the consultation period. There has also been a commitment given at all stages of this process to date, that the Council would seek to develop opportunities to work in partnership with the nursery in order to develop services that would ensure joint working across both nursery provisions. The Council is required to carry out a formal statutory consultation regarding the proposed opening of an education service under the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. In relation to the proposal to establish a nursery class at Wardie Primary School, this formal consultation process took place between 16 December 2013 and 12 February 2014. In addition to the formal consultation process, Council officers also met with the parent council to update them on the proposals.

3.25 Theme: Impact on the whole school community

Issue raised Some respondents felt that the school accommodation does not have capacity for nursery children.

Council response The nursery class will be built with all the facilities that the children require and there would be no expectation that they would need to use any of the school facilities. The nursery children will have space to eat and their own library. However

Page 11

the head teacher may manage assemblies or special events that will include the nursery children. Education Scotland stated that they found that the staff team of Wardie Primary School are very supportive of this development. They recognise the potential benefits to transition for children from nursery to primary this would bring. There will also be more potential for joint working across nursery and primary classes. The school staff team also regard the development of a nursery class as a good professional development opportunity for them.

Issue raised The roof of the main school is in need of repair so perhaps some of the £750k can be used to fix that?

Council response The funding identified for building the nursery class was specifically and solely for that purpose.

Issue raised Could the additional space be used for community activity and after school group?

Council response There will be opportunities for the school management team to use the building for other activities.

Consultation with Children 3.26 The early years Quality Improvement Officer undertook a consultation exercise with 12 children from P1 – P7. A simple questionnaire was used to facilitate discussion and to provide an opportunity for them to record their views. Older children mentored and supported the younger age group to record responses. 3.27 A full copy of the responses is included in Appendix 5. Most children who opposed the idea were concerned about the loss of green space within the school grounds while those in favour of the nursery welcomed the further opportunities to make friends. 3.28 A copy of the questionnaire was left in the school and more children took the opportunity to complete the questionnaire. 3.29 Education Scotland reported that children were enthusiastic about the addition of a nursery to their school and were keen to explore the potential to work closely with nursery children as buddies and on joint projects. They recognised that some of the green space around their school would be lost, but did not regard that as a major problem. The use of the current space is significantly limited by the weather. Conclusions The following conclusions have been drawn:

Page 12

3.30 The City of Edinburgh Council is committed to giving children the best start in life through the development of integrated, flexible services that provide effective learning and childcare for children and families across Edinburgh. The new nursery proposed at Wardie will be able to deliver services which support this vision and the Councils long term commitment to improve the outcomes for all children at the earliest stage. 3.31 There will be increased local nursery places for three and four year olds in an area of the city where the demand for places is currently high. This will include the requirement for all councils to provide additional nursery provision from 475 hours to 600 hours set out in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill 2014. 3.32 There will be increased opportunities for improved learning experiences for children in line with Curriculum for Excellence across the early level. 3.33 There will also be the opportunity to consider the option of extended childcare for the children accessing the nursery depending on demand. This would support the Council commitment to consider affordable childcare opportunities within the city. 3.34 The Head Teacher will manage the new nursery which will help deliver best value and make efficient use of existing staff resources. 3.35 The Council is committed to support and work with the current Wardie Nursery (partner provider) in order to provide a flexible, integrated and effective learning and childcare service for the children and families across this area of the city. Measures of success 4.1 The success of the establishment of a nursery class at Wardie Primary School will be measured by: • more nursery places to meet the increased demand for nursery provision in the City of Edinburgh Council area; • more availability of free nursery provision from 475 hours to 600 hours a year in August 2014 for all three and four-year-olds of set out in the Children and Young people (Scotland) Bill; • more capacity to deliver future requirements to make provide 600 hours of early learning and childcare for two year olds; • additional capacity for parents in an area where council nursery provision is currently limited but where demand is high; and • increased opportunities for improved learning experiences for children in line with Curriculum for Excellence across the early level. Financial impact

Page 13

5.1 The capital funding of an estimated £774,000 required to deliver the new nursery was approved by the Education, Children and Families Committee on 10 December 2013 5.2 The staffing cost of the new nursery class will be funded from the additional allocation to the General Revenue budget from the Scottish Government for the implementation of the increased entitlement of early learning and childcare. Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact 6.1 If the proposal is not approved the Council may not be able to fulfil the requirement to provide early learning and childcare for children across the city. Equalities impact 7.1 There are no negative equality or human rights impacts arising from this report. The location of additional resources within Wardie Primary School will create additional accommodation to meet demand and improve access to nursery provision for children and their parents in this area of the city. Sustainability impact 8.1 There are no impacts on carbon, adaptation to climate change or sustainable development arising directly from this report. Whilst the proposal would see the addition of a new nursery building, the purpose is to create additional accommodation to meet demand. The new building would be designed to minimise the impact on carbon emissions and energy consumption. Consultation and engagement 9.1 The purpose of this report is to advise on the outcome of the statutory consultation process which undertaken between 16 December 2013 and 12 February 2014 relating to the proposal to establish a nursery class at Fox Covert Primary Schools. 9.2 Due to a typographical error, in point 8.10 of the original consultation report the date by when responses should be submitted was incorrectly shown as being by Wednesday, 12 March 2014 when it should have been Wednesday, 12 February 2014. This error was highlighted by a member of the public in relation to the length of the consultation period suggested in the Wardie consultation report 9.3 The consultation period ran between Monday, 16 December 2013 and Wednesday, 12 February 2014. The eight week period is in line with requirements of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. The correction of the paragraph within the paper was made under the provision outlined in subsection 5 of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. 9.4 Following the discovery of this error all consultees were contacted to inform them that there had been an error in paragraph 8.10 and that the error would be reported in the Consultation Outcome Report.

Page 14

9.5 The Council is further required to advertise and publish this report three weeks before its consideration on 1 May 2014 to allow those who made a response an opportunity to consider the report and its conclusions and to give them time, if they so wish, to express their views. 9.6 This report, setting out the outcome to the consultation, will be published on the Council website and copies will be made available at the reception in Waverley Court and at Wardie Primary School and Wardie Nursery (partner provider). Background reading / external references 10.1 Background information is available from: • Early Years Framework, Scottish Government and COSLA, December 2008 www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/01/13095148/0 • Early Year Strategy, Edinburgh Council 2010 https://orb.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/200305/early_years_and_childcare • Children and Young People’s Bill (Scotland) 2014

• Supporting Parents and Carers in Edinburgh

Gillian Tee Director of Children and Families

Contact: Jane Rough, Manager Early Years and Childcare Services E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 3030

Links

Coalition pledges P4, P5 Council outcomes CO1- CO2 Single Outcome SO3 Agreement Appendices 1- Proposal Paper 2- Record of public meeting 3 Written consultation responses 4 - Report from Education Scotland 5 - Children’s responses

Page 15

Education Children and Families Committee

10am, Tuesday, 10 December 2013

Consultation on Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School

Item number Report number Wards Forth

Links

Coalition pledges P4, P5 Council outcomes CO1, CO2 Single Outcome Agreement SO3

Gillian Tee Director of Children and Families

Contact: Jane Rough Manager Early Years and Childcare Services E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 123 4567

Executive summary

Summary The purpose of this report is to seek authority from Committee to consult on a proposal to establish a new nursery class at Wardie Primary School. The report explains the rationale for, and the implications arising from, the proposal and sets out the consultation process and the means and timescales for making representations. Recommendations It is recommended that the Education, Children and Families Committee: 1. Approves that statutory consultation is carried out on the proposed establishment of a new nursery class at Wardie Primary School based on the rationale set out in this report; 2. Approves that the statutory consultation process should commence start on 16 December 2013; and 3. Notes that the outcome of the consultation will be reported to full Council on 1 May 2014. Measures of success The establishment of a new nursery class at Wardie Primary School will result in: • more nursery places to meet the increased demand for nursery provision in the City of Edinburgh Council area; • more availability of free nursery provision from 475 hours to 600 hours a year in August 2014 for all three and four-year-olds of set out in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill; • additional choice for parents in an area where council nursery provision is currently limited but where demand is high; and • increased opportunities for improved learning experiences for children in line with Curriculum for Excellence across the early level. Financial impact The capital funding of an estimated £774,000 required to deliver the new nursery was approved by Council on 2 May 2013 and is included within the Children and Families Capital Investment Programme. The staffing cost of the new nursery class will be funded from the additional allocation to the General Revenue budget from the Scottish Government for the implementation of the increased entitlement of early learning and childcare. Equalities impact There are no negative equality or human rights impacts arising from this report. The location of additional resources within Wardie Primary School will provide additional choice and improved access to nursery provision for children and their parents.

Education, Children and Families Committee – 10 December 2013 Page 2 of 7 Sustainability impact

Consultation and engagement The Council is required to carry out a formal statutory consultation regarding the proposed opening of an education service under the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. A detailed Consultation Paper has been prepared which is attached at Appendix 1. Background reading / external references Edinburgh’s Early Years Strategy and Action Plan Early Years Strategy Progress Report May 2013 Report to Council on 2 May 2013 approving capital funding

Education, Children and Families Committee – 10 December 2013 Page 3 of 7 Report

Consultation on Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School

1. Background 1.1 The purpose of the report is to seek authority from Committee to consult on a proposal to establish a new nursery class at Wardie Primary School. The report explains the rationale for, and the implications arising from, the proposal and sets out the consultation process and the means and timescales for making representations. The proposed detailed Consultation Paper is included at Appendix 1. 1.2 The proposals in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill set out a requirement to expand free nursery provision from 475 hours to 600 hours a year in August 2014 for all three and four-year-olds and for two year olds who are, or have been at any time since turning two, looked after or subject to a kinship care order. This is likely to increase demand for the provision of nursery places in the city 1.3 The City of Edinburgh Council Early Years Strategy that was launched in January 2010 sets out a vision and long term commitment to improve the life chances for children, supporting the coalition agreement to ensure every child has the best start in life. 1.4 Under the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, the Council is required to consult on proposals for the establishment of a new stage of education in a school such as a nursery class. 2. Main report 2.1 The Consultation Paper in Appendix 1 details the number of places that are currently available in the area and the number of places that are required. Demographic Trends 2.2 The proposed new nursery would help address an increase demand in nursery provision in the City of Edinburgh Council area where births have averaged over 5,500 per annum in the five years from 2008 - 2012. In the five years prior to this, the average was approximately 4,700. This means a predicted rise in the numbers of children from 2013/14 onwards from 9,400 in 2009/10 to 11,000 in 2013/14 (a 17% increase). Figure 1 shows the existing and predicted number of three and four year olds in the city.

Education, Children and Families Committee – 10 December 2013 Page 4 of 7 Figure 1 – Number of three and four year olds in the city

2.3 This increase is stretching capacity across the city and extra provision is needed to cater for demand. Wherever possible, the number of local authority nursery places has been increased to meet this demand. However, there are restrictions in the capacity of some nursery buildings, limiting the option of increasing nursery places. Overall, the number of places has increased by approximately 10% over 2012/13. 2.4 One of the aims of the strategy is to develop integrated, flexible services to provide effective learning and childcare for all children and families. To help deliver this aim the Council’s stated ambition is to ensure that each neighbourhood, community or cluster has access to integrated, flexible early years services. Wardie/Granton/Newhaven Area 2.5 In order to realise this vision, resources have been re-aligned and includes the proposal to provide a new nursery in this area where demand for additional provision is particularly high. The proposed nursery will provide improved access to early years provision for parents and children living in the vicinity of Wardie. 2.6 Wardie Primary School was extended by three classes from the start of the 2013/14 school year to cater for increased demand due to increased birth rate in the city which resulted in a higher primary 1 intake. This development follows on from this extension to the school. 2.7 Granton Primary School to the west operates a 60/60 nursery, but demand for places is high and current staffing provision is made for the nursery to operate at full capacity. 2.8 The nearest partner provider nursery is Wardie Nursery, which lies some 150 metres to the north. The nursery is a registered charity and is run by a management committee. It caters for pre-school children aged three to five years and is registered for 35 children. The nursery will continue to operate and provide the families in the area with a choice of services.

Education, Children and Families Committee – 10 December 2013 Page 5 of 7 Financial Considerations 2.7 The capital funding of an estimated £774,000 required to deliver the new nursery was approved by Council on 2 May 2013 and is included within the Children and Families Capital Investment Programme. 2.8 The staffing cost of the new nursery class will be funded from the additional allocation to the General Revenue budget from the Scottish Government for the implementation of the increased entitlement of early learning and childcare. Consultation Process 2.9 The legislation requires a minimum six week term-time consultation period during which representations on the proposal can be made. It is proposed that the consultation period will take place over a period of eight weeks from Monday, 16 December 2013 to Wednesday, 12 February 2014 and the paper will be made available electronically and in paper format. 2.9 The consultation process is set out in detail in Section 8 of the detailed Consultation Paper included at Appendix 1. 3. Recommendations It is recommended that the Education, Children and Families Committee: 3.1 Approves that statutory consultation is carried out on the proposed establishment of a new nursery class at Wardie Primary School based on the rationale set out in this report; 3.2 Approves that the statutory consultation process should commence start on 16 December 2013; and 3.3 Notes that the outcome of the consultation will be reported to full Council on 1 May 2014.

Gillian Tee Director of Children and Families

Links

Education, Children and Families Committee – 10 December 2013 Page 6 of 7 confident individuals and responsible citizens making a positive contribution to their communities Single Outcome SO3. Edinburgh’s children and young people enjoy their Agreement childhood and fulfil their potential Appendices 4. Consultation Paper: Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School

Education, Children and Families Committee – 10 December 2013 Page 7 of 7

Consultation Paper: Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School

1. Introduction, Context and Rationale

1.1 This consultation paper sets out the rationale and the implications from the proposal to establish a nursery class at Wardie Primary School. The paper also sets out the consultation process and the means and timescales for making representations.

1.2 A report has already been taken to Education Children and Families Committee on the 21 May 2013 agreeing funding for the proposal and the commissioning of a feasibility study on how best to deliver the proposal.

1.3 Wardie Primary School is located in the north side of the city and currently provides education for children from Primary 1 to Primary 7. The school is a 17 class organisation with a capacity of 476 pupils. The current school roll is 435.

1.4 Under the terms of the Schools (Consultation)(Scotland) Act 2010, the Council is required to consult on proposals for the establishment of a new stage of education in a school such as a nursery class.

Format of Consultation Paper

1.5 The consultation paper is divided into the following sections:

1 Introduction, Context and Rationale 2 The Proposal 3 Wardie Nursery Class – Case for new provision 4 Education Benefits Statement 5 Accommodation Considerations 6 Financial Considerations 7 Rationale for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School 8 Public Consultation Process

Appendix A Map 1: Location of Primary Schools, Nursery Classes and Partner Providers Map 2: Map of Wardie Primary School

Rationale

1.6 There is greater demand for extra nursery places on the north side of city.

1.7 It is considered that extra demand would be best delivered through the establishment of a new nursery class at Wardie Primary School.

1.8 The number of partner provider nurseries is limited in this area.

1.9 Higher birth rates are resulting in greater demand for early years services.

1.10 Following the agreement of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill the early learning and childcare provision will increase to 600 hours per year which may increase demand on existing early years facilities.

Nursery Capacity

1.11 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.

1.12 Reference is made to the composition of nursery places. 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 to reflect demand and to utilise the staffing levels that have been made.

Making Representations

1.13 Comments on this paper should be submitted at the latest by close of business on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 to the address set out in Section 8 of this paper. A public meeting detailed in Section 8, will be held as follows:

Venue Date Time Wardie Primary School 27 January 2014 6 pm – 7.30pm

2. The Proposal

2.1 The proposal is that:

• A nursery class will be established at Wardie Primary School for the start of the 2015-16 school year;

• The nursery class will be provided via a new build, in a separate building adjoining the school linked by a corridor;

• The nursery class will provide a maximum of 40 FTE places (or 40 morning places and 40 afternoon places);

- 2 -

• The nursery class will provide an exciting learning environment, a separate room for meetings and parents groups and activities as well as a separate outdoor learning and play area;

• The nursery class will be managed by the Headteacher of Wardie Primary School and staffed in line with current or future staffing models and in line with the Care Inspectorate regulations;

• The proposed nursery class is additional to existing nursery provision in the Wardie area to cater for increased demand and there are no proposals to reduce preschool provision locally;

• A feasibility study has been undertaken to cost the proposal and identify the most suitable location for the nursery class;

• Planning permission and other necessary consents will be sought in 2014 to facilitate the opening of the nursery for August 2015

2.2 Funding provision will be made for the nursery to operate as a 40/40 facility but actual numbers will depend on demand for places. The demand will be monitored and adjusted as necessary to best serve the needs of children and families.

2.3 There are no catchment boundaries associated with nursery provision and any parent can apply for a place at the nursery class subject to availability. It is expected that application for places will start being taken from November 2014. Parents also have the choice of applying to any other nursery school or nursery class or partner provider nursery in the City.

3. Case for Establishment of a Nursery Class at Wardie PS

Location

3.1 Wardie Primary School lies on the north side of the city and serves the Wardie neighbourhood. Map 1 in Appendix 1 shows the location of the school and other schools, nursery classes and partner provider nurseries in the Granton/ Wardie/Newhaven area.

Nursery Provision in Wardie/Granton/Newhaven Area

3.2 The Local Authority nurseries that are located around Wardie Primary School are consistently oversubscribed.

3.3 Granton Primary School to the west operates a 60/60 nursery, but demand for places is high and current staffing provision is made for the nursery to operate at full capacity.

- 3 - 3.4 To the east lie Trinity and Victoria primary schools and neither school runs a nursery class although Fort Early Years Centre and Bonnington Primary School further to the east provide Council run nursery accommodation.

3.5 There are five partner provider nurseries within half a mile radius of Wardie Primary school. Table 1 illustrates the current capacities within the partner provider nurseries

Table 1: Current Position in Partner Provider Establishments

Nursery Numbers of children currently attending Spaces available Trinity Nursery 24 0 Edinburgh Academy 26 0 Edzell 26 0 Trinity Tots 18 0 Wardie 31 0 Total 125 0

3.6 Table 2 illustrates the current capacities within the area and demand for places within the Council run establishments in the area.

Table 2: Current Position in Council Run Establishments

Numbers of Forecast Demand Nursery Class Building Staffing Children for the full Capacity Capacity Currently academic session Attending 2013/2014 Granton PS 120 children 6 FTE 52 35 114

60am/60pm Holy Cross RC PS 80 children 4 FTE 38 32 96

(40am/40pm) Total 200 children 10 FTE 90 67 210

3.7 The total number of FTE places made available with the allocation of staffing resources across the area is 100 FTE. This will allow capacity for 200 children. The forecast demand for the total year is 210 although we cannot be sure that all of these children will require the provision until the start of the summer term in April 2014.

Proposed Nursery Capacity and Proposed Staffing Allocation 3.8 The proposed capacity of Wardie Nursery Class is 40 full time places (or 80 part-time places). The proposed staffing allocation made for 2015/16 is in line with current or future staffing models and in line with the Care Inspectorate regulations.

- 4 - 4 Educational Benefits Statement 4.1 This section considers the implications of the establishment of a nursery class at Wardie Primary School and the educational benefits that would flow from the proposal.

Demographic Trends 4.2 The proposed nursery will help address an increase demand in nursery provision In the City of Edinburgh Council area, births have averaged over 5,500 per annum in the five years from 2008-2012. In the five years previous to this, the average was approximately 4,700. This is resulting in a predicted 11,000 three-four year olds from 2013-14 onwards compared to 9,400 in 2009/10 (a 17% increase). Figure 1 shows the existing and predicted number of 3 and 4 year olds.

Figure 1-Number of three and four year olds in the city

4.3 This increase is stretching capacity across the city and extra provision is needed to cater for demand. Wherever possible, the number of local authority nursery places has been increased to meet this demand. There are however restrictions in the capacity of some nursery buildings, limiting the option of increasing nursery places. Overall, the number of places has increased by approximately 10% over 2012-13

Scottish Government Strategy for Early Years Provision 4.4 The proposals in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill sets out a requirement to expand free nursery provision from 475 hours to 600 hours a year in August 2014 for all three and four-year-olds and for 2 year olds who are, or have been at any time since turning 2, looked after or subject to a kinship care order this may add to pressure on the provision of nursery places in the city

The City of Edinburgh Council Early Years Strategy 4.5 The City of Edinburgh Council Early Years Strategy that was launched in January 2010 sets out a vision and long term commitment to improve the life chances for children, supporting the coalition agreement to ensure every child has the best start in life.

- 5 - 4.6 One of the aims of the strategy is to develop integrated, flexible services to provide effective learning and childcare for all children and families. To help deliver this aim the Council stated ambition is to ensure that each neighbourhood, community or cluster has access to integrated flexible early years services.

Wardie/Granton/Newhaven Area 4.7 In order to realise this vision resources have been re-aligned and includes the proposal to provide a new nursery in this area where demand for additional provision is particularly high. The proposed nursery will provide improved access to early years provision for parents and children living in the vicinity of Wardie.

4.8 Wardie Primary School was last inspected by Education Scotland in October 2010. The published report (December 2010) generally evaluated the school as being very good (see Table 3).

Table 4: Evaluation of Wardie Primary School by Education Scotland

Area being Evaluated Evaluation Improvements in performance very good earners’ experiences very good Meeting learning needs very good The curriculum good Improvement through self-evaluation very good

4.9 Taking account of the inspections at Wardie Primary School, it is considered that nursery class provision would be well served by being located at the school.

Community Considerations 4.10 Wardie Primary School building has an out of school club but the proposed nursery class should not affect this provision.

How the Council intends to minimise or avoid any adverse effects 4.11 Should the proposal be taken forward there may some disruption during site preparation and construction. It is proposed that the nursery will be located in standalone building rather than extend the school and this should help reduce the impact during construction.

4.12 The proposed site for the nursery as identified in the feasibility study encroaches on the school playing field. It is proposed that a football pitch will be located to the south of the nursery. Further planning by the school to develop the outdoor learning and play area will take place to improve the school grounds.

4.13 The nearest partner provider nursery is Wardie Nursery, which lies some 150 metres to the north. The nursery is a registered charity and is run by a management committee. It caters for pre-school children aged three to five years and is registered for 35 children. The nursery will continue to operate and provide the families in the area with a choice of services.

- 6 - 5 Accommodation Considerations

5.1 Wardie Primary School occupies a large site of 2.1 hectares, with the main school building lying to the west with areas of hard standing to the north and south. A playing field occupies the eastern part of the site. Land to the south of the main school has been used or is proposed to cater for future growth.

5.2 Wardie Primary School is now a 17 class organisation with a capacity of 476 pupils. The school was extended by 3 classes for the start of the 2013-14 school year to cater for increased demand due to increased births in the city resulting in higher P1 intakes. A further area of land is identified for a further extension if required. Map 2 provides a plan of the school and shows the area for extending the school and the area under consideration for the new nursery class. The current school roll is 435 (see Table 5) and the school is operating at over 90% occupancy.

Table 5: Wardie Primary School Roll for 2013-14 School P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 Total Wardie Primary School 80 80 59 58 59 51 48 435

5.3 A condition survey carried out in 2012 rated the primary school as performing adequately but showing minor deterioration consistent with its construction date and use (B condition). In terms of suitability the building has been rated ‘good’ (B rated).

5.4 Based on the findings of the feasibility study, the proposed location of the nursery is on the playing field to the east of the main school buildings as shown on Map 2.

6 Financial Considerations

Cost of Proposed Works 6.1 A brief was produced by Children and Families for a 40/40 nursery at Wardie Primary School with associated outdoor area to comply with all necessary requirements, including the School Premises Regulations and the Care Commission.

6.2 A feasibility study has been undertaken to inform the location, design, costs and timescales for the project and its proposals have been mentioned elsewhere in the consultation paper.

6.3 The capital funding of an estimated £774,000 required to deliver the new nursery was approved by Council on 2 May 2013 and is included within the Children and Families Capital Investment Programme.

Staffing Costs 6.4 The staffing cost of the new nursery class will be funded from the additional allocation to the General Revenue budget from the Scottish Government for the implementation of the increased entitlement of early learning and childcare.

- 7 - 6.5 The nursery class will be managed by the existing Headteacher of Wardie Primary School. Additional funding provision for staffing will be in line with Care Inspectorate regulations.

7 Rationale for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School

• The proposal is in line with the approved City of Edinburgh Early Years Strategy and with the Scottish Government proposals to expand free nursery education;

• Higher births across the city is generating greater demand for uptake of nursery places;

• The surrounding local authority run nurseries and partner provider nurseries are operating at capacity;

• A nursery with 80 places within the Wardie area will provide additional choice in an area where council nursery provision is currently limited but where demand is high;

• A nursery class at Wardie will provide opportunities for improved learning experiences for children across the early level of Curriculum for Excellence;

• Provision of a full early level within the primary school provides more opportunity for building meaningful relationships between children, parents and staff from an earlier stage

• Wardie Primary School has a B rated building condition

• Education Scotland generally rated the performance of Wardie Primary School as being very good

• The Headteacher will manage the proposed nursery class which will help deliver best value and make efficient use of existing staff resources

• Parents will still retain the option of applying for preschool education anywhere in the city;

8 Public Consultation Process

8.1 It is proposed that Wardie Nursery Class will be operational for the start of the 2015-16 school year term in August 2015 - 8 -

8.2 The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 sets out the statutory consultation requirements for the establishment of nursery at Wardie Primary School and the statutory consultees include the following:

1. Education Scotland 2. the Parent Council or combined Parent Council of any affected primary school; 3. the parents of the pupils at any affected nursery school or class; 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.

Consultation will also take place with children attending Wardie Primary School.

8.3 The affected primary school is Wardie Primary School and their may be some reduction in demand for Granton Primary School and at Holy Cross RC Primary school through making additional local provision.

8.4 The consultation period for the proposals paper will run for over eight weeks from Monday 16 December 2013 to Wednesday 12 February 2014 and the paper will be made available electronically and in paper format.

8.5 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) 529 2103 no later than 13th January 2014.

Venue Date Time Wardie Primary School 27 January 2014 6pm – 7.30pm

8.6 Copies of the consultation paper will be issued directly to parents and others involved. Copies of the consultation paper are also available for inspection at Wardie Primary School, Granton School, Holy Cross RC Primary School, Granton Library and at the Council offices at Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street.

8.7 At the end of the consultation period, the Council will send Education Scotland (formerly Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education) relevant documentation on the consultation process. Thereafter Education Scotland will prepare a report on the educational aspects of the proposal which the Council must take into account in preparing the final consultation report.

8.8 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.

8.9 The Council must wait three weeks from date of publication of the consultation report before making a decision on whether to approve the proposals. It is anticipated that the consultation report will be presented to the Full Council meeting on 1 May 2014 setting out recommendations and seeking approval for the proposals.

- 9 -

8.10 The Council website, www.edinburgh.gov.uk/educationconsultations 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 by e-mail to [email protected]. All responses to the consultation paper should be received by Wednesday 12 March 2014 and addressed to the Director of Children and Families at the address below.

Gillian Tee Director of Children and Families City of Edinburgh Council Council Headquarters Waverley Court, Level 1:1 (Wardie Consultation) 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG

- 10 -

Record of Meeting

Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School Public Consultation Meeting held at 6.00 pm, Monday, 27 January 2014, Wardie Primary School, Edinburgh

Present: Approximately 40 members of the public In Attendance: Tom Wood (Independent Chair), Councillor Alan Jackson, Aileen McLean (Acting Head of Schools and Community Services), Jane Rough (Senior Education Manager, Early Years and Childcare Services), Jane Nieminska (Head Teacher, Wardie Primary School), Lesley McDowall (Quality Improvement Officer), Katy Divers (Projects Manager), Crawford McGhie (Asset Planning Manager), Ian Grahame (Audio Visual), Janet Gardner (Representative, Education Scotland). 1. Introduction Mr Tom Wood introduced himself and advised that he had been invited by the Council as an independent person to chair the public consultation meeting. The meeting was one part of a formal consultation on the proposal for the establishment of a nursery class at Wardie Primary School. The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 required the Council to consult on the proposal. Mr Wood introduced members of the public to the officers and explained how the meeting would be conducted. The public consultation would provide people with the opportunity to express their views and feed directly into the consultation process, which would ensure that the correct decision was made in terms of whether a new nursery class was established at Wardie Primary School or not. 2. Presentation Jane Rough (Senior Education Manager, Early Years and Childcare Services), gave a presentation that provided some context in terms of the rationale behind the proposal for the establishment of a nursery class at Wardie Primary School. The proposed new nursery class would help to address an increased demand in nursery provision in the City of Edinburgh Council area where births had averaged over 5,500 per annum in the five years from 2008 – 2012. In the five years prior to this, the average was approximately 4,700. This meant that there was a predicted rise in the numbers of children from 2013/14 onwards from 9,400 in 2009/10 to 11,000 in 2014/14, which was a 17 per cent increase. The Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill proposals set out a requirement to expand free nursery provision from 475 hours to 600 hours a year in August 2014 for

all three and four year olds and for two year olds who were, or had been at any time since they had turned two, looked after or subject to a kinship care order. This was likely to increase demand for the provision of nursery places in the city. Education Scotland generally rated the performance of Wardie Primary School as very good. Other Primary Schools were considered for expansion but were not suitable. Granton Primary School operated a 60/60 nursery, but demand for places was high and current staffing provision was made for the nursery to operate at full capacity. Trinity and Victoria Primary Schools did not run a nursery class, and the number of partner providers in the area was limited. Parents would still be able to retain the option of applying for preschool education anywhere in the city. 3. The Proposal Jane Rough explained the proposal as follows:-  A nursery class would be established at Wardie Primary School for the start of the 2015-16 school year.  The nursery class would be provided via a new build, in a separate building that adjoined the school that would be linked by a corridor.  The nursery class would provide a maximum of 40 FTE places (or 40 morning places and 40 afternoon places).  The nursery class would provide an exciting learning environment, a separate room for meetings and parents groups and activities as well as a separate outdoor learning and play area.  The nursery class would be managed by the Head Teacher of Wardie Primary School and staffed in line with current or future staffing models and in line with Care Inspectorate regulations.  The proposed nursery class was additional to the existing nursery provision in the Wardie area to cater for increased demand and there were no proposals to reduce pre-school provision locally.  A feasibility study had been undertaken to cost the proposal and identify the most suitable location for the nursery class.  Planning permission and other necessary consents would be sought in 2014 to facilitate the opening of the nursery for August 2015. The preferred model for the new nursery class at Wardie Primary School was based on a new purpose built nursery class at James Gillespie’s Primary School that was opened in September 2013. As part of the Primary School nursery children also used the library and the music room and attended assemblies and events in the main school hall. The nursery had an outside area of its own but there were regular opportunities for the children to play in the woodland area. In terms of the decision process, all the comments from parents and others would be incorporated into a final report. The deadline for submission of comments was 12 February 2014, and could be submitted in writing or by e-mail. At the end of the

Public Consultation Meeting – Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School, 27 January 2014 Page 2 consultation period the Council would send Education Scotland relevant documentation on the consultation process. A report would be prepared by Education Scotland on the educational aspects of the proposal that the Council would incorporate into their final report that would be considered at a meeting of the Council on 1 May 2014. Aileen McLean, Acting Head of Schools and Community Services, explained that the Council were reinvesting in Early Years. Previous public consultations had focused on closing nurseries, and the funding that came from the sale of the buildings had been ring-fenced for the development of Early Years. This reinvestment and the proposed new nursery class was a positive thing for Wardie Primary School. 4. Questions and Comments

Question 1 – Will the private road used to access the Primary School be taken over by the Council? Question 2 – Will there be increased provision in terms of gym space and dance space within Wardie Primary School? This is about the wider infrastructure of the school and there are going to be extra children coming into the school every year. I feel, as a parent, that the facilities at the school will have to be restructured due to rising rolls. Answer Q1– (Crawford McGhie) The consultation is about the educational benefits of having a new nursery class. If it was the intention of the Council to take over the private road, this would have to go through a planning process and neighbours would be consulted. The private road belongs to residents and not to the Council, and the Council has no plans to take it over. Answer Q2 – (Katy Divers) Wardie Primary School has a dining hall that could be used as a second gym hall. The Council would not build a second gym hall because there is space in the school that can be used for this purpose. Extra children coming into the school will not have any impact. (Aileen McLean) The capacity that schools have is always looked at in terms of the size of the school. The nursery is separate so is not going to put pressure on the school. Nursery classes at Wardie Primary School are available to any child from anywhere across the City. The growth of the school will be looked after under asset planning. Question 3/Comment – The needs of parents in terms of the number of full/half days that they need for their children varies, and not all parents need five days. Two year old children being on campus with 12 year old children is not appropriate. The access to the school is already not good – not sure how parents will get their kids through the gates. Question 4 – Why was Granton Primary School not considered for expansion as there is a lot of space there? Answer Q3 – (Jane Rough) The Council will continue to have partner providers, there is a continuing policy commitment to different types of provision, and there are no plans to reduce this provision. Partner nurseries offer a range of provision that will fulfil the varying needs of parents. I understand that not all parents want five days, but there are parents that do. (Katy Divers) – Architects looked at the front entrance to Wardie Primary School and another gate can be opened, as well as a side gate that can be Public Consultation Meeting – Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School, 27 January 2014 Page 3 used and access to the school can be controlled. (Jane Nieminska) It is unlikely that 80 children will be entering the school through the gates at the same time. We are looking to develop the grounds to enable better access and have been working with the asset management team on this. Answer Q4 – Waiting lists are monitored and the Council makes sure that there is enough capacity for all children. We intend to keep a huge variety of provision in order to meet the requirements of the Children and Young People Bill to expand free nursery provision from 475 hours to 600 hours a year. The Council will continue to look at how parents can access these hours, for example, 2 sessions could be offered in one nursery and 2 full days in another nursery. There is some evidence to suggest that some 3-4 year olds are not in nursery because the hours they are offered are not suitable. Granton Primary School is not being considered because the nursery is currently oversubscribed, demand for places is high and the current staffing provision is made for the nursery to operate at full capacity. Question 5/Comment – The statistics in the report claims that there are 35 children attending Granton nursery and 31 attending Wardie nursery. This means that there should be 4 places that are not being used. The data has not been accurately sourced. Where does the data come from? This needs to be referenced in the report. How did you get the statistics you have about birth rates and demand for nursery places? There are no figures shown locally about demand for nursery places. The figures are not matching up and I would like more evidence. Question 6/Comment – If you were to build an early years centre this would be a much easier transition for children moving from nursery to primary school. Answer Q5 – (Jane Rough) The position when the report was written was there were no spaces in Granton and Wardie nurseries. Answer Q6 – (Jane Rough) There will be an early years corner that will link the nursery with the school. This will give the opportunity for improved transition for children from nursery to school. Question 7 – There has been a struggle to fill nursery to full capacity for the last 5 months. Will this have an effect on jobs? Question 8 – How will the space that is being used to build the new classroom on be replaced? Answer Q7 – (Jane Rough) The projection indicates that 5 spaces could not be filled. The Council has a system where the number of people on the waiting lists from across the city are counted and need is identified. Job losses are not part of the plan. There is a great demand for early years provision across the city. The Council is working on how to meet the demand for provision across the city. (Aileen McLean) The nursery class at Wardie, if approved, will not be opening until August 2015. It is envisaged that there will be an increased demand for early years provision within this timeframe. We would like to move to a model where we have 2 full days available for parents. Answer Q8 – (Jane Rough) There will still be space for soccer sevens. There are woods around the perimeter that will still be there and children will be able to access

Public Consultation Meeting – Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School, 27 January 2014 Page 4 playing fields. (Jane Nieminska) research carried out into the use of the grounds suggests that they are dominated by boys playing football. I have no objection to this but the girls are not getting the exercise that they need during break times. There is a need to look at the use of the playground and how we can make it unique for all children. I don’t want to get too caught up in the detail but this is about encouraging children to be more active and use the space productively. (Tom Wood) The consultation is about whether to have a new nursery class and the process involves gathering the views of the public and others. The bricks and mortar are planning issues. Question 9/Comment – Access to Wardie Primary School is limited from Granton Road – this needs to be addressed. What department are the officers here from? The school is a community school and a community asset. It is important that the taxpayer gets value for money. Has a calculation been done on the number of hours the school could be available for community use? Answer Q9 – (Jane Rough) We are from the Children and Families department within the Council. There is a working group called Community Access to Schools that has a remit of widening access for the community to schools. Question 10 – The drawings suggest that there has not been much thought into the design of the new nursery classroom. What is the procedure for deciding this? There seems to be a lack of a joined up approach. Answer Q10 – The new nursery classroom cannot just go anywhere, the design has to be right. The Council does look at getting best value from their buildings. Some buildings have not been fit for purpose and nurseries have closed in this basis. The Council is constantly looking at the right buildings in the right places and we work collaboratively with Corporate Property on this. Question 11/Comment – It doesn’t take a beautiful building to make a good nursery. Question 12/Comment – How was the decision made about having a new nursery class at Wardie? If the new nursery is opening in August 2015 and the Council approve it in May 2014, this only gives a year for implementation. Will this be enough time? Question 13 – What will happen if new people move into the area? There is doubt over whether a new nursery class is needed at Wardie and over the data that has been provided. Answer Q11, 12 and 13 – (Jane Rough) The Council would not consider building in area where there wasn’t a need. Granton nursery is at full capacity and we did not want to expand the provision any further. There had been complaints from parents that could not access nursery places in Granton. I am confident that the proposal will benefit your children and it will not put undue demand on the school. Planning, consultation and construction will fit into the timescale. The look and design of the building will be discussed with the wider community. Question 14 – Why was only one location considered for the feasibility study? Answer Q14 – (Katy Divers) Other options have been considered with the architect. In conjunction with the Head Teacher, other areas were looked at around the school. The Public Consultation Meeting – Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School, 27 January 2014 Page 5 Council would like to make the best use of the space, and the nursery will have an open area outside. Question 15 – What are the benefits of having the nursery on site? Answer Q15 – The benefits to children are improved transitions from nursery school to primary school, children are able to work across levels which is more difficult to do in a standalone nursery, and children also benefit from a more active learning environment. Question/Comment 16 – You don’t need a beautiful building to have a great nursery. The staff are fabulous and if the plans go ahead, staff will be lost. The Parent Council showed slides of possible options in terms of where the new nursery building could be situated. It was suggested that an options appraisal was required to look at how to deal with additional growth in Wardie Primary School through rising rolls and to address the concerns that had been expressed about green space being encroached upon. Options A, B and C that were devised by the Parent Council were described and proposed different locations for the new nursery class to be placed. 5. Conclusion Tom Wood, in concluding the meeting, thanked the audience for the questions and points made this evening. These would be recorded and submitted to Education Scotland, and a final report would be presented to Council on 1 May 2014 for a decision. Mr Wood reiterated that the comments could be fed into the consultation process in writing or via e-mail until Tuesday 12 February.

Public Consultation Meeting – Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School, 27 January 2014 Page 6

Dear Gillian Tee, I have just been informed of this proposal and am going on holiday tomorrow so cannot attend the meeting on Jan 27 at Wardie School. I have just moved into 49 Wardie Road ,( the cul de sac of white washed terraced houses ), off the end of Wardie Road where it is unmade and leads into the playing fields thro' double iron gates. I have no personal objection to the expansion and only wish to point out the obvious problem with this end of Wardie Road which is 'unadopted' and a real mess of pot holes as you will know I assume. I am not exaggerating. You will understand that any increased traffic by 'Mums' dropping off or 'u turning' on this section will reduce it to a totally unacceptable state…it's usually waterlogged with no gutter on one side as well. I was going to suggest my neighbours club together, as once before, and try to fill the worst holes but won't now as it would be pointless. Perhaps construction traffic may also use it ? So that's my personal concern and I'm surprised I didn't have a 'Council Notice ' through my door or on a lamppost for residents near this back entrance to the school. Or is it to be locked with no access ? Good luck otherwise !

Dear Gillian Tee,

I am writing with the deepest concern about the proposal of a new school nursery both as a parent of children at Wardie Nursery and at Wardie Primary. I have the following objections to the proposed investment in our community:

• loss of green space at Wardie Primary - the 450+ children at Wardie Primary require sufficient outdoor play space to continue to provide a high standard of healthy living and exercise • the nursery planned is in response to an increase in city wide birth rate, but no plan is in place for how to respond to a parallel increase in demand for catchment primary school places - P1 at Wardie is already circa 70-85 children and requires 3 full classes and 1 composite to cope • increase in numbers from the nursery will put increased pressure at drop off/pick up. It is recognised by the school and the police that there is already a significantly dangerous situation with parked cars, as the school has no drop off point and is accessed from the busy and dangerous Granton Rd. • the immediate resulting closure of Wardie Nursery, a local employer of 5 staff, embedded in the community, with 10's of families volunteering over a 30 year period to provide a community nursery in lieu of other council provision • this investment will not increase capacity by 80 spaces, and therefore be a poor investment/use of public funds, by putting community nurseries under threat. It will be impossible for Wardie Nursery to compete with a purpose built new facility and garden within 150m of a nursery based in a community centre with restricted outdoor space • PLEASE NOTE 2 years ago Mr Squirrel's closed on Cargill Terrace citing decreasing numbers, The Doll's House on Wardie Crescent closed 5 years ago for the same reason • Wardie Nursery only had 23 children registered at the start of the year - August 2014, a shortfall of 12 children. The nursery is now full. I look after the waiting list for Wardie Nursery, and I have not been asked for any data on the current waiting list. Even with this information the waiting lists are not that accurate, as families put their names down at lots of nurseries, so our waiting list numbers do not necessarily translate into actual children in the nursery, sometimes families put names down over 2 years in advance and their circumstances have changed by the time their child turns 3. I have started to ring around parents on the waiting list and those whose children have just turned 3 and are eligible for a January start have already found spaces at Granton and Forthview School Nurseries. There does not appear to be a local shortage of available spaces for pre school nursery, in fact parents would appear to have a choice. We are about to recruit for the August intake and I will have accurate data shortly on how many children are looking for a space at Wardie Nursery. To give you an indication of future demand we have 20 children on the waiting list for 2015 and 3 for 2016.

I anticipate, based on our current waiting list, that the proposed nursery will absorb our whole intake when it opens in 2015. We are already experiencing disruption and anxiety about our waiting list from parents. We have had parents coming in to ask if we are closing. Please see an email from a parent below - I have removed their personal details:

On Monday, February 3, 2014, XXXXX XXXXXXX wrote: > Hi, I'm just looking for some information, I have my daughters name down for your Wardie Nursery, but have just heard that the nursery is closing August next year as Wardie Primary School is opening a nursery, when my daughter is due to start. Does my daughters name go down for the school nursery as you's are closing? I would just like to know if you's could give me any information. > Thanks > Miss XXXXX XXXXXXX

I anticipate that the nursery may well close before the proposed new nursery opens, as families move their children to the new nursery waiting list and our staff, uncertain about the future of the nursery, seek new employment. I support investment in families and children and understand that we must future plan, but do not think that this is the right site.

I urge you to take into account this information when considering this proposal.

Dear Ms Tee

I am the parent of three children aged 12, 9 and 7. My oldest child is now in S1 at Trinity Academy and my youngest children are in P3 and P5 at Wardie Primary School. As a family we have enjoyed the benefits of our children attending the local primary school and love being a part of this community. My children all attended nursery locally also. I am concerned to hear about the proposed nursery class or classes at Wardie School. The school is growing rapidly and whilst this expansion has so far been accommodated adequately to some degree it currently feels as if there may be no limit to the additional buildings and children who are shoehorned onto the site and the resultant impact on all concerned.

I recognise the value of nursery education and know that my own children have benefited from early years care. However, I know that there is no need for extra nursery place provision in our local area. Recently a local privately run nursery has closed due to lack of custom and other nurseries are no longer full as they have been in previous years. It was impossible to gain a place at Wardie Nursery mid way through a school year, even when a child was eligible for funding. This situation is now a very different one with children easily obtaining places as soon as they are funded the term after their third birthday. Other local nurseries are equally not running at full capacity. Whilst I see that this proposed new nursery may be meeting a city wide demand it may be more strategically helpful to provide these nursery places elsewhere in Edinburgh. Equally, I question the need to build new premises anyway. If it is deemed necessary to have council nursery provision in the Wardie area why not use Wardie Residents' Club or St Serfs Church which are existing premises?

A nursery would increase traffic and congestion in the area and encourage children to travel by car if they are having to move from other parts of the city. Surely parents would not want to come from across Edinburgh for the amount of time their child is in nursery? Additionally the impact on the local childminders would be considerable. These carers often provide wrap around care for children and are an excellent service to the community. Any staff currently working in local nursery are also likely to be adversely affected. All of this is detrimental to our local community and our sense of cohesiveness in the Wardie area.

I see that a nursery class within a school can help with transition to primary school but it is also helpful to have children moving into a primary school from different nurseries. This helps with the children's sense of developing social skills and provides exciting variety. Wardie School have always managed this transition in an excellent way and the children gain from coming from different parts of the community.

I have concerns also about the impact on the headteacher of having to manage an additional number of children and staff. This seems like an unnecessary burden.

Please help us to keep this valuable green space at Wardie and stop this piecemeal development of the school. I am frustrated at the emphasis on early years education and the lack of investment in High School provision. My daughter will not go to the toilet at High School because the facilities are dirty and there are no toilet seats. This is not acceptable. Wardie no longer has facilities for a whole school assembly. Surely funds would be better spent ensuring these sorts of issues were made priority.

I look forward to your reply.

Dear Gillian

I am writing to object to the proposals to build a nursery on the playing fields at Wardie Primary School.

I am a local resident and attended the recent consultation. Clearly the figures for the demand do not stack up for a nursery in the area and so professional data gathering and analysis is necessary if the council is being serious about the proposals. The school is already bursting at the seams with makeshift classrooms. I am also concerned about the volume of traffic as clearly there is no demand for the parents in the area and so children will be dropped off causing huge congestion on Granton road and the main school entrance.

We need to keep the green space even more when we consider the various flooding issues across the country.

Also, the roof of the main school is in need of repair so perhaps some of the £750k can be used to fix that rather than waste it on a nursery.

Dear Sir/Madam

I am a parent of two children at Wardie Primary.

This email is to request an extension to the consultation for the proposal to add a nursery to Wardie Primary to address widely held concerns.

Having attended the public meeting at the school and read the consultation proposal, I feel there are many unanswered questions and that the business case for a nursery has not been sufficiently well investigated.

My concerns are: * Road safety and access. The currently closed south gate should be reopened. Approx 40% of catchment could use this entrance were it reopened, easing main gate congestion and we have a school role that is only going to rise. Granton Road access is already far too congested and extra numbers and buggies will only add to this dangerous situation. * The loss of existing green space on the playing field - and further piecemeal development of the school campus is steadily eroding green space at the school - one if it's major assets. Why cannot brown space be used? * I do not feel the demand for a nursery in this area has been sufficiently well established - and there is evidence to the contrary - and I have concern for the impact on existing nurseries in the area.

As a parent of pupils and someone who is involved in school life and the local area, residents are most knowledgable about our local circumstances. Can you please therefore revisit the existing proposal to take a more considered view and take in to account wishes of those who travel to and use the school every day.

In principle this is a fabulous idea. Having been a nursery teacher in a 50/50 nursery I fully understand the merits of having such a 'facility' attached to the school. However, I do also understand what effects it will have on the school! Surely the children in the nursery would be encouraged to visit the library, use the gym space/ dining hall, music rooms etc as well as being part of the school assemblies. When the school is stretched to fit in the hall as it is, and there is great demand for other areas of the school to e.g. library!

This aside, I feel the council haven't thoroughly explored the alternatives. It was obvious from the meeting I attended a couple of weeks ago that there are much better and more sensible places to put the nursery around the school. I came away from the meeting frustrated at the lack of ability from 'the council panel' to answer the questions coherently. It gave the impression that this was not a discussion but more like the decisions had already been made!

As someone suggested a much better idea would be to make an early years unit combining nursery and P1. This would be beautifully placed next to the original P1 unit surrounded by the wood where the children would have access to the woodland and be quietly tucked away in the corner of the school. This would provide far better access for parents to drop off and pick up there children for nursery hours, ensuring the rest of the schools safety.

Development of Nursery at Wardie Primary site from mother of pupil at the school and neighbour to the school grounds (101 Granton road)

While I accept that planning and providing educational facilities for early years is essential for our children, I feel that the current proposal has been formed on unsatisfactory research and is ill thought out. Therefore, I oppose the current proposal to develop a nursery at Wardie Primary school on the following grounds:

- There appears to be a lack of evidence that there is a nursery required in this area, while I accept rising roles throughout the city, partner providers in the areas do not currently have waiting lists ( I have twin sons who currently attend nursery).

- The proposed location of the facility is totally unacceptable in my view, there appears to of been no strategic planning of location of new facilities on the grounds, piece by piece the grounds are being eroded. Why can a brown field location on the grounds not be saught eg around the carpark or scooter shed?

- The school has recently changed from a 2 stream to 2.5 stream school as more and more out of catchment children have attended. The council have added appropriate classroom space (piecemeal blocks in the green space) but there has been no increase in infrastructure for the school ,such as library, gym hall and canteen, I question whether gym once a week is sufficient for children and is indeed in line with current physical exercise and proposals which is all they are able to attend currently. If the nursery is placed on the grounds the space for increased infrastructure will be prohibited.

- The safety of access to the school is already bad ( I know I live right next to the school) this will only get worse with rising rolls and additional nursery pupils. Please don't erode bit by bit what is an excellent school built on open air principles and is a real community asset. Please take time to determine:

1. Whether a nursery is required in this area

2. if it is to not erode the beautiful grounds

3. Give the pupils already attending sufficient infrastructure to be able to develop and flourish in this wonderful community school.

I trust you will make the correct and balanced decisions for the community of Wardie

Dear Gillian,

I would like to formally oppose the establishment of a new nursery class at Wardie Primary School.

I feel the addition of the new building is not sufficiently justified with what has been proposed in the consultation report [http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11957/consultation_on_proposal_for_the_establishment_ of_nursery_class_at_wardie_primary_school].

Concisely, here are the details of my opposition:

• What are the demographic trends for the Wardie school catchment area? Section 4.7 states "...demand is particularly high...[and that] the proposed nursery will provide improved access to early years provision for parents and children living in the vicinity of Wardie". This is contrary to the statement explaining that parents retain the option of applying for preschool education anywhere in the city. How can this proposal be seen as a guaranteed benefit to the parents and children living in the vicinity? Furthermore, Education Scotland has rated Wardie Primary as being "very good" - this rating will further attract parents and children from afar. • How many private nursery applications/extensions have already been filed to meet Edinburgh's increase in demand? There is no mention of these however I happen to know of several who have extended their premises and acquired existing property in advance. At this very moment, one of these hasn't yet filled all the spots they've created. They're located right in the geographic mid-point of the city. • For 774 000 pounds (the initial proposed cost), one could place 40 FTE Wardie catchment children into private nurseries for the next 645 weeks, 5 days a week, 6 hours a day. There are 39 school weeks a year, so that's fully paid placements for the next 17 years. If the council chose to subsidise parent's payments by a generous 50%, rather than pay outright, this would last for 34 years in private or public nurseries that have already proven to meet the demand. • The neighbouring Wardie nursery houses 31 children. If this building was improved, and it's operational hours extended - I'm sure it would be feasible to provide spots for another 40 FTE. There is no mention of any consideration of this in the report. • Wardie school has already been bolted onto and had it's green-space compromised. Children need this space for their development and learning as I'm sure you would agree. This proposal increases the number of children while reducing the volume of green-space. There is no mention of increasing the amount of greenspace to match the increased volume. • Take a look at the satellite imagery around Wardie Primary [https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Wardie+Primary+School,+Edinburgh&hl=en&ll=55.975899,- 3.214338&spn=0.009821,0.024784&sll=55.941208,- 3.205339&sspn=0.157282,0.396538&oq=wardie+prim&t=h&z=16&iwloc=A]. Immediately surrounding the school are several potential tarmac sites that could accommodate a small new building on or near the site of the school. As far as I can tell most of this property is in the hands of Edinburgh Council - so where are the other site proposals in the consultation report?

In summary, I'm not convinced the consultation is thorough enough. It lays out an expensive solution to a poorly- defined problem. Like any problem - let's start with the facts, apply them with relevance, and look at the alternatives if the analysis deems worthy.

Wardie Primary School – Nursery Proposal

I am writing in response to the current consultation that is being undertaken for a nursery to be built on the playing fields at the back of Wardie Primary School.

Firstly I have to express my disappointment at the way the council have handled this process, much as the rising roles extensions the process is rushed, with both coincidently issued over a Christmas period. There has been a total lack of respect for all the key stakeholders involved.

As a parent and a member of the community I am very concerned about the significant loss of existing green space on the playing field and further reactive and not clearly thought out development of the school campus.

The increased numbers of children will affect road safety and congestion around the school and be even more dangerous on Granton Road as the school only has one entrance and exit, which is already dangerous and bottlenecked at peak times. It is already recognised by the school and the police that there is already a significantly dangerous situation with parked cars, as the school has no drop off point and is accessed from a busy and dangerous road.

With two local nurseries (Mr Squirrels and Dolls House) closing in the last couple of year, citing competition with the private sector the demand for this is very questionable and is not demonstrated in the feasibility study, which shows 43 spaces available at present…..

The local nurseries were not fully engaged in the production of the feasibility report and the demand and forecasts are not clearly explained. In fact, the data in this report is wrong.

I found the evening at Wardie Primary School hugely embarrassing for all in attendance as we watched and listened to members of the council, who had produced the report but could not answer questions on the demand. One response detailed the waiting list system which is used, but acknowledge that a child can be on this more than once. That is unacceptable in terms of forecasting.

With members of the nurseries in attendance it became clear to all the figures used in the report were indeed wrong. In fact the consultation dates appear as Feb 12th one part and March 12th on another, another error in what is now becoming a series of errors.

Last week, after the consultation meeting the Parent council were issued with an updated set of figures, still doubted by those nurseries in attendance at our meeting, but in any case this acknowledges another error made fundamental change that surely means the report will be updated and re-issued with a new consultation timeline? I would suggest that the Data source is also referenced by date so it is clear to all when this is relative, as any report should be, especially one proposing the use of public money.

This is the public purse and no evidence has been given how this investment gives the best value for money for the tax payer over other options. In fact it doesn’t show any other options. The strategy addresses a city wide strategy of demand and not this specific area.

What about improving the current site of Wardie Nursery at Wardie Residents club to create a more community inspired building that could have a far greater return in the local community.

What about looking at the data of each early year’s transition in the area? Easily obtained by all schools at P1 stage, 25 different nurseries are used by Wardie Primary on any given year….The reason why? Wrap around care for working parents that need more that the hours provided by the council. All this private nurseries are already set and ready to reimburse these hours and are ready for the extra 3 hours under the new legislation. This will further decrease the demand in this area.

Let’s make sure the public money is spent wisely on something that is really required.

First it’s and it’s your duty to make sure that feasibility is updated and re issued with a set of detailed and robust data. Engage with all the stakeholders and plan this whole process better.

Dear Madam, I am writing with the deepest concern about the proposal of a new school nursery both as a parent of children at Wardie Primary and a local resident. I have the following objections to the proposed investment in our community:

• loss of green space at Wardie Primary - the 450+ children at Wardie Primary require sufficient outdoor play space to continue to provide a high standard of healthy living and exercise. Indeed this seems to be completely at odds with this document (see link below) published 2010 ‘Curriculm for Excellence through outdoor learning’ http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/learningteachingandassessment/approaches/outdoorlearning/about/cfethro ughoutdoorlearning.asp

• the nursery planned is in response to an increase in city wide birth rate, but no plan is in place for how to respond to a parallel increase in demand for catchment primary school places - P1 at Wardie is already circa 70-85 children and requires 3 full classes and 1 composite to cope. We understand that a similar number (80) is likely come August 2014. • increase in numbers from the nursery will put increased pressure at drop off/pick up. It is recognised by the school and the police that there is already a significantly dangerous situation with parked cars, as the school has no drop off point and is accessed from the busy and dangerous Granton Rd. This has also been reflected in a review of the School Travel Plan.

• the immediate resulting closure of Wardie Nursery, a local employer of 5 staff, embedded in the community, with 10's of families volunteering over a 30 year period to provide a community nursery in lieu of other council provision

• this investment will not increase capacity by 80 spaces, and therefore be a poor investment/use of public funds, by putting community nurseries under threat. It will be impossible for Wardie Nursery to compete with a purpose built new facility and garden within 150m of a nursery based in a community centre with restricted outdoor space

• PLEASE NOTE 2 years ago Mr Squirrel's closed on Cargill Terrace citing decreasing numbers, The Doll's House on Wardie Crescent closed 5 years ago for the same reason

• The current feasibility study presented by the Early Years group at the Public meeting was, under scrutiny, found to be severely lacking in various areas; namely data sources, putting the nursery on playing fields contrary to the current planning regulations and lack of consideration of alternatives sites for a nursery.

• No data was available as to the ‘type’ of family that would use this nursery. Many parents/carers now work (indeed the Government wants to get mothers back to work as early as possible!) and require much longer nursery hour provision than this nursery would provide. This is reflected by the fact that in the 2011 intake children came from 25 different nurseries to attend Wardie P1 identifying that people generally chose to place their children near to their work and not near their homes. The catchment area does not have an ‘industrial base’ nor a large employer and this is reflected in the above statistic.

• There is a demand for more nursery place in the Inverleith Ward. Following the closure of the large nursery on the Royal Victoria hospital grounds no alternative provision was made. Parents from this area are desperate for more nursery provision and indeed are placing their children in the Wardie nurseries due to the severe shortfall of places in their area

Subject: Proposed Nursery at Wardie Primary

I understand you are looking for comment on the above.

I do not think a nursery should be built. The man reasons for my opinion is that I do not believe there is a sustainable need for a nursery. There have been a couple of local closures in recent years due to lack of demand.

Furthermore and for me of utmost importance, the impact on the already diminished green space at the school would severely impact on the children's enjoyment of the school. Break time and lunchtimes are best spent in a green environment which also supports sporting activities.

Lastly, I am already concerned about the traffic around the school and therefore safety for the kids- adding further to the volumes in the school is a bad idea.

Dear Ms Tee, Consultation on Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Wardie Primary School I am writing to object to your proposal for a new nursery at Wardie. Whilst I am very much in favour of the principle of in‐school nursery provision, I am concerned that this proposal has been badly thought out and overall will have a negative impact on Wardie, principally through the loss of a full sized playing field. I am highly concerned that this proposal is based on poor research about the need for additional nursery places in this area as there is already capacity in partner and private nurseries. I do not believe that it is appropriate for the Council to be putting privately run nurseries out of business for this proposal. I strongly object to the statement put by Jane Rough at the consultation meeting on 27 January that this proposal is based ‘on her experience as a manager and her confidence that spaces will be needed’ rather than accurate research and proper consultation and dialogue with other nursery providers in the area. I strongly object to the use of a playing field for this proposal particularly when there are so many other sites available adjacent to the school. It greatly concerns me that you seem to be able to ignore the principles of the Council’s planning policy OS2 for the protection of playing fields with this proposal. I object to the poor way the location of the nursery has been selected. Katie Divers advised at the consultation meeting that other sites had been considered for the nursery but these are not shown in the feasibility study you have sent us. It is my view that only one site was selected and Katie Divers was misleading the consultation meeting in saying that they had looked at other sites (and if that is not the case please do send me the documentation showing this). I object because once again the City of Edinburgh Council is ignoring the important guidance set out in the Scottish Government policy document ‘Building Better Schools’ which aims to improve the poor quality of our school estate. Principally there is no sign that an ‘integrated, holistic and longer term approach to change’ is being adopted. With this proposal, there is no attempt to understand the logic of the existing school building or its grounds and the way they interact with other Councilowned facilities adjacent (The Wardie Residents Club, car parking areas and playing fields to the north). Building Better Schools advises you to ‘consider how to make best use of school grounds and the outdoor spaces as an integral part of the learning environment ensuring that landscape design is at a par with building design’. There is no indication of how you will address the already awkward school entrance. This proposal, as with the recent new Rising Rolls block is extremely wasteful of valuable land and will create awkward strips of useless land around it. It is as if there is a deliberate plan by the Council to create a school consisting of semi‐permanent classroom units connected by tatty areas of tarmac and odd strips of grass. I also object to the way this consultation process has been run – this is the second consultation in as many years which you have launched on Christmas Eve – a trick only used by our Council and the most cynical of property developers. You have made a confusing error with the date on the committee report and have refused to correct this in the proper way and allow the full time for responses to be returned. I object to the way the consultation meeting was set up in order to tell consultees what you were doing – crucially you were not interested in our views. If you were genuinely interested in our views you could have had a workshop session and met with the school’s Parent Council. At the 27 January meeting, the confusing method of taking two questions at a time and then only answering the second was most unsatisfactory, as was not allowing questioners the opportunity to respond to the poor replies that we were given. This is a badly thought out proposal and I would urge you to re ‐consider both the need for it and how and where it will be built.

Dear Gillian Tee, I have a number of concerns about the proposed school nursery at Wardie Primary. They are about the value/cost of this public investment and the protection of green/outdoor space for primary school children:

· Spending a large sum of money on a new 80 child nursery should be lauded but it will cause the closure of an existing 35 child community nursery within sight of the proposal. So in reality the costs per child have almost doubled as the proposal will only add an extra 45 places;

· The existing nursery already provides adequate provision to the area so are the extra spaces needed (I am aware of the growth in child population as predicted by the council). What will happen is that nearby areas such as Stockbridge and Comely Bank, where there is insufficient supply, will fill these places. Inevitably, this will lead to more traffic outside the school and the supposed extra provision created for population growth will be already used up. Put the provision where it is required.

I am wary of yet more development within the school grounds which uses up irreplaceable green space. Piecemeal development like this will whittle away at the existing green space, short term expediency has won, over the longer view. Once the green space is gone it very rarely returns and a valuable asset that allows outside play and exercise will be lost.

Subject: Wardie Nursery

I would like to voice my opinion on the proposed new nursery within Wardie Primary School.

My son previously attended the current Wardie nursery and my daughter actually attends at present and my youngest child's name is on the waiting list to attend there August this year.

Over the years I have found this nursery to be above standard in all aspects. It is well run by lovely and friendly staff, 3 of whom have been there for many years and their standards have maintained over the years. I have personally witnessed my daughter growing in confidence due to the expertise and knowledge of the staff at the nursery and i want this same experience for my son. I fear that this nursery was to be under threat of closure then my children and lots of others would not have the opportunity to experience this. I think this is very unfair to be thinking about building a new nursery after all these years when the nursery that is already there is doing such an excellent job. I think it is fair to say that council run nurseries are not run as effectively as wardie nursery and i can vouch for that because my children have experienced this before securing a space at wardie nursery.

My little boy will be due to start at wardie nursery in August this year and if this nursery does in fact close due to lack of children/fees then he and many more along with staff will not be guaranteed spaces/jobs at the new nursery. This will cause unnecessary upheaval and disruption to the children and the staff. With regards to my son this would be his pre-school year at nursery, which is a very important year and if he does not secure a place at the new nursery this would also cause unnecessary disruption.

I trust you will take all the above comments on board and think about the children and staff concerned who after all are the most important people here. I trust my support along with the other parents helps to keep Wardie nursery running for many years.

Proposal for Nursery at Wardie Primary - Public Consultation I would like to object to the proposed nursery at Wardie Primary and make the following comments on the proposal.

1. The consultation document does not provide sufficient evidence to convincingly argue there is a need for a nursery at Wardie School. There is a lack of data for local need and there has not been a robust assessment of existing local provision, or the impact of the proposal on existing nurseries.

2. The reason behind the choice of locating the nursery on the playing fields at Wardie is not adequately explained or justified. Obviously there will be a negative impact on the outdoor play provision for the children at Wardie School should this significant area of their playing fields be given over to the development. There has been no options appraisal presented to show alternative locations for the nursery at Wardie School. At the consultation meeting at the school the Parent Council presented alternative locations which involved not building on the schools valuable green space. I would like to see these alternatives considered. The green space at Wardie School is one of its unique qualities. I would like to see it protected and not eroded.

3. There appears to be no strategic planning involved when it comes to the building at Wardie School. The school has undergone a significant increase in pupil numbers and there is planning permission for a further building to accommodate more pupils should the need arise in the next year or so. The school is expanding and with the increased numbers come problems in term of safe travel to school, congestion at school entrances, inadequate gym space and library access and after school club provision. I would like to see these addressed before adding yet another building and a significant number of additional children into Wardie School. What impact will this proposal have on the experience of pupils at Wardie school?

4. Given the cost of the proposal, I would like to see a case made for the benefit to the wider community of this proposal. Could the space be used for after school care provision for example after nursery hours?

Further to the public consultations for the proposed nursery at Wardie Primary School, I am emailing to object to the proposal.

While I recognise the increase in birth rate, I feel that the quality of outdoor space for the primary children to play in far out weighs the extra choice given to parents of preschool aged children in selecting a nursery place. The school role is on the increase but the building of a nursery, on top of the building of essential classrooms, means there will be substantially far less playground space for more children.

I have two children at Wardie, P1 and P3, with a third starting in 2015. I also child mind, looking after three P1 aged boys after school. The green space at Wardie is of a huge benefit to the children I look after - they are running and playing in this space every day, in all seasons and most weathers, along with a lot of other children. For the children to potentially loose this quality of play space would be a real shame. Unlike Trinity Primary for example, there is no park near enough the school which makes this green space is invaluable.

I am sure this has been already considered, but would the empty land previously occupied by Royston Primary school be a better alternative?

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write in support of the proposed new nursery at Wardie Primary School. I believe that the provision of an in-school nursery will improve transition for children from nursery to primary one and build better links with children and families prior to formal school entry. There is currently a high demand for nursery provision in the surrounding area and a lack of state nursery provision whilst other areas of the city are much better served. The demand for nursery provision in the area is likely to increase as time goes on and I believe that a nursery at Wardie primary school is necessary in helping to address this demand.

Dear sir/madam,

Further to the public consultations for the proposed nursery at Wardie Primary School, I am emailing to object to the proposal.

I am writing to formally object to the proposal as this will significantly infringe on green space that is a much-valued part of the school grounds. In my opinion, there is ample opportunity to create these kind of facilities in the North Edinburgh area on brownfield sites or by more innovatively using existing community structures which are sadly under-used (Inverleith Church being a prime example). The assumption that an open area, a green space like the Wardie School playing fields, should automatically be considered fair-grounds to build upon fails to acknowledge the inherent value the space offers. You can not, of course, measure this value in statistical terms or plot a graph of its worth, but that should not mean that the act of building upon on it will serve a greater purpose. In this instance it does not, and I object to the proposal.

Dear Madam,

I am writing with significant concern about the proposal of a new school nursery - both as a parent with children at Wardie Primary School and a local resident.

I have the following comments and objections to the proposed investment in our community:

• Inadequate feasability study: The feasibility study presented by the Early Years group at the Public meeting was, under scrutiny, found to be greatly lacking in various areas e.g data sources, putting the nursery on playing fields contrary to the current planning regulations and lack of consideration of alternatives sites for a nursery.

• Lack of wider provision: the nursery planned is in response to an increase in city wide birth rate, but no plan is in place to respond to a parallel increase in demand for catchment primary school places: P1 at Wardie is already circa 70-85 children and requires 3 full classes and 1 composite to cope. We understand that a similar arrangement (for c. 80 children) is likely in the new school year in August 2014.

• Who would use the nursery? No data was available as to the ‘type’ of family that would use this nursery. Many parents/carers now work and require much longer nursery hour provision than this nursery would provide. Iindeed the Government is encouraging mothers to return to work as early as possible and through various policies actually discourages stay at home mothers. This is reflected by the fact that in the 2011 intake to Wardie P.S. children came from 25 different nurseries across Edinburgh to attend Wardie P1 identifying that people generally chose to place their children near to their work rather than near their homes. The catchment area does not have an ‘industrial base’ nor a large employer and this is reflected in the employment patterns in this area.

• Situated in wrong ward: There is a demand for more nursery place in the Inverleith Ward. Following the closure of the large nursery on the Royal Victoria hospital grounds no alternative provision was made. Parents from this area are desperate for more nursery provision and indeed are placing their children in the Wardie nurseries due to the severe shortfall of places in their area.

• Road safety issues: the greater numbers from the nursery will put increased pressure at drop off/pick up. It is recognised by the school and the police that there is already a very dangerous situation with parked cars, as the school has no drop off point and is accessed from the busy and dangerous Granton Road. This has also been reflected in a review of the School Travel Plan.

• This proposed investment will not increase capacity by 80 spaces, and therefore be a poor investment/use of public funds, by putting community nurseries under threat. It will be impossible for Wardie Nursery to compete with a purpose built new facility and garden within 150m of a nursery based in a community centre with restricted outdoor space

• The immediate resulting closure of Wardie Nursery, a local employer of 5 staff, embedded in the community, with 10's of families volunteering over a 30 year period to provide a community nursery in lieu of other council provision

• Please note that 2 years ago Mr Squirrel's nursery closed on Cargill Terrace citing decreasing numbers, The Doll's House on Wardie Crescent closed 5 years ago for the same reason

• Loss of green space at Wardie Primary - the 450+ children at Wardie Primary require sufficient outdoor play space to continue to provide a high standard of healthy living and exercise. Indeed the plan to build on playing fields attached to the School seems to be completely at odds with this document (see link below) published 2010 ‘Curriculm for Excellence through outdoor learning’ http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/learningteachingandassessment/approaches/outdoorlearning/about/cfethro ughoutdoorlearning.asp

I trust that these points will be considered. Subject: Proposal for nursery at Wardie Primary School

I am writing to express my concerns about the proposal of a nursery at Wardie Primary School. There are a number of issues involved from my perspective. 1) Wraparound care for existing schoolchildren is in chronic short-supply at Wardie and this is set to worsen with the continuing rise is pupil numbers year on year. Provision of a breakfast club and a much expanded after school club is desperately needed rather than focusing on adding pre-school provision. 2) The proposed use of a playing field to accommodate the nursery comes at a time of ever increasing pupil numbers. The school has already lost some of its outdoor area due to rising school roles with more space ear-marked for further development to house future classroom provision. This precious green space is being swallowed up by piecemeal developments, decreasing the available space for the pupils to enjoy and participate in sport and other outdoor activities. 3) With the accompanying increased pupil and parent numbers, road safety and school access would become more of an issue. There is already a road safety problem, as the school has no designated drop-off area and Granton Road is a very busy and dangerous road. 4) There would be a detrimental effect on the neighbouring partner provider nurseries.

If this development is to go ahead, is there a way that it could be sympathetically added to the existing school buildings with minimum impact on the green space surrounding the school? In addition, can any new building be used for other purposes eg after school club, as stated previously, this is in chronic need of expansion.

Subject: Proposed Nursery for Wardie Primary School

To whom it may concern.

I would like to add comments about the proposed nursery for Wardie Primary School.

On the whole I do understand that if the figures are correct there will be a need for more nursery places. However I'm not sure that the figures are totally correct for this area for the immediate future. At the public consultation we were told how there will be an increase in the nursery population 'across the city'. I have no reason to doubt this but I do not see, in any way, that there will be a need for so many places so soon in our local area. I work in a local nursery and there does not seem to be a huge increase in the waiting list. The local nurseries serve the local population in a hugely positive way. They are individual and can reflect the need for local children. Any demise of these due to the new nursery would be hugely detrimental to the local community. If the nursery population is going to grow more slowly than initially thought I would hope that this will buy more time for further thought to be given to the plans and the ability not to rush into something.

On that note, I would wholeheartedly support the council looking more closely at alternative plans drawn up by Wardie Parent Council as to the siting of the new building and possible access to the school. Any rushed through plans do not take allow time to really think things through and work through options. The school has grown very quickly in recent years and with lots of different buildings being built it could become very disjointed and spoil the grounds irretrievably. Please take time to consider all options. I don't believe the nursery has to be built next year, I think there is more time to plan and consider the real impact on the school, the safety of access for pupils and on the local community.

Subject: Wardie Primary Nursery Consultation

We are puzzled by the assertion in the consultation document that there is a significant shortage of nursery places in the area, since Table 2 (para. 3.6) has a table showing that Granton and Holy Cross nurseries have total spare capacity of 43 places. The same table predicts demand for the current school year of 210 nursery places, a rise of 53 from the current number. Two questions: why such a big rise, and why doesn't the paper have the actual figures for 2013/4?

Another issued raised by the proposal is the large footprint the nursery would have in relation to the existing school. Why is it so large, when the school has capacity for 476 pupils while the nursery will accommodate only 40 (at any one time)? Surely this will unnecessarily reduce the school's playing field?

Re: Wardie Nursery Consultation – Wardie Parent Council Response and Feedback

Wardie Parent Council have met on several occasions as well as attending the public consultation evening on 27th January, and have had detailed and lengthy discussions before preparing our formal response which is outlined below.

We recognise the educational arguments and principles for placing a nursery in a primary school, including improved transition and preparation for formal school entry in P1, as well as increased focus and investment in “early years” as has been outlined in the consultation and Scottish Government documents elsewhere. We also recognise the changing demographics with rising birth rate across the city, and the need to forward plan for increased numbers of children locally. Broadly speaking, Wardie Parent Council supports the principle of creating such a nursery, but overall we do NOT support the current proposal due to several major reservations which are elaborated further below:

1. Proposed location of nursery on playing field – continuing erosion of green space and piecemeal development of school campus

The green space around Wardie is part of what makes the school special to us, our children and future children attending the school. The playing field is used at break and lunchtime, for sports as well as football club at the weekend. It is also used for events such as the May Fair and the “Wardie Olympics”. It is a huge asset to the school and the community and we feel it would be irresponsible not to carefully look at how it is used.

It needs to continue to provide sufficient outdoor play and exercise space for the 450+ children now attending Wardie. This is particularly important at Wardie where the gym hall and lack of changing facilities are inadequate for the number of children now attending the school. This is fundamental to the “Health and Wellbeing” aspect of the curriculum, which was mentioned in the last HMIE inspection at Wardie in 2010 – at that time it was noted not all children were receiving 2 hours PE per week. We also note that the stated provision of the dining hall as additional space for gym is unhelpful as its availability is very limited due to setting up for lunch. Due to rising school numbers the grounds around the school have been significantly eroded in the last few years with development of 2 new classroom units (and planning for a 3rd unit), on the south side of the school: representing development of around 30% of the green space around the school in just over 6 years. There is significant parental concern about the continuing piecemeal approach to developing the school without clear thought being given to an integrated plan which considers the existing school estate, access, rising numbers, community use, and so on. We also question the interpretation of the council’s own policy on development on existing playing fields (see point number 4). We note the possibility of improving the use of outdoors learning for the school children and are enthusiastic about the ideas around this, but feel this is entirely separate and not dependent on the development of the nursery unit.

A sub-group of the Parent Council with relevant professional backgrounds have spent considerable time drawing up plans and alternative ideas to developing the school/nursery/access/outdoors space – a brief presentation was given at the public consultation. We would urge you to look at these schematics in annexe a). The sequence of drawings focuses on development of the school estate to date plus potential options for the future, with the last 4 drawings showing ideas which encompass a much broader vision of how the school estate could develop – in line with “Building Better Schools” aiming for a longer-term strategy to maximise benefit to the school and the neighbourhood.

2. Impact of increased numbers of children on access, congestion and road safety This is already a major issue at Wardie which has been repeatedly brought up at Parent Council meetings. The issues include congested access at the main gate with no other entry to the school, congested pavements with children on scooters/buggies on Granton Road (real hazard of a child falling on to the road), cars doing pick-ups/drop-offs. We are very concerned this will worsen with the addition of up to 40 children attending nursery, 40 in the afternoon creating increased pressure on access routes and at the gate. Exploring a redesign of access to the school and potentially opening the south gate at Afton Terrace should be explored.

We also have concerns about how nursery children and their parents would access the school with security implications for the primary school children, in particular with parents picking up and dropping off in the middle of the day when children are likely to be playing outdoors.

3. Is there proven demand in North Edinburgh and impact on existing partner provider nurseries?

The evidence and numbers provided to us in the consultation paper to make the case for local demand for nursery provision in North Edinburgh was misleading and in some cases inaccurate. This was raised at the public consultation meeting in detail. We acknowledge receipt of new population figures for N Edinburgh from 2011 census provided by Jane Rough on the day of our last meeting (6th Feb).

We heard from Wardie Nursery how they have had vacancies for much of this year, and they expect to close due to lack of demand if the nursery at Wardie Primary goes ahead. We have also been informed that lack of demand contributed to closure of Mr Squirrel’s Nursery on Cargil Terrace recently. Locally, there is pressing demand for childminders, therefore we have concerns that council sessions will not provide the kind of childcare that many people actually need and want in this area (ie “wraparound”). We would also make the simple point that many working parents use nurseries convenient to workplace, and not to their future primary school catchment (eg Careshare Newhaven, Heriothill and so on) – and Wardie/Granton/Inverleith/Trinity is a largely residential area so we anticipate a nursery at Wardie would primarily cater for children with a stay-at-home parent or childminder and not working parents. Do our local provider nurseries provide adequate capacity for this group of children/parents already? We also question how waiting lists can be interpreted as parents will tend to put their child’s name on multiple lists, including local authority nurseries. We therefore remain unclear about the whether there is proven demand for this type of nursery in this area, and also have concerns about the impact on existing partner provider nurseries that have served this area for many years.

4. Feasibility study – single option provided and poor quality of evidence

We are concerned about the poor quality of the feasibility study which has only considered one possible location for the nursery (despite what we were told by Katie Divers at the Consultation meeting on 27 January). The feasibility study has not addressed at all the serious issue of the loss of a playing field and how this proposal would meet the Council’s own Planning Policy OS2 Protection of Playing Fields. It has also not addressed the issue of access which is highly problematic, it is not based on any proper research, the so called ‘site massing’ studies does nothing to inform the best choice of location (which in any case had already been determined before starting the analysis). The ‘Site Opportunities’ page is the most facile in that it only considers one potential location and does not offer any kind of critical assessment of why this might be suitable.

We are concerned that the Scottish Government Policy Guidance ‘Building Better Schools – Investing in Scotland’s Future’ is not being followed with this proposal. In particular there is no evidence that an ‘integrated, holistic and longer term approach to change’ is being adopted. With this proposal, there is no attempt to understand the logic of the existing school building or its grounds and the way they interact with other Council-owned facilities adjacent (The Wardie Residents Club, car parking areas and playing fields to the north). Building Better Schools advises you to ‘consider how to make best use of school grounds and the outdoor spaces as an integral part of the learning environment ensuring that landscape design is at a par with building design’. Our experiences of the recent Rising Rolls extension (the P6 unit) where this guidance was also ignored means that we have grave concerns about the potential for a successful development with this proposal.

5. Cost-effectiveness of £750k stand-alone building without additional use for/by community

Questions were raised about how this investment gives the best value for money for the tax payer over other options. There was some disquiet regarding the apparent rush to spend ring-fenced money on this project, without stopping to consider how such a project could benefit Wardie Primary School and the wider community at a cost of around £750k according to the consultation paper. A rough calculation showed a new, purpose-built nursery would be used only around 30% of the time based on nursery hours and terms (see annexe b). We feel any publicly owned building should seek to maximise utilisation and revenue. For example, more after school-club provision is desperately needed at Wardie and whilst we recognise the physical constraints of a purpose-built nursery we feel any new building should ideally be serving a broader purpose. We would also draw your attention to the ongoing issue of rising school rolls in North Edinburgh (particularly with closure of Fort and Bonnington), the planned phase 2 building development for Wardie and whether these developments can be redesigned so all proposed additions are planned together. For example, there is perhaps no need for phase 2 of the rising rolls building AND a new nursery building, maybe only 1 building needs to be built.

6. Consultation process and timings

We have concerns about the mistake that has been made over the final date for the consultation response. Your committee report – which comes up first when ‘Wardie Nursery Consultation’ is Googled - states that the final date is 12 March 2014. Whilst we appreciate that this is corrected elsewhere on your website it is reasonable to assume that most consultees would not necessarily look elsewhere having found the report via Google and we would suggest that you should continue to accept consultation responses received up to 12 March.

In summary, whilst Wardie Parent Council remains supportive of the educational ethos for placing a nursery class in the school, we continue to have major concerns as detailed in this letter and therefore we do not support the current proposal for the development of a nursery at Wardie Primary. We would urge you to consider our thoughts and comments, the documents given in the annexes, and to give due consideration to extending the consultation and research period and in particular to looking at the whole school/community needs and how these fit in with a new nursery at Wardie. Wardie Parent Council would welcome the opportunity for a small delegation of our members to meet with the relevant council parties to discuss this proposal and work in partnership with the council to progress matters to the benefit of the school, the children, and the community. In particular we would be delighted to discuss ideas around alternative ways of developing the school site in a manner more responsive to the issues raised in our letter.

Dear Sir or Madam

I am writing in response to the proposal to build a nursery building at Wardie Primary School. I have two children at Wardie, and another due to start in 2015, so have a keen interest in this proposal as a parent, and as a resident of North Edinburgh.

I recognise the need for more nursery places in the city, having had difficulty finding a place for my son on moving here from London in 2013. In the end I did find provision at a new private nursery called Bonnington House. I am generally in favour of having a nursery attached to the school and can see there are clear educational, operational, economies of scale in doing so.

I do however have 3 areas of concern about the proposal as it stands:

1) The proposed location of the new building on a playing field, and not on the (considerable) brownfield land available all around the school.

Early years seems to have chosen the low cost, least imaginative solution by deciding to build on the playing field. By doing so shows a disregard of other priorities within the government's own guidelines surrounding physical activity and building on playing fields.

2) There is a lack of "joined up thinking" by Early Years in approaching this project. Ring fenced funding has led to a one department approach. There appears to have been a lack of consideration of the existing school buildings, and neighbouring community use buildings such as Wardie Residents Association, Wardie Playing Fields and Broughton RFC.

There is an opportunity to plan and build a new nursery which not only makes sense as a nursery, but also strategically coherent in terms of the future of the whole primary school site and its future growth, and the publically owned facilties next to the school estate.

An example of poor forward planning and lack of coherence in design is clearly demonstrated by the recent additions to the school. The first building has already outgrown its intended use as a P1 block in less than 6 years and had to be modified. The second addition in 2013 is due to be augmented by another extension in a year's time to deal with further increase in roles - none of these buildings are connected to the existing school. One cannot help but imagine that more insightful planning could have delivered a proper connected extension built in phases, rather than the collection of mismatched modular buildings we have now.

For example can all remaining proposed additions be redesigned so there is no need for phase 2 of the rising roles building AND a new nursery building, may be only 1 building needs to be built, which could save total council funds (albeit two separate department budgets amalgamated)

3) No evidence has been given of how this investment gives the best value for money for the tax payer over other options.

- Are there other ways to achieve the same outcomes, that may costs less? eg expansion of hours provided by Wardie Nursery, Trinity Nursery, Trinity Tots, Edzell Nursery instead.

- Or perhaps with a little more investment, can the number of people be or the types of people that benefit from this project be increased significantly? There has been no community usage plan presented, nor does there seem to have been any requirement to have one. Taking potential opening hours from 9am to 9pm, nursery usage during term time accounts for little over 30% of available hours. No plan has been put forward as to what the 70% of available hours will be used for. There is an opportunity for generating revenue for the school by hiring out to community users, but nothing has been put forward.

- If a £780k building is being proposed, are there ways to make the asset work harder? This normally means maximising its utilisation and/or revenue generating potential for each £1 invested.

In conclusion, I feel there is a good case for building a nursery at Wardie. However, I urge the committee to reject this proposal as it currently stands on the grounds that other options that could give a better result for the nursery, the school, the local community and tax payer have not been adequately presented for consideration.

In these times of reduced council budgets, it would seem especially irresponsible for the committee to allow this project to go ahead without demanding a more rigorous options-analysis be carried out.

Dear Gillian Tee and Councillors,

I am writing to object to the proposal for a Nursery in the grounds of Wardie Primary. My reasons for this are:

1) The analysis of demand for places is wrong, for example the report about current nursery provision is incorrect as the nursery 150 metres from the school has places.

2) The proposed nursery will take up valuable green space that is used by pupils at the school & also used for events that bring the community together, for example the annual May Fair. I also think that the proposal yet again demonstrates a piecemeal approach to the development of buildings on the site – there are already 2 ‘add-on’ classrooms that have no shared identity & believe that based on this the nursery would again be different.

Dear Ms Tee

I am a parent of a child who attends Wardie Primary School and have recently attended two meetings with regard to the proposed nursery on the site. I am deeply concerned about the logic of this proposal.

The data presented at a council sponsored meeting showed that there is a shortage of nursery spaces in Edinburgh and current changes in legislation will make the shortfall worse. New nurseries are needed - that much is clear.

However, what is much less clear is where those nurseries are needed. The data presented for the waiting lists at the partner/neighbouring council run nurseries around Wardie was a cause for much disagreement at that meeting and at a second meeting hosted by the Parent Council, an updated version of this data showed there are minimal or no waiting lists at present at these nurseries. It should be noted that two privately owned nurseries in the area closed in the past 6 years due to falling numbers.

The proposed 40/40 nursery at Wardie will only fill its spaces by driving other nurseries in the area out of business and this will not alleviate the shortfall in other parts of the city. While parents will travel to a nursery away from home, this tends to be to a nursery close to their place of work. There are no major employers around Wardie so this is unlikely to help fill that nursery. This point is proved by the fact that Holy Cross RC PS nursery has a small waiting list of children while Granton PS nursery, about 2 miles away, has spaces. The proposed nursery will simply draw on local people who appear to be adequately served already.

In conclusion, the £750,000 estimated cost of this nursery would be better used on a nursery elsewhere. I do not think that building it at Wardie is a good use of tax payers money and it makes very poor business sense.

Proposal for Nursery at Wardie Primary School

Whilst I support of the principle of a new nursery being built at Wardie School, my support is dependent on the following concerns being resolved. Unless the following concerns are addressed, I do not support the current proposal.

1. The Council proposals have not fully considered the impact of having an additional 80 nursery pupils. Whilst the school does have a dining room, in addition to main hall, the dining room is not available for gym for significant periods of time throughout the school day due to it being set up and cleared for lunch. The most recent HMiE inspection criticised the school for not providing all children with the minimum of 2 hours of PE a week, and an increased intake will only add to this. It is important that any proposed nursery should be fully integrated into the life of the school and have access to school facilities, but without a solution to this, it adds increased pressure on the current facilities. In addition, the increasing roll will impact on the whole school’s ability to fit into the hall together and reduce the inclusive community feel that the school worked hard to achieve. The council needs to take a long term view of the school rather than several piecemeal ‘add-ons’ by various departments. At least 2 of the speakers at the consultation meeting clearly articulated that the previous additional buildings were nothing to do with them and illustrated a lack of strategic, long term planning. 2. The proposed location of the nursery has also been ill considered. The consultation meeting was extremely dismissive of the alternative proposals put forward by the Parent Council, commenting that these had already been evaluated. There is however, no evidence of this. I oppose the option proposed for a number of reasons. Firstly it would inhibit further expansion of the main school hall. Secondly, it takes up a disproportionate area of Wardie’s green space/ playing field - being placed in the centre of the space available and would be better sited at a range of alternative points around the school. Thirdly, creates yet another ‘add on’/ piecemeal unit and adds to the already disjointed new buildings. Fourthly, the proposed site does not allow for the nursery children to access the building without crossing the current playground and/ or school building. Again, the alternative proposals could enable the nursery children to have their own external gate and reduce the traffic through the school four times a day, thus reducing the risks to the current pupils in terms of security and volume of pedestrian traffic. 3. Additional car traffic and congestion on the pavements leading to the school. This could be addressed by using an alternative entrance, consideration to opening the South Gate or widening the pavements along Granton Road and pedestrianizing the current entrance road. 4. The evidence provided at the consultation meeting regarding current demand did not appear to be based on strong or accurate data. A number of local nurseries have closed over the last few years, most recently Mr Squirrels which closed due to lack of demand.

I hope we can rely on your support to ensure any decision to have a nursery is based on sound evidence and takes account of the concerns detailed above, in particular that the proposed location within the school grounds is reconsidered.

Dear Sir/ Madam

I would like to highlight my concerns about the significant loss of existing green space on the existing playing field and what appears to be piecemeal and hastily considered development of the school campus.

The two recent additions of units have detracted from the free play space available and do not link well with the original school building and I am concerned that a lack of thought and preparation is diminishing the school experience for future generations.

I would want to know that there is a proven need for the nursery and what impact will be on neighbouring nurseries.

I would like to see a more considered response to the issue.

Please ensure these comments are included in feedback to Gillian Tee, Director of Children & Families.

Dear Councillor/Early Years Team

I have 3 children, 2 currently attending Wardie Primary and 1 due to start pre-school in the autumn. My youngest will go to a local partner provider with my childminder doing some pick-ups and drop offs.

I understand the logic for creating a nursery and the enthusiasm of the educationalists who are responsible for delivering early years curriculum. I was also taken with the enthusiasm of our new HT for the nursery addition and her points about creating expertise within the school for early years.

I remain fairly ambivalent about whether a LA nursery would benefit the existing children who attend the school – a lot was made of the fact that the kids like mixing with younger pupils, but this happens in any case with shared reading buddies for example. Personally I think Wardie is a top rate school and don’t feel the addition of a nursery would make it even better. I fear it would have several negative impacts:

First and foremost, the single proposed location taking up almost half the playing field. A huge loss of greenspace in a school which is developing and growing rapidly. Just because Wardie is fortunate in having greenspace compared to many other primaries doesn’t mean it is ripe for development. I was also under the impression that legislation/council planning laws protected existed playing fields, but this was downplayed at the public meeting. The kids benefit from the outdoors space, they are outside virtually every break and lunch, as well as using the field for running, football etc. It is also used for weekend football and events like the May Fair which are highly valued. The outdoors space at Wardie has already been eroded with the addition of 2 new classrooms, and a further one pending – some play equipment was taken down to make place for the P6 unit. I found the comment at the public meeting that enough space would be left for a 7-a-side pitch quite incredible – this hardly substitutes for what the school already has.

Another major concern involves the impact of increased numbers on traffic, congestion at the school gate, and safety. This is an ongoing concern in any case, and I do not believe an additional 40 : 40 children and parents attending will have no effect. Access to the school needs to be a major priority and I feel the nursery will add significantly to this problem, certainly without a redesign of access to the school. The children spilling out onto a narrow pavement by Granton Rd is an accident waiting to happen.

At the meeting the point was made that the consultation for the development of the nursery is separate from the planning process which will follow. However, most of the prevailing negative feeling towards the nursery around the school parent community is to do with the proposed site and real lack of consideration to loss of playing field, access, overall look and feel of the school. Wardie is a great example of 1930’s architecture and a great environment for primary education. It would be wrong to hang on to the past, but equally it seems very sad that development keeps happening in various temporary box like structures across the grounds. Some parents on the WPC presented some ideas around this at the meeting – with some thought not just to where to site a potential nursery, but also thinking of the school as a whole and how it links to the local streets/community. Please look at this.

Consultation on proposed Nursery School at Wardie Primary School

As a parent at the school I wish to object to the proposal to build a nursery school adjacent to Wardie Primary School on the following grounds:

1. Proposed Location: The proposed location of the nursery does not appear to be conducive to future development of the main school building. At the public meeting the Parent Council provided some alternative locations for discussion. The Council representative stated that other options have been explored, but did not provide details as to what options had been considered, or why the options proposed by the Parent Council were not viable. Indeed, the manner in which these options was treated was, in my view, curt at least and bordering on the rude and dismissive. It would have been helpful if the council staff had explained why these alternative options were not viable. If they were not able to do this at the meeting, it would have been useful for them to offer to issue details as to why these alternative options are not workable.

2. Safety & access to the nursery: The issues linked to access to the nursery (especially given its proposed location on the far side of the school from the main entry area) do not appear to have been properly considered. The impression I gained from the public meeting was that this would be sorted out once the building was in place, rather than being a material consideration as to whether this was the correct location for the nursery. Specific concerns are:

a) It appears that children will be at the nursery for half a day. This is going to necessitate adults entering and exiting the school grounds during the middle of the day. How will this be managed to ensure that this does not create a risk to primary children?

b) Traffic management – this is an issue at Wardie anyway – creating a circumstance where more people are dropping off children is of concern. The comments concerning the gate into the school only address a small part of the problem. The biggest issues are likely to be in relation to increased car traffic and also congestion on the pavements leading to the school. The pavements along Granton Road are already full to capacity around school start and end times, and it is not an infrequent sight to see children and adults moving into the road to by-pass slow moving groups of children.

3. Impacts on existing school community: The Council states that the nursery is required owing to an increase in nursery age children, who will in turn, move onto primary school. However, it does not seem to have fully considered the “knock-on” effects of these additional children in terms of being able to accommodate them within the school building. There are already difficulties in being able to accommodate adequate indoor space to meet the requirements for 2 hrs physical activity per child per week. This point was raised at the public meeting, but was not, in my view, addressed fully. Specifically the statement that there is sufficient space for children did not seem to be backed up by the evidence:

A) stating that the dining hall provides additional GP space for gym is not appropriate – the dining hall is only available for a short time each day as it is being set up for lunch;

B) my understanding is that the calculations of space requirements for children pre-dates the requirements of Curriculum for Excellence

C) the number of rooms is not the only issue – it is rapidly reaching the point where the whole school is not able to fit within the main hall. This will impact on the ability of the whole school to come together and hence the feeling of all pupils being part of one community.

D) further classroom units around the school will further add to the fragmented nature of the school, reducing the sense of community. Placing a new nursery adjacent to the existing school hall effectively acts as a block to any further extension of that space.

Furthermore, there appeared to be conflicting statements at the public meeting as to whether the nursery children would use the main school facilities, thus putting them under greater pressure.

4. Existing provision: The Wardie Residents’ Club building is adjacent to the school and is, I believe, currently used as a nursery. Has consideration been given to adapting or extending this to accommodate the nursery?

Other Points:

Whilst I am not in a position to comment on the need for the nursery, I would note that the map included with the consultation omits some other nurseries within close proximity to Wardie School, albeit outwith the 0.5 km radius chosen. I live within the catchment of Wardie and placed both my children in nurseries – neither of which lie within that radius. My point is that this may be too narrow an area for consideration of nursery provision.

I attended the public meeting with a neutral view on the nursery, but I’m afraid that the information that I received there made me take a poor view of the proposal. I do not get the feeling that this is true consultation – more provision of information. Any suggestions from the floor, such as creation of an early years centre elsewhere on the site, to link nursery and primary 1, was dismissed with little comment or thought.

Dear Early Years Team,

I am writing to you as Chair of the Wardie Nursery Management Committee in conjunction with staff at Wardie Nursery to respond to the above consultation.

This email is being sent from staff and myself at Wardie Nursery. We hope to raise some of our concerns regarding the opening of the new 80-place Wardie Nursery School.

Our nursery is located 150 metres away from the proposed site of the new nursery. Our nursery employs 5 members of staff and caters for 35 places and has been running for approximately 20 years. It is well-known and respected in the community and is served by a diligent and dedicated staff team. The nursery has a low staff turnover and the longest serving staff member has served for 12 years.

Over the past two years we have struggled to fill places in the nursery. This year Wardie Nursery managed to fill 31 places by January 2014, which took a whole school term to fill and has impacted our finances considerably. There have been two partner provider nurseries that have shut in the area in the last 2 years due to low demand. We are very concerned that there is not enough demand in the North of Edinburgh to be met by both nurseries operating. We don't accept that this will cater for city-wide demand, as there is no existing evidence to support that a high proportion of people will travel across the city and opt for this service. All of our nursery children are from the local area. We have no people on our waiting list from outwith North Edinburgh.

Edinburgh Council have assured us that Wardie Nursery would still be able to operate alongside the school nursery. Will Edinburgh Council make a commitment to funding Wardie Nursery for 35 children regardless if we can fill that number?

We would also like to know what percentage of the 17% increase of births is applicable to North Edinburgh?

Our concern is that there has been no adequate local needs assessment research completed to assist in the planning of this consultation and figures quoted in the consultation do not represent the actual situation at nursery level.

We strongly suggest that more in depth research is done taking into account the situation at each nursery before plans are accepted.

Additionally the following comments by members of staff are made below:

1) Would it not make more sense for Wardie Nursery to move into the school grounds instead. We have our own equipment and it would be more cost effective?

2) Wardie Nursery is known by it's great reputation and moving to the school and increasing our numbers would help woith the demand of new places. There would be continuity of care for the children. The nursery has been running for many years and is much loved and respected in the community.

3) It doesn't take a purpose built nursery that is costing tax payers more money to run a successful nursery. It takes a team of well qualified and skillful staff with passion and commitment. This is what we can offer.

Dear Sir/ Madam

I would like to respond the consultation document re the proposed nursery at Wardie Primary school.

I am supportive of the idea of having a nursery based at the the school and the benefits it can have to the young people and parents in the community.

The proposal also comes at some "cost" to the school as a whole. The loss of further green space round the school and the added pressure on the infrastructure of the school.

I feel the Council have again missed an opportunity to work with the young people and parents from the community.One of the most valued aspects of the school is the wonderful green space that surrounds the school. This offers the young people excellent opportunities for lots of learning through outdoor play. In recent years there have been external buildings added to the south of the main building which has taken away vast amount of space.

This has become of great concern to pupils and parents and to hear about more green space being used for additional buildings, parents and young people are very concerned about the further loss of space to play in.

When Council officials attended a Parent Council meeting, I made a very clear offer to the Council that there was a need to work in partnership as this would be a very sensitive subject. However this offer was not taken up and now the community have been given one choice for the location for the building. This has resulted in a feeling of opposition towards the nursery. The Parent Council has offered up alternatives but these seemed to be dismissed at the public meeting without any reasoning.

The Scottish Government promote Standards for community engagement, but i feel this process has not recognised any of these standards which has resulted in a negative feeling towards this facility, instead of an enthusiastic addition to the learning environment at the school.

I hope you find my comments constructive and would welcome the opportunity to work with the various Council Services to find a suitable location for the building.

Dear Ms. Tee

I refer to the consultation document for the proposed development for Wardie Nursery at Wardie Primary School and the consultation meeting held at the school on the 27th January. I have the following particular concerns in relation to the proposed development:

1. There will be an increase in people driving and dropping off nursery aged children which will lead to an increase in traffic to an already congested area and restricted access to the school. How does the City of Edinburgh Council plan to manage this increase in traffic and ensure safety of children.

2. The information presented in the report referred to a demand for nursery places and stated that nurseries in the area were full. It was apparent at the meeting the figures in the report were incorrect, with evidence provided by parents and the local nursery of available spaces that this was not the case. I would question whether there is demand in the local area for spaces. I have major concerns that a new nursery would only lead to pressure on existing local nurseries that could lead to job losses or business closures in the local community. The council representatives at the meeting stated the demand is a city wide issue, which may be the case, however, why aren’t nursery spaces being provided in those areas where there is a shortfall of spaces, not Wardie where there appears to be capacity.

3. The plans for the nursery show the building sitting on the school playing fields, reducing the children’s outside play space. How does the City of Edinburgh Council plan to address this loss of amenity, will they provide alternative space to make up the shortfall or improve the remaining areas that would be left? There also seems to be potential for further buildings that could be provided for rising rolls that will reduce external space further. As of mother of two children who attend Wardie Primary that is an issue that has been raised by them and concerns me as well.

4. The timescales for the proposed nursery at the consultation meeting suggested City of Edinburgh Council planned to have the building operational by the start of 2015 term. This would indicate a fairly fast track programme would be required to deliver the project. I have concerns whether there will be sufficient time for proper community consultation through the decision making process, rather than just “lip service”, which based on information provided to date seems to be is all that is likely to take place. I would like to see where and how City of Edinburgh Council plan to address this.

I trust that these points will be given consideration by the City of Edinburgh Council committee making the decision as to whether to progress with the new nursery or not.

Dear Gillian, I was unable to make it to the meeting held at Wardie Primary but did get feedback - tried to get feedback - from other parents who had been there.

What I was told baffled me.

1.Edinburgh Council - there is demand for local nursery places - but no figures provided Parents - as management consultants do, phoned around for data and found evidence to the contrary - places at all nurseries in the local area, many children on a waiting list at more than one nursery and already having a place at another.

There is no available evidence of actual demand

2. Edinburgh Council - there has been no decision about where to locate the nursery as it's not been decided whether it's going to happen Parents - asked about this and we're told "it can't go in the places in the playground you suggest as there are management issues with theses"

The location of the nursery has already been decided

3.Road safety for Wardie is an ongoing issue. There is a very narrow footpath to the school's one entrance, the main road is busy, cars and vans park illegally, cars often go faster than the speed limit.

An additional 20-40 preschoolers, the most unpredictable of pavement users and road crossers, arriving for 9am (in buggies, some double buggies, on scooters, in cars) in the same entrance (as it's already been decided?) leaving before lunch and the next shift arriving after lunch and leaving early afternoon, would create further danger to all children using the school.

It is already dangerous. This will make it more so, especially as no proper investigation into other entrances has been done.

My comments: The nursery has not been shown to be required It's been decided to put it in a place within the school grounds which doesn't actually make any sense and hasn't been thought through The traffic situation has not been shown to have been addressed to any degree

I look forward to hearing the council addressing these points - I understand it would be funded from a capital budget and that other projects are often part funded through the Scottish Government ‘Scotland’s Schools for the Future’ Programme and managed by the Scottish Futures Trust, but that the council is also planning on making £36m cuts this year - obviously from other budgets. If the nursery is not required and there are MANY projects that are, why would you even consider such a thing?

I look forward to the next round of consultation and hope to be at the next meeting. There is clearly still a lot of work to be done and the position of the council is currently very confused.

Dear Sir or Madam,

In response to the recent consultation on a new nursery block at Wardie Primary.

I am a local resident, parent of children at Wardie Primary, and also a parent of a prospective nursery child. As such, I welcome the creation of more nursery places in the catchment area.

However, I have serious issues with the proposal put forward by the Early Years department. The main, over-riding issue is that it is being done without considering the existing resources and how to best utilise the nursery block. I do not believe that the school or community has been consulted properly. Instead the decision already appears to have been made by the Early Years department, on the basis of doing it as quickly, and cheaply as possible, without really thinking of the implications.

1) The current plan is to build on green playing fields / green playgrounds. This does not seem wise, given the amount of brownfield space at the school. I suspect this is becuase the builders have quoted the cheapest cost for building on playing fields rather than being creative and adding to existing buildings. Does the application require special planning approval to build on existing playing fields/ green playgrounds? I would hope so.

2) No thought has been given to how the unit will integrate with the main school. This can be demonstrated with the previous building to house the P1 classes. If, every time there is a need for a new building, a separate unit is built, you will simply end up with a number of distributed single units, with no concern given to how the children move between buildings / how they can be expanded sensibly etc.

3) What will the building be used for after nursery hours are over? Has any consideration been given to that. This comment applies, in general, to all school buildings, but in particuar to nursery buildings, given that nursery hours are fewer than school hours. Has any thought been given to how the community could use the building (either for free, or to generate revenue to support the school).

I do not want to be negative - I would welcome the creation of more nursery places. The solutions are easily achieved - all you need to do is a genuine consultation with the community. If this were to take place, you would find many people (for example qualified architects) who could help to design a better building than one that is being proposed. It is my strong belief that this consultation is simply paying lip-service and nothing will actually happen in response to the comments received. I believe this, given the lack of consideration of comments/responses given to the previous building erected at Wardie - the P1 block. Please prove me wrong this time, and re-consider this nursery block.

I have read the Scottish Government's document "Changing Classrooms", and it appears that far more long-term consideration and community engagementhas been given to the layout and environment of the school, in the 8 schools featured. They all prioritise using existing facilities, improving the flow of children, thinking about how developments affect future growth of the school, and involving the community in terms of actually using the facility. None of these appear to have been considered in the proposed nursery block.

I have also read the Scottish Government's document "Building Better Schools - Investing in Scotland's Future". In the section Visisons, it states "schools should be well designed and integral parts of the communities they serve". It also states, under guiding principles for future growth, that good consultation means better outcomes. Again, I know that there is a consutation process currently ongoing, but I do not believe that it is any more than lip-service as I believe the decision has already been made.

"Building Better Schools" also states that schools need to take a more integrated, holistic and longer-term approach to changes. In my view, the current proposed nursery block is: a) not integrated - it is simply dumped on the green school playground - wasting an existing valuable resource that will probably never return. b) not holistic - it makes no effort to properly link with the school or the community

c) not taking a longer-term approach - it is simply the least-cost repsonse by the early years dept to an issue of rising demand for nursery places. If designed well, with an eye to how it could be combined with the school and allow for future growth, then it could sove both problems.

Dear Sirs I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed new nursery at Wardie Primary School. In principle I can see that this is a positive development. It is great that there are funds to spend on early years provision. I can also appreciate that from a city-wide perspective there is a need for additional early years facilities. However it is my view that this is the wrong place for a new nursery to be built. My main objection is that there is no proven need for a new nursery in the local area. I am currently on the management committee at Wardie Nursery, which is situated 150m from the school. I have first hand experience of the level of demand in the area for 3-4 year olds. Although we offer 35 places (increased from 31 to assist with Council-perceived demand in the area), we started in August with only 23 places filled, increasing this to 26 after the October break with children whose parents were willing to pay for places as their children were too young to receive Council funding. We only managed to fill the remaining 5 spaces in January, bringing the total children attending to 31. We opened up an additional 4 spaces following the public meeting on the new nursery, understanding that there appeared to be an increased need in the area. However we are finding that there is no such need. These places remained unfilled. My concerns here are twofold: 1. If there is not a high demand for our places at present, there is no way that Wardie Nursery would be able to remain open when the proposed school nursery opened. We simply cannot compete. 2. If we cannot fill our 35 spaces, how does the Council intend to fill 80 spaces at the new nursery? If the nursery operates only half-full, how can this be shown to offer value for money for tax payers? If Wardie Nursery were to close, this would result in the loss of 5 local jobs and a great waste of a nursery-full of resources. It is hard to view either of these things as a positive development. I also have concerns as a parent of a child at Wardie Primary. My daughter loves the open space at the school and indeed it was one of the things that attracted us to the school in the first place, when looking at areas in which to live. Yet another building in the school grounds will result in loss of green space and valuable outdoor play area. Outdoor space in school playgrounds is so limited in the city. It is great that Wardie Primary can offer this to its pupils and it would be such a shame to lose it.

I also have concerns from a traffic/safety perspective. If the new nursery is to meet needs from further afield, this will necessitate parents driving their children to the new facility. The parking situation at the school is already so limited. Further pressure could compromise the safety of pupils and would need to be looked at very carefully.

I hope you will be able to take these concerns into account when considering the Council's proposal.

Subject: Proposed Wardie Nursery

Please note my concerns over the proposed Wardie nursery. Namely:

1) Is this safe for our children at school with gates opening at extra times (school security)

2) Extra pressure on all the staff and facilities which have already been extended to accommodate more primary school children

3) Bad for business for existing nurseries in the area which have spaces

4) More use of Wardie School's already used green space in a strange 'piece by piece' fashion. Doesn't seem to have any proper planning?!!! Why should our kids loose out on this beautiful space any more. Lack of forward planning means a much higher cost in the long run.

5) Space to build a nursery anyway next door, over the wall in the playing fields. Safer access etc. I am very concerned at increasing congestion in an already congested area

6) Place where community can benefit out with school/nursery times thus making better use of facilities/tax payer's money.

I hope all points of all concerned parents will be taken into account and this plan will be much better though it before anything at all happens.

Subject: New nursery in Wardie I would like first to question the need for a new nursery in Wardie: Will there really be enough demand for 80 children? I would agree that there is not quite enough provision in the area, but I wonder if there will really be enough children needing a morning or afternoon slot place to fill a new nursery as well as the nurseries that are already operating in the area. I predict that the nursery operating out of the residents club will close soon after the opening of a new nursery in Wardie. If it is found that there is a need for a new nursery, then I would make the following comments: There are currently two "blocks" and planning permission to build a further block to accommodate upper primary classes nearby the main building. These blocks are not joined to the school and therefore do not encourage free movement of the children around the main building, which must have an impact on their sense of belonging to the school. If a nursery is needed, would it not be possible to incorporte these blocks to form an "Early Years Centre". By this I mean a separate building to the main school which would then cater for two years of nursery and the primary 1 year group. This should allow for the primary 1 year group to have easier to access to more active learning experiences, and allow for the early years team to work well together. It should also allow for better transitions from nursery to primary 1. The safety of the younger pupils would be easy to oversee in a smaller building which would have all the facilities they required - this would mean that the facilities of the main school building would not be being shared out amongst yet more pupils. The older pupils could move back into the main building and move around more freely - they are of an age where this is more appropriate for them. Perhaps such a building as an "Early Years Centre" would be able to be accessed after school hours by other community groups to run clubs and activities for the community?

Dear Ms Rough

I oppose the proposal as is stands, in summary, because:

1. A brand new building is likely to simply displace parent’s chosen half-day choices from the neighbouring nursery that has current spaces, thus causing job losses.

2. It would be better to pause and consider investing this huge amount more strategically – either in improving the whole educational provision in the neighbourhood, or perhaps in early years provision in another Edinburgh location with more demand.

3. There may be some growing demand in North Edinburgh, but this is more for all-day wrap-around care closer to people’s places of work (e.g. Leith, the New Town fringes) or for child-minders. Wardie School is isolated from most workplaces.

4. Proposed location builds on a large chunk of Wardie School’s great asset of an open playing field – that has already diminished greatly over the past few years with piecemeal developmemnt of the P1 block then 'rising rolls' blocks.

5. Proposed location precludes expanding the main hall to east once the school roll is 500+

6. As proposed it is not a flexible building that enables ‘out of hours’ community amenity.

7. Any new development should be tied to investment to improve street infrastructure (traffic calming, wider pavements etc) that struggles with capacity. This proposal does not. Where is CEC's joined-up asset- management approach? I support the principle of higher quality early years play and education provision in Edinburgh. I also support more options for working parents. But I’m not convinced that local demand for half-day nursery provision is high enough to build this without it simply displacing kids. The neighbouring Wardie Resident’s Club has had adverts outside for months saying ‘nursery places available’ thus proving table 1's figures as wrong. At best, the figures are very selective and at worst they’re ‘cooked’ to justify the desired outcome. I’m concerned there’s no local business impact assessment. Dedicated nursery staff, 50 metres away, are likely to lose jobs next year if this goes ahead. It would be better to look at the option of investing in the quality of provision at Wardie Residents, expanding it if needs be, and integrating this better into the school and wider community. This would cost less than £800k. It could support Granton Road as a community high street with more activity along its pavements. Also, with regards demand, that Mr Squirrels on Afton Terrace closed a few years ago, and a nursery on Wardie Crescent closed too not long before.

Your Sustainability impact is selective, making no mention of green space loss, losing the opportunity to play on a full size football pitch or host Wardie Sports days, as they have been done, using the whole of the big field.

If demand is proven, there are brownfield options that have not been properly explored. With regards siting, at meeting on 27 Jan, council officials (Ms Divers) justified the proposal by quoting Wardie has well over minimum standards for halls and green space. This is not the message to teach our children – we should strive to keep what’s best and aim for even higher standards of provision of quality amenity and space. Also Ms Divers said a full options appraisal had been done but this has not been made available despite enquiries.

Overall, a new nursery for 3-5 year olds could be a wonderful facility, but the proposal as it stands results from a lack of joined-up thinking, going for the easy build-on-greenfield option. It suits your contractor delivery partner and your narrow targets rather than emerging from integrated design approach that looks at wider community publicly owned assets.

If Starbucks identified a growing demand for Edinburgh coffee outlets they would not just build three kiosks on easy suburban greenfields. They would precisely identify where to maximise long-term returns on their investment. CEC is spending public money so I’d expect a very certain case to be presented for building here in principal. Following this I’d expect a full options appraisal on locations that does all it can to allow broad public access and utility and not gloss-over the reduction of outdoor sport and play opportunities.

I look forward to hearing

Subject: Proposed Wardie nursery development

I would like to express my concern at the proposed nursery development at Wardie school. I object to the proposal in its current form for the following reasons. 1. The local need for increased nursery places has not been demonstrated and, whilst there may be a regional need there is no justification for the use of the Wardie site. 2. The proposed building is another piecemeal addition to the unique fabric of this fabulous school which will negatively impact on the school and it's pupils. 3. The additional numbers of staff and nursery pupils will struggle to be accommodated in the already overcrowded communal areas such as the dining hall and the gym hall. 4. There will be a significant increase in traffic volume and parking problems, particularly as children will be attending from out with the local area. As there is no second entrance to this site I believe that the increased congestion will potentially threaten child safety.

I hope that these issues are addressed and the proposal is changed. Such major projects should not be pushed through in haste just because there is funding available in this financial year.

FAO: Director of Children and Families

As parents of two children at Wardie Primary School I would like to register out objection to the proposed nursery in the grounds of the school.

While we recognise the need for increased nursery provision in the area, we are concerned that the proposals would have a negative impact on the existing facilities at the school.

Outdoor space is vital to the health and wellbeing of children and the fields surrounding Wardie PS are used daily by the pupils for PE classes and general play.

Judging by the submitted plans, the proposed nursery would take up at least a third of the available space.

In addition to the permanent loss of play space, the development would have a major impact on the school while construcution work is underway.

Furthermore, we are concerned that any such development would set a precedent and increase the likelihood of further development of the land, permanently removing space that has existed and been protected since the school was first built.

Subject: Proposed Nursery at Wardie Primary

We object to the proposal to build a nursery for the following reasons:

1/ It is a totally unnecessary waste of money. There was a complete absence for evidence at the meeting of any proper local market research- indeed the only detailed research had been done my a member of the audience who managed to show that there was little or no need for additional nursery spaces

2/ How about spending the money to strengthen the perimeter at Wardie School to stop the youths coming into the school grounds in summer evenings and vandalising the school? This has been an ongoing problem for many years. We have called the police on dozens occasions and neighbours have too.

3/ It will create more congestion in the mornings which could lead to serious safety issues. The same would apply of you make the entrance at Wardie Road, as Afton Terrace is already filled with cars at school drop off time. The noise and disruption are already bad. This will make it worse.

4/ It will take away some of the precious space that our children use to play in, making the school more overcrowded. The summer fair, the sports day, all the wonderful things which Wardie School has had under the tremendous leadership of your past head teacher Mrs Cooper would be lost if this ground is built on.

I am writing to strongly oppose the building of a nursery at Wardie primary school. I have three children aged 5,3 and 8 months, with the older one attending Wardie primary school. I understand the need for a nursery at a primary school and the benefits it can bring, however, I strongly believe the economic and social costs of building a nursery severely outweigh the benefits for the following reasons: 1. The building of a nursery is very short sighted. If you build a nursery then this will attract even more families to the area, thus putting further pressure on the primary school and depleting and depriving the other schools in the area...... are you just then going to keep building on all the green space at the school. The more you build the more people will come the further pressure is put on the school.

2. The surrounding area is already struggling to cope with the number of pupils entering and exiting the school. The nursery is just going to bring further congestion and pose further dangers to the pupils. I'm not sure if you have even done a school run to Wardie but it is like the m25 with kids scooting, cycling, walking, being forced to walk on the road to get past other pedestrians. Introducing a nursery and further children is highly irresponsible.

3. As a mother of three living in the area I have never had a problem trying to get my child into a local nursery.....so why waste money building another one I really don't understand the need. Why not focus your efforts on wrap around school care which is severely limited. There is nursery right on the school door step which always has places for children, all nurseries have waiting lists on paper but you can always get your child in as people's circumstances frequently change.....why not work with Wardie nursery to establish a school nursery there to save building another one.

4. Green space is extremely valuable in a city, especially for children to play and the environment. Don't over crowd the area with concrete and additional children. My house overlooks the playing fields and it is lovely to see the children running around getting exercise. Once it's gone it isn't coming back.

Who is driving the need for a nursery, someone sitting behind a desk looking a numbers on a bit of paper rather than lifting their head up and realising there really isn't a need to build one.

Consultation proposal by The City of Edinburgh Council

Report by Education Scotland, addressing educational aspects of the proposal for the establishment of a nursery class at Wardie Primary School

Context

Upon receipt of this report, the Act requires the council to consider it and then prepare its final consultation report.

The council’s final consultation report should include a copy of this report and must contain an explanation of how it has reviewed the initial proposal, including a summary of points raised during the consultation and the council’s response to them. The council has to publish its final consultation report three weeks before it takes its final decision.

1. Introduction

1.1 The City of Edinburgh Council proposes to establish a nursery class at Wardie Primary School, through the addition of a new nursery building.

1.2 The report from Education Scotland is required under the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. It has been prepared by HM Inspectors 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 27 January 2014 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;

 visits to the site of Wardie Primary School and the existing Wardie Nursery, including discussion with relevant consultees.

1.4 HM Inspectors considered:

 the likely effects of the proposal for children and young people of Wardie Primary School, any other users 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.

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 The capital funding required to deliver the new nursery was approved by The City of Edinburgh Council on 2 May 2013. The consultation process formally began on 16 December 2013 and ended on 12 February 2014, with the outcome of the consultation scheduled to be reported to full council on 1 May 2014.

2.3 The City of Edinburgh Council received 44 written responses to the consultation. Of these, only one of the responses supported the proposal in its entirety. Although the capital investment by the council in expanding nursery provision was recognised as a positive step, within the other written responses several concerns were consistently highlighted.

2.4 Many respondents were not confident that the forecast demand figures provided by the council as part of the consultation proposal were accurate, or supported by robust research. Those who also attended the public consultation meeting were dissatisfied with the responses from council officers when challenged on the accuracy of the figures they were using.

2.5 Almost all respondents highlighted the loss of green space for Wardie Primary School pupils and the negative impact that might have on their potential to further benefit from outdoor activity. Many commented that the proposal was yet another ‘ad hoc’ addition to the Wardie Primary School estate, similar to expansions in the recent past. Respondents suggested that a more strategic approach by The City of Edinburgh Council for the further development of the Wardie Primary School estate is required.

2.6 A significant number of respondents highlighted concern around the safety of an already busy drop-off period for the existing primary pupils, with the addition of nursery children potentially using an already busy pupil entrance. This risk would be exacerbated by the inadequate parking for cars on the main road to the primary school.

2.7 Whilst council officers suggested that other options for the location of the new nursery provision had been considered, these have not been shared with stakeholders.

2.8 The existing Wardie Nursery, is a registered charity, run as a voluntary organisation by a management committee, and is a partner provider with The City of Edinburgh Council. Wardie Nursery has concerns about their continued viability if the new nursery is established just 150 metres away from them. They currently have spaces available in their nursery and have concerns about how robust the increased demand figures forecast by the council are.

3. Educational aspects of the proposal

3.1 Based on the demand data provided by the council, this increase in provision through a new nursery will provide educational benefits to the area. The proposed nursery class within Wardie Primary School will increase the capacity across the city by providing 40 full-time places, or 80 part-time places. The nursery will be provided in a new building, which will be purpose-built and will link to the primary school via a corridor.

3.2 Whilst the council say in their proposal document that there are no proposals to reduce other pre-school provision locally, there can be no guarantees for the partner providers locally. To date, partner providers have not been fully involved in the considerations around the benefits or otherwise of the proposal. Stakeholders more generally are not sufficiently confident in the council projections.

3.3 The nursery building will provide an exciting learning environment, a separate room for meetings, parent groups and other activities, as well as a separate outdoor learning and play area.

3.4 The new building will cause the primary school to lose some of the existing playing fields. However, children are only allowed on these playing fields in the summer weather, when it is dry. Regardless of the nursery development, the headteacher and staff of Wardie Primary School recognise that better use needs to be made of this green space. The reduction in space still leaves considerable potential.

3.5 The staff of Wardie Primary School are very supportive of this development. They recognise the potential benefits to transition for children from nursery to primary this would bring. There will also be more potential for joint working across nursery and primary classes. Staff also regard the development of a nursery class as a good professional development opportunity for them.

3.6 During the consultation, issues were raised about the increased traffic congestion and concerns for children’s safety with the increase in numbers of children at peak times. The headteacher and staff of Wardie Primary School are confident that these concerns can be managed to minimise concerns and the risks to children. For example, consideration could be given to staggering the start times for some children.

3.7 Representatives of the Wardie Primary School Pupil Council who spoke to HMI during the consultation process, had been informed of the development of the nursery class and the new building relatively recently. They had recent discussions with the headteacher about the implications. Children were enthusiastic about the addition of a nursery to their school and were keen to explore the potential to work closely with nursery children as buddies and on joint projects. They recognised that some of the green space around their school would be lost, but did not regard that as a major problem. The use of the current space is significantly limited by the weather.

4. Summary

 The council has outlined relevant educational benefits of its proposal.  In progressing this proposal further, the council needs to clarify the uncertainty around their projections of increased demand for nursery places in the Wardie area.  The council needs to involve more fully stakeholders in the further development of the proposal, particularly the parents of Wardie Primary School pupils who are concerned about the loss of green space.  The headteacher, staff, parents and council need to work together to ensure best use is made of the remaining green space for all children.  The management committee of the existing Wardie Nursery need to be included in further discussions as the proposals progress to ensure that the perception that this is currently a threat to their provision is managed, and potential opportunities for greater partnership working are fully explored.  Concerns around congestion and children’s safety caused by increased traffic need to be managed carefully by the council and other agencies to ensure that the safety of children is paramount. This will include further consideration of staggered start times.

HM Inspectors Education Scotland February 2014

Wardie School Pupil Questionnaire Proposed nursery places in your school

Focus group on 12th Feb 2014 with 12 pupils ranging from P1-P7

For : 5 / 12 Against : 7/12 Not sure: 1/12

For

• You would get to know pupils aged 3-12 years • Because my parents can drop my sister off as well

Against

• Make too much noise for other children • Because there might not be enough space • Because it might make other nursery teachers redundant • There is a nursery right beside the school • Takes up a lot of our play ground • I think it would use up a lot of space

Do you think a nursery would make a big difference to your school?

• It will make a difference as we will be able to see more children • Because it is busier and bigger x2 • Because there would be more children • The school will be busier and noisier but we will get to go to the nursery to help the children • It will make a bad difference. It will make Wardie busy and loud • Mornings will become busier and more crowded • The children in the nursery won’t do any work • There will be more people and it will be noisier and we will have less field to play in • It will take up all of the field and playground

Any questions or other comments?

• It would be good but for the older children it takes away a lot of the playground but the nursery children would get used to the school environment. • Will we be able to see the kids lots? • I would like a nursery • Make more friends • Nurseries are great fun. There are more toys than schools. You get to have play time all day. I would like a nursery. • I hope the children are kind, play more, make no noise when people are working

• We could visit them and help out with their work and they could visit us and they could make lots of friends • I think we have enough buildings in the school and it would limit space in the playground so I don’t want the nursery. I don’t think we would be allowed in the forbidden forest because of the nursery • I don’t think its a good idea. It would ruin lots of the space and all of the P4-7s would be sad. The most popular forest would be out of access and the P4-7s would be devastated • Will all the children still be allowed in the forest? I think overall the P4-7s aren’t keen on the idea because it takes away a lot of the field. P1-3s would enjoy it more because they can make friends and play with the nursery children. • I would not like a nursery • Where will Wardie Football club train? • How big will it be? • Why our school? • When will it be built?

The City of Edinburgh Council

10am, Thursday, 1 May 2014 Outcome of the Consultation Process for the Proposal to Establish a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools

Item number Report number Wards: Ward 3 Drumbrae/Gyle

Executive summary The purpose of this report is to advise on the outcome of the statutory consultation exercise undertaken in respect of the proposal to establish a nursery class at Fox Covert (Non Denominational) and Fox Covert RC (Roman Catholic) Primary Schools. For the purpose of this report both schools are referred to as ‘Fox Covert Primary Schools’. The report responds to the main issues raised during the consultation and provides recommendations on how to proceed. Higher numbers of births across the city are generating greater demand for early years services. There is particular pressure for provision of extra nursery places on the west side of the city where local authority and partner provider nurseries are full. HM inspectors found that the Council has set out its case clearly for the need for a new nursery in the west area of the city. It has outlined the benefits of establishing a new nursery with high-quality facilities and the possibility of an improved service by extending the accommodation to children aged 0-3 and their families. The Council is confident issues identified through the consultation have either already been addressed or there are plans are in place to do so. After taking account of the representations made and the issues arising, the Director of Children and Families considers that the case has been made for a new nursery class to be established.

Coalition pledges P4, P5 Council outcomes CO1, CO2 Single Outcome SO3 Agreement

Page 1

Report

Outcome of the Consultation Process for the Proposal to Establish a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools

Recommendations 1.1 Council is asked to approve that a new 40/40 nursery class is established at Fox Covert Primary Schools with provision also being made for 0-3’s rooms. Background 2.1 The City of Edinburgh Council Early Years Strategy that was launched in January 2010 sets out a vision and long term commitment to improve the life chances for children, supporting the coalition commitment to ensure every child has the best start in life. 2.2 One of the aims of the strategy is to develop integrated, flexible services to provide effective early learning and childcare for all children and families. To enable the delivery of this aim the Council stated ambition is to ensure that each neighbourhood, community or cluster has access to integrated flexible early years services. 2.3 The proposals in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill set out a requirement to expand free nursery provision from 475 hours to 600 hours a year in August 2014 for all three and four year olds and for two year olds who are, or have been at any time since turning two, looked after or subject to a kinship care order this will add to pressure on the provision of nursery places in the city. Recent requirements from the Scottish Government indicate that the Council will be required to provide 600 hours of early learning and childcare for 15% of two year olds from August 2014 increasing to 27% of two year olds from August 2015. 2.4 Higher numbers of births across the city are generating greater demand for early years services. There is particular pressure for provision of extra nursery places

Page 2

on the west side of the city where local authority and partner provider nurseries are full. 2.5 In light of the above, careful consideration was given to the establishment of a new 40/40 nursery class and 0-3’s rooms at Fox Covert Primary Schools. Main report

Statutory Consultation Exercise 3.1 On 10 December 2013 the Education, Children and Families Committee approved that a statutory consultation should be carried out regarding the establishment of a new nursery class at Fox Covert Primary Schools. The statutory consultation period ran from Monday 16 December 2013 to 12 February 2014. The rationale for the proposal is set out in the full consultation report which is included at Appendix 1. 3.2 A public meeting was held on the 30 January 2014 which was attended by approximately 50 members of the public. The meeting was independently chaired. A record of the meeting is included in Appendix 2. 3.3 Representations were also invited by letter and by e-mail. A total of 42 written representations were received. A summary of all submissions is included at Appendix 3. Copies of the full submissions will be available in the Elected Members lounge for reference. 3.4 A consultation exercise was undertaken with a group of 16 P1-P7 children from both schools the details of which are provided later in this report. 3.5 During the week commencing 24 February 2014 Education Scotland carried out visits to Fox Covert Primary School, Fox Covert RC Primary School and Fox Covert Nursery (Partner Provider) in preparation of their report on the educational aspects of the proposal. 3.6 Responses to issues raised during the consultation process, together with the Council’s response to Education Scotland’s report on the educational aspects of the proposals, are considered in the ‘Key Themes and Issues and Council Responses’ section of this report. Education Scotland 3.7 The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 (‘The Act’) requires that the authority refer the proposals to Education Scotland so that they may prepare a report on the educational aspects. In producing their report which is included at Appendix 4 Education Scotland considered the proposals of the authority as set out in the consultation document and verbal and written responses received during the consultation period. 3.8 In their summary, HM Inspectors state: • The Council has set out its case clearly for the need for a new nursery in the west area of the city. It has outlined the benefits of a new-build with high-

Page 3

quality facilities and the possibility of an improved service by extending accommodation to children aged 0-3 years and their families. The new nursery should provide a service for children from across the city. • The Council has outlined benefits of the nursery being situated on the site of the existing primary schools. This includes shared headship to help ensure efficient use of finances and the opportunity for enhanced curriculum development across the early level of Curriculum for Excellence. There is significant opposition from parents to the nursery being built on the Fox Covert site and they remain to be convinced or understand why the Council believes this to be the most suitable location for the new-build. The Council needs to make clear its reasons for choosing this as the preferred site and ease concerns. It should share with parents how it is going to address future increased demand for primary provision as the rolls for Fox Covert primary schools continue to increase. • The Council will only realise its aim of providing 40 full-time or 80 part-time additional nursery places as a result of this proposal should the existing Fox Covert Nursery partnership establishment continue to operate. The management committee of the existing nursery need to be included in further discussions as the proposals progress to ensure that the perception that this is currently a threat to their provision is managed, and potential opportunities for greater partnership working are fully explored. • The Council needs to explain clearly how it is going to fully consider and manage significant health and safety implications from an increased volume of traffic in an already heavily congested residential area. 3.9 The Act requires that the Council’s consultation report include ‘a statement of the authority’s response to Education Scotland’s report’. 3.10 The various issues, and the Council’s response to them, are set out below in the order in which they appear in the Education Scotland report with references being quoted from that report. The Council is confident that the issues identified have either already been addressed or that all required arrangements and plans are in place to ensure that any actions which are necessary to mitigate these issues will be taken timeously. As a consequence, the Council remains confident that the educational benefits identified in the proposal will be fully realised.

Key Themes and Issues and Council Responses 3.11 A number of the issues that were highlighted in the Education Scotland report were also raised in the written responses and in the public meeting. This section draws out the main themes and issues together with the Council’s response.

Page 4

Quotes have been included to illustrate the main themes raised in responses and are included as consultation comments.

3.12 Theme: Future expansion of primary school with rising rolls and lack of capacity

Issue raised by Paragraph 2.3: Although parents acknowledged that there is a Education Scotland need to provide additional nursery places in the west of the city and welcome the Council’s attempts to address this, they are opposed to the proposal of building the nursery on the Fox Covert site. They feel the Council has not taken into account the need to also provide additional capacity for the primary schools in the future.

Consultation Respondents were concerned about the rising school rolls and Comments the lack of space in the current Fox Covert Primary Schools. They felt the Council had not fully considered the impact that this will have on the future plans to extend the school. They also felt that having the nursery on this site would mean that there would be more demand placed on both schools. Particular points made were: • Growing school rolls are evident so have all considerations, both current and future been taken into account at this stage. • The nursery building could impact on the space available for any school expansion.

Page 5

Council response Rolls are projected to rise to a peak of nearly 31,000 pupils by 2019 which is an increase of approximately 15% on the position at the start of the 2013/14 school year. However, there is a wide variation between individual school catchment areas which will bring different pressures across the primary school estate. To help predict how rising rolls might affect each primary school catchment area, projections are undertaken each year to identify schools which may come under pressure in future as there could be insufficient accommodation to meet catchment demand. The most recent forecast identified the schools which have been identified as potentially facing accommodation pressures in August 2015 and beyond, together with the range of potential solutions which have been identified for each school to address this pressure. Whilst Fox Covert Primary School was identified as requiring an additional classroom for August 2014 to meet expected catchment demand which will be created by adapting the existing school building, neither of the primary schools have been identified as potentially facing accommodation pressures in August 2015. There may be the requirement for further solutions to be developed at either school in future years – August 2016 and beyond – and this has been identified as being a possibility at Fox Covert Primary School in August 2016. This will be assessed again later this year when the forecast is updated. If such a requirement was forthcoming all possible solutions to address any potential accommodation pressure including new build, adaptation of the existing buildings and catchment review would be explored in consultation with the school.

3.13 Theme: Site Feasibility study on proposed site positions

Issue raised by Paragraph 2.3: Parents felt that alternative sites should have Education Scotland been considered more fully and that additional potentially appropriate sites were not considered at all.

Consultation Respondents questioned the viability of the feasibility study Comments undertaken to recommend the proposed site (within the school grounds) for the new nursery. Suggestions of alternative sites were given. Particular points made were: • Your feasibility report is not thorough enough.

Page 6

• Why have you not consider other options to build the nursery such as Clermiston Park (opposite the Drumbrae library hub), large green park area alongside Glasgow Road (Gyle Public Park) or empty unused space at the corner of Drumbrae Avenue and Clermiston Road. • There is a nursery on site and the new nursery will take from all three catchment schools, so why does it have to be on the Fox Covert site.

Council response The purpose of the Site Option Appraisal (feasibility study) was only to consider options for the location of a new nursery within the school grounds.

A number of site options were considered and issues assessed included planning restrictions, the capability of the site to accommodate the proposed nursery layout, the operational and management implications for each location and the ability to deliver best practice in relation to the Curriculum for Excellence. Based on this assessment the preferred location was Fox Covert school campus. Further information is included in the Site Option Appraisal, Appendix 5. In light of the additional costs which would be associated with acquiring a privately owned site, the only options that would make the provision of a new nursery viable, given the limited funding available, were Council owned sites.

The Fox Covert site was identified as a result of the option appraisal referred to in the previous paragraph, which also looked at the other two school sites, East Craigs and Clermiston.

3.14 Theme: Traffic and safety issues around the school

Issue raised by Paragraphs 2.4 & 2.9: Parents and some children felt Education Scotland concerned about the increased traffic congestion around the main entrance of the schools, both at the start and end of the day. They believe there are significant health and safety issues associated with the number of additional vehicles that would be in the school area if the proposal goes ahead.

Consultation Respondents were concerned about the increased volume of Comments traffic the new nursery could potentially create around the school and the safety of the children. Particular points made

Page 7

were: • Parking is already an issue at the school so adding a nursery will increase the volume of traffic. • Local residents have concerns about the traffic management in the area of Fox Covert and the Council should be aware of their views. How will this be put forward? • Any proposed build must prioritise the safety of those using the school and its neighbours at any time of the day.

Council response The purpose of the statutory consultation process is to establish if a new nursery class should be established at Fox Covert Primary Schools. If approved, the actual detailed design process for a new nursery would be progressed during which any potential issues relating to traffic and road safety would be fully considered and any mitigating actions necessary identified. Once completed, the detailed designs for any new nursery would then be subject to the usual planning process during which local residents would have the opportunity to comment on the final proposals. The nursery opening time will not be exactly the same as the primary school and this will allow opportunities for a staggered start. The school travel plan for both schools encourages pupils to walk, cycle or scoot more to and from school therefore encouraging less use of cars around the school.

3.15 Theme: Impact on the Partner Provider Nursery

Issue raised by Paragraphs 2.6, 2.11, 3.9: Concerns expressed by parents and Education Scotland the partnership nursery regarding the viability of the nursery to stay open should the proposed build go ahead. The Council should work closely in partnership with the existing Fox Covert Nursery to support it in maintaining its roll.

Consultation Respondents were concerned about the viability of the current Comments partnership nursery (Fox Covert Nursery) should a Council nursery be built in the same location in the grounds of Fox Covert schools. There was also comment made to encourage more joint partnership working with the current nursery in developing services for the future. Particular points made were: • We are concerned if you build another pre-school nursery

Page 8

on the same site, most parents would naturally choose the council run pre-school, which would be detrimental to the partner provider if it doesn’t attract enough children it would close, which is detrimental to your primary aim of increasing pre-school provision in the area. • If the partner provider does not get enough children it will close. • Why can’t the Council work with the current nursery to expand the nursery provision.

Council response Recent updated figures recorded in March 2014 indicate that the number of children who are not able to access their nursery entitlement across this area of the city is now 112. This does not include the children on the waiting list of the current Fox Covert partner provider. The Council has no influence over what nursery parents may choose for their child at the time of application and therefore parents may choose to keep their child at the current Fox Covert Nursery. With this in mind the Council considers that there will be a need for both services to deliver the required statutory nursery provision. The Council is committed to the ongoing support and development of the current Fox Covert Nursery and will continue to work with them to provide a more flexible, integrated and effective learning and childcare service for the children and families across this area of the city.

Issue raised by Paragraph 3.10: There is the possibility of the community Education Scotland becoming confused over two nurseries on the same site. The Council should for example, give careful consideration to the name of the new establishment.

Consultation None Comments

Council response The Council will give due consideration to the name of the new nursery should the proposal go ahead and will make sure it does not have the same name as the current Fox Covert Nursery. There will be consultation with the school communities regarding the name of the new nursery.

Page 9

3.16 Theme: The loss of green space and the perceived impact on childrens’ opportunities for physical activities

Issue raised by Paragraphs 2.7, 2.9, 3.2, 3.6: Education Scotland have Education Scotland commented that outdoor learning is a key feature of learning for children in the nursery, including access to natural resources. They have also commented even with some reduction in the outdoor space available for use by children should the proposal go ahead, there would still be ample outdoor space within both schools. However parents and children were concerned about the loss of outdoor space and use of the football pitches.

Consultation Respondents felt that there would be an impact on the children Comments if they lost some of the outdoor playing space. Particular points made were as follows: • The government have produced numerous papers on physical activity yet we are reducing the size of the playing field. • Can we replace the grass playing field with synthetic turf pitches so that they can be used better? • The school is trying to promote outdoor learning so why take away the space • Fox Covert playing field has been designated as open space in the Edinburgh City Local Plan and therefore another location should be found.

Council response The Council is committed to the promotion of physical activities in all schools and this would continue to be the case in both Fox Covert Primary Schools. Both head teachers have commented that the school does have significant outdoor space which they are keen to develop in the future and feel there would be an opportunity here to create a much better outdoor learning environment than the schools currently have. The Senior Play Co-ordinator will provide support to parent councils to access available grants for outdoor learning and improving playgrounds. At the moment there are two football pitches on the land of the proposed nursery site. The Council plans to rearrange the pitches so that there will be no net loss of the use of the football pitches at the school. The cost to the Council of providing

Page 10

synthetic turf pitches would be very significant and therefore could not be considered. Whilst is it acknowledged that the proposal would result in some loss of external space at the schools, the area of external space is generous in comparison to other parts of the city. The joint campus at Fox Covert is on a site of approximately two hectares (this includes playing fields). A desktop study suggests that the areas designated as playground or outdoor activity space for primary pupils (excluding playing fields, parking, private nursery, play area, etc.) totals approximately 5,500m². Taking account of the rolls at both primary schools at the time of the September 2013 census, the available play area is approximately 14.3m² per pupil. By way of comparison, Flora Stevenson Primary School is on a site of approximately 0.8 hectares and has an estimated equivalent space of 6.3m² per pupil with no playing field space.

3.17 Other themes and issues raised through the consultation Additional points were recurrent in the public meeting, the consultation undertaken with pupils and in the responses received in the consultation period but were not mentioned by Education Scotland in their report. This section draws out the main themes and issues together with the Council’s response.

Issue raised Local residents were not informed about the Council meeting

Council response The purpose of the statutory consultation process is to establish if a new nursery class should be established at Fox Covert Primary Schools and local residents are not designated consultees within this process. If approved, the actual detailed design process for a new nursery would be progressed and, once completed, the detailed designs for any new nursery would then be subject to the usual planning process during which local residents would have the opportunity to comment on the final proposals.

Issue raised The Council did not consult with Fox Covert Nursery (partner provider)

Council response A Council officer did meet with the parents committee of Fox Covert Nursery to update them on the proposals prior to the consultation period and throughout. A meeting was also held with all the parents of the nursery prior to the consultation

Page 11

period to update them on proposals for the new nursery and the consultation process. There has also been a commitment given at all stages of this process to date, that the Council would seek to develop opportunities to work in partnership with the nursery in order to develop services that would ensure joint working across both nursery provisions.

Issue raised General lack of communication in relation to the proposals

Council response The Council was required to carry out a formal statutory consultation regarding the proposed opening of an education service under the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. In relation to the proposal to establish a nursery class at Fox Covert Primary Schools, this formal consultation process took place between 16 December 2013 and 12 February 2014. In addition to the formal consultation above, Council officers also met with the parent councils of both primary schools and Fox Covert nursery to update them on the proposals. In addition both schools published information in their school news letters prior to the formal consultation report being issued.

Consultation with Children

3.18 The Early Years Quality Improvement Officer undertook a consultation exercise with a group of 16 P1-P7 children from both schools. The meeting lasted just under an hour. A simple questionnaire was used to facilitate discussion and to provide an opportunity for them to record their views. All children had an opportunity to engage in the discussion and complete a written questionnaire. 3.19 A full copy of all the responses is included at Appendix 6. The outcomes from the process can be summarised as follows: • All children, except one, knew of the proposal to build a new nursery within the school grounds. Children had learned about it through teachers, parents and friends. • All the children had attended nursery themselves and had enjoyed the experience, in particular outdoor play. • Almost all of the children thought building a new nursery was a good idea, however, they also voiced some concerns. These include: • The school becoming too crowded, • Loss of some of the playing field

Page 12

• Concern for the increased traffic • On a positive note, children thought it a good idea because lots of children need a nursery place, and it would be nice for the school to have its own nursery, and ‘’parents could stay in one place’’. • Many of the children could see both the positives and the negatives in terms of this proposal. Conclusions The following conclusions have been drawn: 3.20 The City of Edinburgh Council is committed to giving children the best start in life through the development of integrated, flexible services that provide effective learning and childcare for children and families across Edinburgh. The new nursery proposed at Fox Covert will be able to deliver services which support this vision and the Council’s long term commitment to improve the outcomes for all children at the earliest stage. 3.21 There will be increased local nursery places for three and four year olds in an area of the city where the demand for places is currently high. This will include the requirement for all councils to provide additional nursery provision from 475 hours to 600 hours set out in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill 2014. 3.22 There will be increased opportunities for improved learning experiences for children in line with Curriculum for Excellence across the early level. 3.23 There will be increased opportunities to deliver support to children 0-3 years and their families across this area of the city. This will include the requirement for the Council to provide 600 hours of early learning and childcare for 15% of two year olds from August 2014 increasing to 27% in August 2015. 3.24 There will also be the opportunity to consider the option of extended childcare for the children accessing the nursery depending on demand. This would support the Council commitment to consider affordable childcare opportunities within the city. 3.25 One of the Head Teachers will manage the new nursery which will help deliver best value and make efficient use of existing staff resources. 3.26 The Council is committed to support and work with the current Fox Covert nursery (partner provider) in order to provide a flexible, integrated and effective learning and childcare service for the children and families across this area of the city. Measures of success 4.1 The success of the establishment of a nursery class at Fox Covert Primary School will be measured by:

Page 13

• more nursery places to meet the increased demand for provision across the City of Edinburgh Council area; • more availability of free nursery provision from 475 hours to 600 hours a year in August 2014 for all three and four year olds set out in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill; • more capacity to deliver future requirements to provide 600 hours of early learning and childcare for two year olds; • additional capacity for parents in an area where Council nursery provision is currently limited but where demand is high; and • increased opportunities for improved learning experiences for children in line with Curriculum for Excellence across the early level. Financial impact 5.1 The capital funding of an estimated £1,074,000 required to deliver a new nursery was approved by the Education, Children and Families Committee on 10 December 2014. 5.2 The staffing cost of the new nursery class will be funded from the additional allocation to the general revenue budget from the Scottish government for the implementation of the increased entitlement of early learning and childcare. Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact 6.1 If the proposal is not approved the Council may not be able to fulfil the requirements to provide early learning and childcare for children across the city. Equalities impact 7.1 There are no negative equality or human rights impacts arising from this report. The provision of additional resources within Fox Covert Primary Schools will create additional accommodation to meet demand and improve access to nursery provision for children and their parents in this area of the city. Sustainability impact 8.1 There are no impacts on carbon, adaptation to climate change or sustainable development arising directly from this report. Whilst the proposal would see the addition of a new nursery building, the purpose is to create additional accommodation to meet demand. The new building would be designed to minimise the impact on carbon emissions and energy consumption. Consultation and engagement 9.1 The purpose of this report is to advise on the outcome of the statutory consultation process which undertaken between 16 December 2013 and 12

Page 14

February 2014 relating to the proposal to establish a nursery class at Fox Covert Primary Schools. 9.2 Due to a typographical error, in point 8.10 of the original consultation report the date by when responses should be submitted was incorrectly shown as being by Wednesday, 12 March 2014 when it should have been Wednesday, 12 February 2014. This error was highlighted by a member of the public in relation to the length of the consultation period suggested in the Fox Covert consultation report. 9.3 The consultation period ran between Monday, 16 December 2013 and Wednesday, 12 February 2014. The eight week period is in line with requirements of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. The correction of the paragraph within the paper was made under the provision outlined in subsection 5 of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. 9.4 Following the discovery of this error all consultees were contacted to inform them that there had been an error in paragraph 8.10 and that the error would be reported in the Consultation Outcome Report. 9.5 The Council is further required to advertise and publish this report three weeks before its consideration on 1 May 2014 to allow those who made a response an opportunity to consider the report and its conclusions and to give them time, if they so wish, to express their views. 9.6 This report, setting out the outcome to the consultation, will be published on the Council website and copies will be made available at the reception in Waverley Court and at both Primary Schools and Fox Covert Nursery (partner provider). Background reading / external references Background information is available from: • Early Years Framework, Scottish Government and CoSLA, December 2008 www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/01/13095148/0 • Early Year Strategy, Edinburgh Council 2010 https://orb.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/200305/early_years_and_childcare • Children and Young Peoples (Scotland) Bill 2014 Children and Young People’s Bill (Scotland) 2014

• Supporting Parents and Carers in Edinburgh https://orb.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/200324/childcare/1634/supporting_parents_an d_carers_in_edinburgh

Gillian Tee Director of Children and Families

Page 15

Contact: Anne Kiely, Manager Early Years and Childcare Services E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 3686

Links

Coalition pledges P4, P5 Council outcomes CO1, CO2 Single Outcome SO3 Agreement Appendices 1 Proposal Paper 2 Record of Public Meeting 3 Written Consultation Responses 4 Report from Education Scotland 5 Site Option Appraisal 6 Children’s Responses

Page 16

Education, Children and Families Committee

10am, Tuesday, 10th December 2013

Consultation on Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools

Item number Report number Wards Ward 3. Drumbrae/Gyle

Links

Coalition pledges P4, P5 Council outcomes CO1, CO2 Single Outcome Agreement SO3

Gillian Tee Director of Children and Families

Contact: Anne Kiely Manager Early Years and Childcare Services E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 3686

Executive summary

Summary The purpose of this report is to seek authority from Committee to consult on a proposal to establish a nursery class in the grounds of Fox Covert ND (Non Denominational) and Fox Covert RC (Roman Catholic) Primary Schools. For the purpose of this report both schools are referred to as ‘Fox Covert Primary Schools’. The report explains the rationale for, and the implications arising from, the proposal and sets out the consultation process and the means and timescales for making representations. Recommendations It is recommended that the Education, Children and Families Committee: 1. Approves that statutory consultation is carried out on the proposed establishment of a new nursery class at Fox Covert Primary Schools based on the rationale set out in this report; 2. Approves that the statutory consultation process should commence start on 16 December 2013; 3. Approves the revised cost of delivering the new nursery of £1,074,000 and the associated sources of funding set out in this report; and 4. Notes that the outcome of the consultation will be reported to full Council on 1 May 2014. Measures of success The establishment of a new nursery class at Fox Covert Primary Schools will result in: • more nursery places to meet the increased demand for provision across the City of Edinburgh Council area; • more availability of free nursery provision from 475 hours to 600 hours a year in August 2014 for all three and four-year-olds set out in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill; • additional choice for parents in an area where council nursery provision is currently limited but where demand is high; and increased opportunities for improved learning experiences for children in line with Curriculum for Excellence across the early level. Financial impact

The capital funding of an estimated £774,000 required to deliver a new nursery was approved by the Education, Children and Families Committee on 21 May 2013. This was based on the delivery of a 40/40 nursery however, in the intervening period, the necessity to expand the proposed building to accommodate additional accommodation for two to three year olds’ was identified. The cost of providing this additional accommodation is estimated at £300,000 resulting in a revised estimated total cost of

Education, Children and Families Committee – 10 December 2013 Page 2 of 7 £1,074,000. The proposed sources of funding for the revised cost are detailed in the main report.

The staffing cost of the new nursery class will be funded from the additional allocation to the General Revenue budget from the Scottish Government for the implementation of the increased entitlement of early learning and childcare.

Equalities impact There are no negative equality or human rights impacts arising from this report. The location of additional resources within Fox Covert Primary Schools will provide additional choice and improved access to nursery provision for children and their parents. Sustainability impact

There are no impacts on carbon, adaptation to climate change or sustainable development arising directly from this report. Whilst the proposal would see the addition of a new nursery building, the purpose is to create additional accommodation to meet demand. The new building would be designed to minimise the impact on carbon emissions and energy consumption. Consultation and engagement The Council is required to carry out formal statutory consultation regarding the proposed opening of an education service under the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. A detailed Consultation Paper has been prepared which is attached at Appendix 1. Background reading / external references Edinburgh’s Early Years Strategy and Action Plan Early Years Strategy Progress Report – 21 May 2013

Education, Children and Families Committee – 10 December 2013 Page 3 of 7

Report

Consultation on Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools

1. Background 1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek authority from Committee to consult proposal to establish a nursery class at Fox Covert Primary Schools. The report explains the rationale for, and the implications arising from, the proposal and sets out the consultation process and the means and timescales for making representations. The proposed detailed Consultation Paper is included at Appendix 1. 1.2 The proposals in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill set out a requirement to expand free nursery provision from 475 hours to 600 hours a year in August 2014 for all three and four year olds and for two year olds who are, or have been at any time since turning two, looked after or subject to a kinship care order. This is likely to increase the demand for the provision of nursery places in the city. 1.3 The City of Edinburgh Council Early Years Strategy that was launched in January 2010 sets out a vision and long term commitment to improve the life chances for children, supporting the coalition agreement to ensure every child has the best start in life. 1.4 Under the term of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, the Council is required to consult on proposals for the establishment of a new stage of education in a school such as a nursery class. 2. Main report 2.1. The Consultation Paper in Appendix 1 details the number of places that are currently available in the area and the number of places that are required. Demographic Trends 2.2 The proposed new nursery would help address an increase demand in nursery provision in the City of Edinburgh Council area where births have averaged over 5,500 per annum in the five years from 2008 - 2012. In the five years prior to this, the average was approximately 4,700. This means a predicted rise in the number of children from 2013/14 onwards. Figure 1 shows the existing and predicted number of three and four year olds from 9,400 in 2009/10 to 11,000 from 2013/14 onwards (a 17% increase).

Education, Children and Families Committee – 10 December 2013 Page 4 of 7 Figure 1 – Number of three and four year olds in the city

2.3 This increase is stretching capacity across the city and extra provision is needed to cater for demand. Wherever possible, the number of local authority nursery places has been increased to meet this demand. However, there are restrictions in the capacity of some nursery buildings, limiting the option of increasing nursery places. Overall, the number of places has increased by approximately 10% over 2012/13. 2.4 One of the aims of the strategy is to develop integrated, flexible services to provide effective learning and childcare for all children and families. To help deliver this aim the Council’s stated ambition is to ensure that each neighbourhood, community or cluster has access to integrated, flexible early years services. Fox Covert/Clermiston/East Craigs Area 2.5 In order to realise this vision, resources have been re-aligned and includes the proposal to provide a new nursery in this area where the demand for additional provision is particularly high. The proposed nursery will provide improved access to early years provision for parents and the children living across this area of the city. 2.6 There are three schools with nursery class provision within a mile radius of Fox Covert Primary schools. Clermiston, East Craigs and Corstorphine primary schools have a combined capacity for 130 morning and 130 afternoon nursery placements but demand for places is high and all are full to capacity with waiting lists. 2.7 Two other primary schools further to the south at Gylemuir and Carrick Knowe also offer a total capacity of 120 morning and 120 afternoon nursery placements but again demand is high and they are operating at full capacity. 2.8 The nearest partner provider nursery is Fox Covert Nursery, which is located within the grounds of Fox Covert schools. The nursery is a registered charity and is run by a management committee. It caters for pre-school children aged

Education, Children and Families Committee – 10 December 2013 Page 5 of 7 three to five years and is registered for 60 children (30morning and 30 afternoon). The nursery is currently full and will continue to operate and provide families in the area with a choice of services. Financial Considerations 2.9 The capital funding of an estimated £774,000 required to deliver a new nursery was approved by the Education, Children and Families Committee on 21 May 2013. This was based on the delivery of a 40/40 nursery however, in the intervening period, the necessity to expand the proposed building to accommodate additional accommodation for 0-3 year olds’ and their families was identified. The cost of providing this additional accommodation is estimated at £300,000 (based on applying an assumed all-in rate of £3,000/m2 to the additional internal space requirement of 100m2) 2.10 An analysis of the proposed sources of funding for the revised total cost of £1,074,000 is shown below, together with a comparison with the original proposal as reported to Committee on 21 May 2013.

Original Revised £ £

Early Years Contingency Funding in existing approved Capital Investment Programme (this 243,000 450,000 represents the level of ring-fenced receipts which have been received but not yet utilised) Early Years Change Fund 200,000 200,000

Capital receipts generated from the closure of nursery schools which were ring-fenced for 331,000 424,000 reinvestment in the early years estate

Total cost £774,000 £1,074,000

2.11 The staffing cost of the new nursery class will be funded from the additional allocation to the General Revenue budget from the Scottish Government for the implementation of the increased entitlement of early learning and childcare. Consultation Process 2.12 The legislation requires a minimum six week term-time consultation period during which representations on the proposal can be made. It is proposed that the consultation period will take place over a period of eight weeks from Monday, 16 December 2013 to Wednesday, 12 February 2014 and the paper will be made available electronically and in paper format. 2.13 The consultation process is set out in detail in Section 8 of the detailed Consultation Paper included at Appendix 1.

Education, Children and Families Committee – 10 December 2013 Page 6 of 7

3. Recommendations

It is recommended that the Education, Children and Families Committee: 3.1 Approves that statutory consultation is carried out on the proposed establishment of a new nursery class at Fox Covert Primary Schools based on the rationale set out in this report; 3.2 Approves that the statutory consultation process should commence start on 16 December 2013; 3.3 Approves the revised cost of delivering the new nursery of £1,074,000 and the associated sources of funding set out in this report; and 3.4 Notes that the outcome of the consultation will be reported to full Council on 1 May 2014.

Gillian Tee Director of Children and Families

Links

Coalition pledges P4. Draw up a long-term strategic plan to tackle both overcrowding and under use in schools P5. Seek to ensure the smooth introduction of the Curriculum for Excellence and that management structures within our schools support the new curriculum Council outcomes CO1. Our children have the best start in life, are able to make and sustain relationships and are ready to succeed CO2. Our children and young people are successful learners, confident individuals and responsible citizens making a positive contribution to their communities Single Outcome SO3. Edinburgh’s children and young people enjoy their Agreement childhood and fulfil their potential Appendices 1. Consultation Paper: Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools

Education, Children and Families Committee – 10 December 2013 Page 7 of 7

Consultation Paper: Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools.

1. Introduction, Context and Rationale

1.1 This consultation paper sets out the rationale and the implications from the proposal to establish a nursery class at Fox Covert Primary Schools. The paper also sets out the consultation process and the means and timescales for making representations.

1.3 Fox Covert ND (Non Denominational) and Fox Covert RC (Roman Catholic) Primary Schools share a joint campus on the west side of the city off Clermiston Road. For the purpose of this report we will refer to both schools as Fox Covert Primary Schools. Currently both schools provide primary school education for children primary 1-7, but neither school has a local authority run nursery class. There is however a partner provider nursery operating from a standalone building along the northern site boundary.

1.4 Under the terms of the Schools (Consultation)(Scotland) Act 2010, the Council is required to consult on proposals for the establishment of a new, local authority run, stage of education in a school such as a nursery class.

Format of Consultation Paper

1.5 The consultation paper is divided into the following sections:

1 Introduction, Context and Rationale 2 The Proposal 3 Fox Covert Nursery Class – Case for new provision 4 Education Benefits Statement 5 Accommodation Considerations 6 Financial Considerations 7 Rationale for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools 8 Public Consultation Process

Appendix 1 Map 1: Location of Primary Schools, Nursery Classes and Partner Providers Map 2: Map of Fox Covert Primary School 1

Rationale

1.6 Following the proposals of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill the early learning and childcare provision will increase to 600 hours per year which will increase demand on existing early years facilities.

1.7 Higher birth rates are resulting in greater demand for early years services. There is particular pressure for provision of extra nursery places on the west side of city where local authority and partner provider nurseries are full

1.8 It is considered that extra demand in the West area would be best delivered through the establishment of a new nursery class at Fox Covert primary school campus.

Nursery Capacity

1.9 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.

1.10 Reference is made to the composition of nursery places. 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 to reflect demand and to utilise the staffing levels that have been made.

Making Representations

1.11 Comments on this paper should be submitted at the latest by close of business on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 to the address set out in Section 8 of this paper. A public meeting detailed in Section 8, will be held as follows:

Venue Date Time Fox Covert Primary School 30th January 2014 6pm – 7.30pm

2. The Proposal

2.1 The proposal is that:

• A nursery class will be established within the grounds of Fox Covert Primary Schools for the start of the 2015-16 school year;

• The nursery class will be provided via a stand-alone new build within the grounds of both schools;

- 2 -

• The nursery class will provide a maximum of 40 FTE places (or 40 morning places and 40 afternoon places);

• The nursery class will provide an exciting learning environment for children 3-5 years as well as a separate outdoor learning and play area;

• The building will also have two additional rooms to support work with children aged 0-3 years their families;

• The nursery class will be managed by one of the Headteacher’s from the Fox Covert schools. The nursery will also be staffed in line with Care Inspectorate requirements and current or future local authority staffing models;

• The proposed nursery class is additional to existing nursery provision in the Fox Covert, Clermiston and East Craigs areas to cater for increased demand and there are no proposals to reduce pre-school provision locally;

• A feasibility study has been undertaken to cost the proposal and identify the most suitable location for the nursery class; and

• Planning permission and other necessary consents will be sought in 2014 to facilitate the opening of the nursery for August 2015.

3. Case for Establishment of a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools

Location

3.1 Fox Covert Primary Schools share a campus site on the west side of the city and between the neighbourhoods of Clermiston and Corstorphine. Map 1 in Appendix 1 shows the location of the school and other schools, nursery classes and partner provider nurseries in the surrounding area.

- 3 -

Council Nursery Provision in Fox Covert/Clermiston/East-Craigs Area

3.2 The council run nurseries that are located within primary schools around Fox Covert are consistently oversubscribed.

3.3 There are three schools with nurseries within a mile radius of Fox Covert to the north, south and west (Clermiston, Corstorphine and East Craigs) that relate to the area.

3.4 East Craigs, Clermiston and Corstorphine have a combined capacity for 130AM/130PM nursery placements, but demand for places is high and current teaching provision is made for the nurseries to operate at full capacity.

3.5 Two other primary schools further to the south are Gylemuir and Carrick Knowe These schools can also offer a total capacity of 120AM/120PM nursery placements but demand for places is high and current teaching provision is made for the nurseries to operate at full capacity.

3.6 Table 2 illustrates the current capacities within the area and demand for places within the Council run establishments.

Table 2: Current Position in Council Nursery Classes

Numbers Forecast Shortfall Nursery Class Building Staffing of Children Demand Capacity Capacity Currently for the Attending full academic session 2013/2014 East Craigs PS 40 FTE 40 FTE 80 108 28

(40AM/40PM (80 children) children) Clermiston PS 40 FTE 40 FTE 77 87 7 Gylemuir PS 60 FTE 60 FTE 120 156 36 Corstorphine PS 50 FTE 50 FTE 100 108 8 Carrick Knowe PS 60 FTE 60 FTE 112 125 5 Total 250 FTE 489 584 84

3.7 The total number of FTE places made available with the allocation of staffing resources across the five nurseries is 250 FTE. This will allow capacity for 500 children in total. While currently there are a small number of places still available, the forecast demand for the full nursery year is 584 places, leaving a shortfall of 84 places. There are no other plans to increase nursery capacity in the area.

3.8 In addition to the local authority run nurseries there are four partner provider nurseries within a mile radius of Fox Covert Primary schools. One of these is Fox Covert Nursery which is located in the grounds of Fox Covert schools. The nursery is a registered charity run by a management committee. They can

- 4 - accommodate 30AM/30PM nursery placements and are also operating at full capacity with a waiting list.

Proposed Nursery Capacity and Proposed Staffing Allocation

3.9 The proposed capacity of Fox Covert Nursery Class is 40 full time places (or 80 part-time places). The proposed staffing allocation made for 2015/16 will be in line with Care Inspectorate regulations and current or future local authority staffing models (see Table 1).

Table 1: Proposed Capacity, Staffing Allocation at Fox Covert Nursery Class

Staffing Allocation Nursery Building 2015/16 Class Capacity AM PM Fox Covert 40 4 4

4 Educational Benefits Statement

4.1 This section considers the implications of the establishment of a nursery class at Fox Covert Primary schools and the educational benefits that would flow from the proposal.

Demographic Trends 4.2 The proposed nursery will help address the increase in demand for nursery provision across the city. In the City of Edinburgh Council area, births have averaged over 5,500 per annum in the five years from 2008-2012. In the five years previous to this, the average figure was approximately 4,700. This means a predicted rise in the number of children from 2013-14 onwards from 9,400 in 2009/10 to 11,000 from 2013/14 onwards (a 17% increase). Figure 1 shows the existing and predicted number of 3 and 4 year olds.

Figure 1

- 5 - restrictions in the capacity of some nursery buildings, limiting the option of increasing nursery places. Overall, the number of places has increased by approximately 10% over 2012-13.

Scottish Government Strategy for Early Years Provsion 4.4 The proposals in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill sets out an intention to expand free nursery provision from 475 hours to 600 hours a year from August 2014 for all three and four-year-olds. The Bill also requires Local Authority’s to make provision for some two year olds which will add pressure on the nursery provision in the city.

4.6 One of the aims of the stategy is to develop integrated, flexible services to provide effective learning and childcare for all children and families. To help deliver this aim the Council stated ambition is to ensure that each neighbourhood, community or cluster has access to integrated flexible early years services.

West Edinburgh 4.7 In order to realise this vision resources have been re-aligned and this includes the proposal to provide a new nursery in west Edinburgh where demand for additional provision is particularly high. In addition to rising births, some 600 new dwellings have been built over the last 5-7 years in the East Craigs and Fox Covert catchment and this has generated extra children.

4.8 The proposed nursery will provide improved access to early years provision for parents and children living in the vicinity of Fox Covert including those that have moved into new housing in the area.

Education Scotland Inspections

4.9 Education Scotland reported on Fox Covert RC Primary School in June 2012. Their inspection found the following key strengths.

• An inclusive, welcoming and supportive ethos, provided by committed, caring staff; • Happy, confident and well-behaved children; • Strong provision to meet children’s entitlement to personal support; and • Positive impact of the headteacher on building partnerships to support children’s learning.

4.10 Areas agreed for improvement were: • Increase the pace of improvement of the curriculum, to meet children’s entitlement in full; • Further develop tracking and target setting, based on more effective approaches to assessing children’s progress and achievement; and • Implement more effective approaches to ensure continuing improvement in the school’s performance.

- 6 -

4.11 Following the inspection it was thought that the school needed more time to make necessary improvements and Education Scotland advised that they would return to evaluate aspects of provision and the progress in improving provision within a year.

4.12 The resultant report in June 2013 concluded that the school has made strong overall progress. Confidence was expressed that the school now has a strong capacity for continuing improvements in its performance and a report was invited from the council in 18 months on the impact of the changes which the school is introducing.

4.13 Education Scotland reported on Fox Covert in April 2013. Their inspection found the following key strengths.

• Polite and well-behaved children who are keen to learn • High-quality support for children who need additional help with their learning • The school’s success in fostering productive partnerships with other agencies • Commitment of all staff to providing a culture of continuous improvement

4.14 Areas identified for improvement were: • Help children have a clearer understanding of their strengths and needs as learners • Continue to improve the curriculum, including approaches to assessment and monitoring of progress • Further engage parents in supporting their children’s learning

4.15 Overall, Education Scotland stated that they were satisfied with the overall quality of provision and expressed confidence that the school’s self-evaluation processes are leading to improvements.

4.16 Taking account of the latest inspections at both schools, it is considered that nursery class provision would be well served by being located in the Fox Covert Campus.

Community Considerations

4.17 Fox Covert Primary school buildings have After School provision, 2pm-6pm, Monday – Friday in the Dinning/Gym Hall. This is also used one night a week by the 224th Guide Group. Soccer Sevens have the use of two external football pitches every Saturday from 9am-12 noon. The proposed nursery class will not affect the provision within the primary schools however there may be some minimal disruption to the football pitches during the construction phase. Ongoing communication with the council sports unit will take place to minimise any disruption should this be required.

- 7 - How the Council intends to minimise or avoid any adverse effects

4.18 Should the proposal be taken forward there may some disruption during site preparation and construction. It is proposed that the nursery will be located in standalone building rather than extend the school and this should help reduce the impact during construction. It is also proposed that, subject to timing, that part of the construction works are undertaken during the school holidays.

4.19 The proposed site for the nursery as identified in the feasibility study encroaches on the school playing field. It is proposed that the existing football pitches will be reconfigured to accommodate the nursery.

4.20 The proposed nursery provision is additional to what is already being provided by the Council and it is intended to cater for increased or unmet local demand. It is recognised that provision of a nursery class at Fox Covert may have some impact on the existing local partner provider at Fox Covert Nursery but the aim is for both to work together to serve the needs of families and young children across the area.

4.21 Education Scotland reported on Fox Covert Nursery in May 2009 and the nursery was evaluated as being very good (see Table X).

Table X: Evaluation of Fox Covert Nursery by Education Scotland

Area being Evaluated Evaluation Improvements in performance very good Childrens’s experiences very good Meeting learning needs very good The curriculum Very good Improvement through self-evaluation very good

5 Accommodation Considerations

5.1 The Fox Covert Primary School Campus occupies a large site of 2.3 hectares. The two schools are joined together and share use of the gym hall and dining facilities. A playing field lies to the west of the site. Road access to both schools is from the south. Map 2 shows the boundary of the school campus.

5.2 Fox Covert ND Primary School is a 7 class organisation with a capacity of 210. The school is operating at capacity following a P1 intake of 39 pupils for the 2013-14 school year (see Table Y). The high P1 intake for 2013-14 is in part due to the impact of higher births and pupil generation from the ongoing redevelopment of the St Margaret’s College site in the school catchment.

5.3 It is proposed that an extra class will be provided at Fox Covert for the start of the 2014-15 school year through internal reconfiguration of existing classroom space.

5.4 Fox Covert RC is an 8 class organisation with a capacity of 217 pupils. The current school roll is 174 giving an occupancy rate of 80%.

- 8 -

Table Y: Primary School Rolls at the Fox Covert Campus for 2013-14

School P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 Total Fox Covert ND 39 26 30 28 29 33 25 210 Fox Covert RC 29 29 29 17 22 21 27 174

5.5 Fox Covert RC is an 8 class organisation with a capacity of 217 pupils. The current school roll is 174 giving an occupancy rate of 80%.

5.6 Condition surveys carried out at both primary schools in January 2013 rated them as performing adequately but showing minor deterioration consistent with their construction date and use (B condition). In terms of suitability assessment both schools have been rated ‘good’ (B rated).

5.7 Based on the findings of the feasibility study, the proposed location of the nursery is on the the playing field to the south-west of the main school buildings as shown on Map 2.

5.8 An existing partner provider nursery is located within a separate single storey building within the school grounds and provides 30 morning and 30 afternoon places. The proposals for the new nursery class are based on the assumption that this will facility will remain and that both nurseries will cater for children in the area.

6 Financial Considerations

Cost of Proposed Works 6.1 A brief was produced by Children and Families for a 40/40 nursery at Fox Covert with associated outdoor area to comply with all necessary requirements, including the School Premises Regulations and the Care Commission. The brief also includes additional accommodation to support work with young children and their families.

6.2 A feasibility study has been undertaken to inform the location, design, costs and timescales for the project and its proposals have been mentioned elsewhere in the consultation paper.

6.3 The capital funding of an estimated £774,000 required to deliver a new nursery was approved by the Education, Children and Families Committee on 21 May 2013. This was based on the delivery of a 40/40 nursery however, in the intervening period, the necessity to expand the proposed building to accommodate additional accommodation for 0–3 to three year olds’ and their families was identified. The cost of providing this additional accommodation is estimated at £300,000 (based on applying an assumed all-in rate of £3,000/m2 to the additional internal space requirement of 100m2) 6.4 An analysis of the proposed sources of funding for the revised total cost of £1,074,000 is shown below, together with a comparison with the original proposal as reported to Committee on 21 May 2013.

- 9 - Original Revised £ £

Capital receipts generated from the closure of nursery schools which were ring-fenced for 331,000 424,000 reinvestment in the early years estate

Total cost £774,000 £1,074,000

6.5 The staffing cost of the new nursery class will be funded from the additional allocation to the General Revenue budget from the Scottish Government for the implementation of the increased entitlement of early learning and childcare.

6.6 The nursery class will be managed by one of the Headteachers from Fox Covert Primary Schools.

7 Rationale for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary School

• The proposal is in line with the approved City of Edinburgh Early Years Strategy and with the Scottish Government proposals to expand free nursery education;

• Higher births across the city is generating greater demand for uptake of nursery places;

• The surrounding local authority nurseries and partner provider nurseries are operating at capacity;

• New housing developments in the East Craigs/ Fox Covert area is generating extra demand for places;

• A nursery with 80 places within the Fox Covert area will provide additional choice in an area where council nursery provision is currently limited but where demand is high;

• A nursery class at Fox Covert will provide opportunities for additional learning experiences for children across the Curriculum for Excellence Early level and access to additional space for work with children and their families;

• Both schools at Fox Covert are in B rated building condition

- 10 -

• Education Scotland have recently expressed confidence in the performance of both Fox Covert schools

• A Headteacher will manage the proposed nursery class which will help deliver best value and make efficient use of existing staff resources; and

• Parents will still retain the option of applying for preschool education anywhere in the city;

8 Public Consultation Process

8.1 It is proposed that the new nursery at Fox Covert will be operational from the start of the 2015-16 school year term in August 2015

8.2 The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 sets out the statutory consultation requirements for the establishment of nursery at Fox Covert Primary Schools and the statutory consultees include the following:

8.3 The affected primary school’s are Fox Covert ND and Fox Covert RC and there may also be some reduction in pressure on East Craigs and Clermiston Primary Schools through making additional local provision.

8.4 The consultation period for the proposals paper will run for over eight weeks from Monday 16 December 2013 to Wednesday 12th February 2014 and the paper will be made available electronically and in paper format.

Venue Date Time Fox Covert Primary 30th January 2014 6pm – 7.30pm School

8.6 Copies of the consultation paper will be issued directly to parents and others involved. Copies of the consultation paper are also available for inspection at both Fox Covert Primary Schools, Clermiston Primary School, East Craigs

- 11 - Primary School, partner provider nursery at Fox Covert Nursery, Drumbrae Library Hub and at the Council offices at Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street.

8.10 The Council website, www.edinburgh.gov.uk/educationconsultations 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 by e-mail to [email protected]. All responses to the consultation paper should be received by Wednesday 12 February 2014 and addressed to the Director of Children and Families at the address below.

Gillian Tee Director of Children and Families City of Edinburgh Council Council Headquarters Waverley Court, Level 1:1 (Wardie Consultation) 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG

- 12 -

Record of Meeting

Appendix 2 Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools Public Consultation Meeting held at 6.00 pm, Thursday, 30 January 2014, Fox Covert Primary Schools, Edinburgh

Present: Approximately 50 members of the public In Attendance: Tom Wood (Independent Chair), Councillor Karen Keil, Aileen McLean (Acting Head of Schools and Community Services), Jane Rough (Senior Education Manager, Early Years and Childcare Services), Gillian O’Rourke and Anne Purcell (Head Teachers, Fox Covert Primary Schools), Anne Kiely (Early Years and Childcare Manager) Crawford McGhie (Asset Planning Manager). 1. Introduction Mr Tom Wood introduced himself and advised that he had been invited by the Council as an independent person to chair the public consultation meeting. The meeting was one part of formal consultation process on the proposal for the establishment of a nursery class at Fox Covert Primary Schools. The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 required the Council to consult on the proposal. Mr Wood explained how the meeting would be conducted. The public consultation would provide people with the opportunity to express their views and feed directly into the consultation process. The elected members would decide at the Full Council on 1 May 2014 if the proposals would go ahead. As independent chair, Mr Wood would ensure that everybody would be given a chance to express their views.

2. Presentation Anne Kiely (Early Years and Childcare Manager), gave a presentation that provided some context in terms of the rationale behind the proposal for the establishment of a nursery class at Fox Covert Primary Schools. The proposed new nursery class would help to address an increased demand in nursery provision in the City of Edinburgh Council area where births had averaged over 5,500 per annum in the five years from 2008 – 2012. In the five years prior to this, the average was approximately 4,700. This meant that there was a predicted rise in the numbers of children from 2013/14 onwards from 9,400 in 2009/10 to 11,000 in 2014/15, which was a 17 per cent increase.

The Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill proposals set out a requirement to expand free nursery provision from 475 hours to 600 hours a year in August 2014 for all three and four year olds and for two year olds who were, or had been at any time since they had turned two, looked after or subject to a kinship care order. This was likely to increase demand for the provision of nursery places in the city. Education Scotland generally rated the performance of Fox Covert Primary School as very good. Higher birth rates were resulting in greater demand for early years services. There was particular pressure for provision of extra nursery places on the west side of the city where the local authority and partner provider nurseries were full. It was considered that extra demand in the west area would be best delivered through the establishment of a new nursery class at Fox Covert Primary School. There were three schools with nurseries within a mile radius of Fox Covert to the north, south and west (Clermiston, Corstorphine and East Craigs) that related to the area. Two other primary schools further to the south were Gylemuir and Carrick Knowe. In addition to the local authority run nurseries there were four partner provider nurseries within a mile radius of Fox Covert Primary Schools. One of these was Fox Covert Nursery which was located in the grounds of Fox Covert schools. 3. The Proposal Anne Kiely explained the proposal as follows:- • A nursery class would be established within the ground of Fox Covert Primary Schools for the start of the 2015-16 school year. • The nursery class would be provided via a stand alone new build within the grounds of both schools. • The nursery class would provide a maximum of 40 FTE places (or 40 morning places and 40 afternoon places). • The nursery class would provide an exciting learning environment for children 3- 5 years as well as a separate outdoor learning and play area. • The building would also have two additional rooms to support work with children aged 0-3 years and their families. • The nursery class would be managed by one of the Head Teachers from the Fox Covert schools. The nursery would also be staffed in line with Care Inspectorate requirements and current or future local authority staffing models. • The proposed nursery class was additional to the existing nursery provision in the Fox Covert, Clermiston and East Craigs areas to cater for increased demand and there were no proposals to reduce pre-school provision locally. • A feasibility study had been undertaken to cost the proposal and identify the most suitable location for the nursery class. • Planning permission and other necessary consents would be sought in 2014 to facilitate the opening of the nursery for August 2015.

Public Consultation Meeting – Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools, 30 January 2014 Page 2 In terms of the decision process, all the comments from parents and others would be incorporated into a final report. The deadline for submission of comments was 12 February 2014, and could be submitted in writing or by e-mail. At the end of the consultation period the Council would send Education Scotland relevant documentation on the consultation process. A report would be prepared by Education Scotland on the educational aspects of the proposal that the Council would incorporate into their final report that would be considered at a meeting of the Council on 1 May 2014. Aileen McLean, Acting Head of Schools and Community Services, explained that the Council was opening, not closing nurseries and was re-investing in Early Years. Demand for nursery places in the west of the City was high and it was necessary to plan in order to meet the demand. There was no ideal site and the proposed site at Fox Covert brought its own challenges. 4. Questions and Comments

Question 1 – How was the level of demand for nursery places assessed? 40 morning and 40 afternoon places (40/40) were previously required? Question 2 – When the feasibility study was carried out, why were only nine locations considered and why was Clermiston Park, the corner of Clermiston Road or Drumbrae Avenue not considered? Instead of these possible locations, the authority was using land on open space, which was in contravention of its own policy. Answer Q1– Regarding the level of demand, the number of children on the waiting list was recorded and then fed into the system. This could be seen from the numbers on the graph on the consultation paper. The current waiting list was based on this. It was necessary to build for the future. Answer Q2 – The sites chosen for the feasibility study had been undertaken to cost the proposals and identify the most suitable location for the nursery class. The first assessment showed the sites which were suitable. It was not clear why the sites referred to were not chosen, but this would be checked out. If the proposals went ahead, planning permission and other necessary consents would be sought in 2014. Question 3 – A member of the public referred the rising school rolls. His daughter was currently in primary 1. As there would be 40/40 places in the new nursery, it might be necessary to expand the school. However, it had not been explained how this would be compatible with the long term planning for the site. Comment/Question 4 – Where would the funding come from for outdoor learning for the school and would the services be ring-fenced? Answer Q3 – Fox Covert was part of the rising rolls programme. Across the city, there were rising school rolls and this was causing pressure on schools. At present, the authority was calculating which schools would need additional accommodation and which schools would be assessed. After 2015, it was difficult to make projections as the figures for intake would change. Question 4 – People were aware that this was the plan, however, they were concerned about the loss of green space and overcrowding at Fox Covert. The authority had

Public Consultation Meeting – Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools, 30 January 2014 Page 3 already closed Drumbrae Primary School and now wanted to build a new nursery. In three years time, would the authority not have to undertake yet more building? Answer Q4 – There was an asset management plan for the entire estate, which would consider these issues. Regarding the rising rolls, there could be no guarantees given for 2016 as the existing plan only extended to 2015. The Council did have concerns about the removal of green space, but it had to consider all the available options. The authority was concerned about the adequate provision of nursery spaces, which was why the officers were at the meeting to answer questions. This meeting was dealing specifically with the proposed nursery. The department knew that there was a need for other nurseries, because of the high birth rate in the City. Question 5 – What would happen to outdoor learning? Answer Q5 – The proposals contained a provision for a grant, which could be used for outdoor learning and the authority would support an application for this. Gillian O’Rourke indicated that the school had a fair amount of space, but for long periods of time it was unusable. It was therefore advantageous to consider this space and also to make use of the existing playground. Here was an opportunity to create a much more interesting environment. Anne Purcell agreed that there was an opportunity to make the optimum use of the space available, utilising the playing field. Question 6/Comment – The officers had stated that they planned for the numbers on school rolls. Despite this, Drumbrae Primary School had closed. The authority must have been aware that there was both ongoing housing development and an increasing birth rate across the City. There were no spaces for children coming out of nursery schools and all the primary schools were at overcapacity. Question 7 – What account was taken of primary school provision when planning permission was granted for 300 houses? Why would the authority not build on land to expand the primary school? Answers Q6-Q7 – The authority had to provide solutions to the demand for school places and catchment requirements. The officers could only identify the problems. Question 8 – The officers had stated that there were no plans to build a new school in the area. Where then would the children from the additional 80 nursery places go? Answer Q8 – There was a rising rolls programme to deal with this issue. Question 9 – Why would the authority not review the site in the area and build a new school there? Answer Q9 – The proposal was to build a new nursery at Fox Covert and the Council had allocated funding for that purpose. The proposal would be decided by the Full Council on 1 May 2014. There would be pressure in 2015 for children at early stages, as they would need nursery places. These children would still go to school, even if they did not go to nursery. Legislation stated that the authority had to provide early years places. Such

Public Consultation Meeting – Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools, 30 January 2014 Page 4 places were available across the City, but not necessarily in the area where they were required. Question 10/Comment – Clerwood Residents Association had real concerns about traffic management in the area of Fox Covert and the Council should be aware of their concerns. Most of the proposal would not be in the interests of the local residents and why was it being put forward? Answer Q10 There were two elements in the process. When dealing with planning applications, the planners consulted with the Department of Education, to get the required information. The officers would then make a recommendation to the Planning Committee, which would then make a decision. If the development was approved, the Education Authority would make its projections. There were formulas for assessing rising school rolls. Question 11 – As the existing nursery had 60 places and the proposed new nursery would have 80 places, what then would happen to the existing nursery? Was it not the case that ordinary peoples’ concerns were usually ignored and the Council’s proposals went ahead? Tom Wood indicated that he had chaired up to 15 consultation meetings, usually to consider school closures, but on six occasions, the proposals had been refused. In fact, the outcome of these consultations had persuaded the elected members to reject the proposals. Answer Q11 – The existing nursery was full. Not only would the new nursery have 80 places, there were also the partner provider nurseries to consider and there were children on the waiting list. The Children and Young Person (Scotland) Bill specified that early learning and childcare provision would increase to 600 hours per year. Legislation also required that local authorities carried out public consultations every two years. Therefore, demand for nursery places would increase. Question 12 – Could there be up to 140 nursery places? Answer Q12 – Fox Covert/East Craigs was for a big area and there were no catchments for nurseries. The new legislation meant that the authority also had to provide access to additional space for work with children and their families. Question 13/Comment – If there was a drop in numbers for the existing nursery, then it would close, which meant that the authority would be back to where it started. Answer Q13 – The authority wanted to use the proposed new nursery and the current nursery as a “campus”. There were shared concerns about all nursery places. Question 14 – Why was it necessary to build the nursery on a playing field, rather than some other area? This playing field belonged to the local residents and the authority seemed to want to take away their green space. Question 15/Comment – Some of the children in the area did not have nursery places. However, once a place was allocated, they could go on the waiting list. Therefore, some children were put on two waiting lists and might even be counted three times.

Public Consultation Meeting – Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools, 30 January 2014 Page 5 Why was it not possible to make the rest of the playing field more usable and would it not be possible to build into the proposal a drainage system to access the green land? Answers Q14-Q15 – With regard to the use of green space, there was still plenty of other space. The proposals gave the school an opportunity to provide for additional learning experiences, including outdoor learning. In respect of waiting lists, it was not possible for children to be on two or three waiting lists, as the system did not permit double counting. The dates of birth of the children were used to ensure this. Question 16 – Why use the playing field and not some other green space for the nursery? Answer Q16 – There were two different feasibility studies carried out on the school, which included an assessment of the site. If the proposal was approved, then the planning process would address the use of green space. Question 17/Comment – If the Council had the funding to cover the cost of running a 40/40 nursery, then could the existing nursery have some more money? Answer Q17 – The authority would like to be more involved with partner provider nurseries and had visited these. To accommodate the extra housing, the proposed nursery class in addition to the existing nursery provision were both needed. Details were provided of the cost per child in the partner provider nurseries and the proposed new nursery. It was necessary to check out the look up nursery schools and sample nursery classes to determine the staffing costs. A number of variations existed in respect of running costs and the main cost of running a nursery, was the staffing costs. The authority had made a successful bid from the Change Fund to fund the proposed nursery. Additionally, as the consultation progressed, different models of staffing would emerge. Question 18 – Why was this location being considered? The residents were already experiencing difficulties when parking their vehicles and the proposed nursery would be in close proximity to their properties. Were the concerns of the residents being taken seriously? Answer Q18 – This site had been chosen on the basis of the feasibility study. If the proposals were approved, then the planning process would be initiated. There would be a transport assessment and the residents could then state their objections. The authority was aware of the concerns of the residents. Question 19 – Why was Clerwood Terrace being considered for the proposed nursery instead of Rannoch Road and why was there only one entrance to this site? There was a clear lack of joined up thinking by the authority. Answers Q19 – There had been discussions with the Head Teachers of Fox Covert, who had contributed to the process. In respect of access to the main school, this would be covered during the planning process. Question 20 – Did the Head Teachers of Fox Covert decide the location? Answers Q20 – Two locations in the schools had been considered.

Public Consultation Meeting – Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools, 30 January 2014 Page 6 Question 21/Comment – There had been no discussions with the local residents and no consideration given to parking or safety issues, or is the possibility of vandalism. This was a beautiful area, however in the future, people might come to the area, play football and leave a mess. Question 22 – What would be the content of the report for the elected members to consider? It was advantageous that funding was in place, however, what would happen if planning permission was refused. Would it not lead to delay and additional cost? Regarding the question about primary school provision, would there be extra primary school places? Answers Q21-22 – The minute of this meeting would form part of the report. In respect of planning permission, these points would have to be addressed in the detailed design of the proposals. These were initial sites and if approved, the planning process would proceed. However, if planning was refused, this would cause delay or cancellation of the project. In respect of the impact of rising rolls on primary schools, the authority would take into account the rising birth rate and other relevant factors. The elected members were aware of these issues. Question 23 - How would the report be published on 10 April 2014? Answer Q23 – All comments by members of the public and the responses would be “captured” in the minute, which would be included in the report. In this way the report would be compiled. The officers would then check the questions and answers, which involved a considerable amount of work. Comment – It was thought that this meeting was not well publicised. Question 24 – How would the report by published? Answer Q24 – The report would be made available electronically and in paper format in public places, such as libraries and schools. Question 25 – Regarding the long-term plan for the school, what was the projected intake for primary one this year? Question 26 – What was the provision for 0-3 year olds? Answers Q25 and Q26 – The current school roll for P1 for both schools was 68. There would be a room for children under three years and their families, which could be used for meetings, parent groups or other activities. There was also some flexibility to get additional space. The new legislation required that support be provided for 0-3 year olds. Families in this area had a right to come to this area to use services for 0-3 years. Therefore, having something in this area to support families was a good idea. The name for the new nursery had not yet been decided. Question 27 – Would building nurseries not put more pressure on primary schools? Answer Q27 – The rising birth rate did put additional pressure on primary schools. The authority was aware of this and updated their projections on an annual basis. Solutions to this were available, however, these were dependant on funding.

Public Consultation Meeting – Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools, 30 January 2014 Page 7 Comment – The residents need to know about access to the new building. The authority had already stated that the proposals had not provided the public with answers about access. Question 28 – What were the opening times for the nursery during the week, the term time and holidays? Answer Q28 – It was difficult to say what the opening times would be in the future. There would have to be flexibility and the school should not be kept empty during the holidays Question 29 – The panel did not provide a satisfactory answer to the problem of the proposed 300 new houses in the area. The issue of traffic was a genuine concern as it was already at saturation level. This was the school “drop off”. Therefore, had the experiment in relation to traffic, in East Lothian, been considered? Answer Q29 – The concerns about the traffic generated would be addressed during the planning process. The Haddington experiment in East Lothian did seem worthy of exploration. Question 30 – Why had the head teachers at Fox Covert chosen this entrance to the nursery from the Clerwood side? Question 31/Comment – The proposals stated that the existing nursery would remain and that both nurseries would cater for children in the area, which should safeguard the existing nursery. For various reasons, it was unlikely that this arrangement would be successful and the existing nursery would be forced to close. There would be a cost attached to this. It should be remembered that council nursery places were more expensive than private places and the report by the authority should reflect this. Answers Q30-31 – Regarding the entrance to the new nursery, there was not much difference between the chosen entrance and the alternative use of the other side of the building. In discussions with the Head Teachers, the options had been considered and this one seemed the most favourable. All these issues would be considered at the planning stage. With respect to safeguarding the existing nursery, 84 children had currently no spaces. This included having the existing nursery, which was at full capacity. The authority was aware of the concerns expressed. The parents could either keep their children at the existing nursery, or take them to the new one. It was important to provide a service. Comment – No-one disagreed with the need for the provision of a new nursery, only with the location. Question 32 – There had been no discussions or approach made to the existing nursery by the authority. As this nursery always received good reports from Education Scotland, why not then expand it? Question 33 – If the nursery was built, would there be after school provision in the nursery? Answers Q32-33 – An after school club would require negotiations, which would be difficult, as there were different regulations for after-school clubs.

Public Consultation Meeting – Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools, 30 January 2014 Page 8 The new nursery was going to be built for 40/40 children and this would be an addition to the existing nursery. The authority had no locus to expand the existing nursery, however, it should be possible to work together and the authority was keen to look at this opportunity Question 34 – The existing nursery was happy to cooperate but if there was insufficient numbers, then this nursery would have to close. There should have been creative discussions to extend provision, but this nursery was not informed about the consultation and the senior staff were unhappy with the lack of communication. Question 35 – Drumbrae Primary School closed five years ago, which was short- sighted, as more long-term planning should have taken place. A new nursery was now required. Was the decision to use this site been based on the fact that it was free land? Question 36 – The existing nursery was of a high standard. However, there was the problem of 80 additional children to accommodate. Was there not alternative solution to the proposals? Answers Q34-36 – The authority had considered all options and had put other nurseries into the “mix” in its calculations. But the regulations clearly stated that additional space was required for children. Councillor Keil indicated that she had tried to stop the closure of Drumbrae and thought that this closure had been short-sighted. There would be a need for new nursery schools, however, it should have been on the old site of Drumbrae. She asked for parents to write to her to state their concerns. 5. Conclusion Tom Wood, in concluding the meeting, thanked the audience for the questions and points made this evening. These would be minuted, recorded and submitted to Education Scotland, and a final report would be presented to Council on 1 May 2014. for a decision.

Public Consultation Meeting – Proposal for the Establishment of a Nursery Class at Fox Covert Primary Schools, 30 January 2014 Page 9

APPENDIX 5

Early Years Provision in the West of the City

Initial Scoping

March 2013

1. Purpose

1.1. There is a shortage of pre-school nursery places in the Corstorphine, Carrick Knowe, Gylemuir, Clermiston, East Craigs and Fox Covert areas of the city. There is also limited capacity to support vulnerable 0-3’s and parenting support. Accordingly, in June 2012, the Education Children and Families Committee approved a recommendation to develop Early Years services in the Drum Brae/Clermiston/East Craigs area and requested that the Director return a report in Spring 2013 proposing a location for a new facility. This paper considers the possible locations and required capacity of a new Early Years Centre.

2. Summary

• In April 2013 all Council nurseries in the Corstorphine, Carrick Knowe, Gylemuir, Clermiston, East Craigs and Fox Covert areas will be at full capacity with a combined waiting list of 162 pupils.

• It is understood that Partner provider nurseries, who are few in number in this area of the city, are also at capacity.

• This area also has limited resources to support under 3’s and their families.

• The birth rate has increased significantly in recent years in this area of the city while the number of nursery places has stayed the same.

• Expansion of existing facilities is not possible.

• A geographical divide means that one new facility may not address all capacity issues in this area of the city.

• The Fox Covert joint campus site represents the only currently viable option for the location of a new Early Years Centre within the west Edinburgh area.

• The new Early Years Centre would require a 60/60 capacity to address the pre-school waiting lists at East Craigs and Clermiston.

• A stand-alone building is proposed to negate associations with a particular school.

• The future of the existing Fox Covert partner provider nursery would need to be considered with the potential to develop services for under 3’s.

• Management structures for the Early Years Centre would also need to be considered.

3. Pre-School Capacity and Demand

City West Overview 3.1. Table 1 (below) shows that in the west of the city, the areas of Corstorphine, Carrick Knowe, Gylemuir, Clermiston, East Craigs and Fox Covert, City of Edinburgh Council provide 500 nursery places. In April 2013 these places have all been allocated with a waiting list of over 160 eligible children. Thirty-nine of the children on the waiting list have found places at a partner provider while they await a CEC nursery place. 123 eligible children currently are without a nursery place.

Table 1: Demand and Provision of Nursery Places in the West of the City (April 2013)

Capacity Waiting List (PT Attendees (Spring CEC Nursery Class Places) (April 2013) Spaces 2013) Corstorphine Primary 100 101 0 35 Carrick Knowe Primary 120 117 3 15 East Craigs Primary 80 79 1 46 Gylemuir Primary 120 120 0 43 Clermiston Primary 80 80 0 23 Total 500 497 4 162 Attending partner nurseries 39 No nursery placement 123

3.2. In the 10 years from 2001/2 to 2010/11, the number of births in this area of the city increased by a third. However, since 2009/10 the number of births in this area of the city has plateaued.

3.3. The most significant housing development in the area is the Charles Church development on the former Queen Margaret University site. This development, which is complete with most properties having now sold, is for nearly 300 homes and is immediately adjacent to Fox Covert Primary School. This development may allow the birth rate in the area to be sustained rather than falling to previous levels as may be experienced in other areas of the city.

North-South Split

3.4. There is a geographical split in the west of the city between the areas to the north of St John’s Road and those to the south. This is reflected in the movement of pupils between these areas. In August 2012 only 5% of nursery pupils in the Corstorphine, Gylemuir and Carrick Knowe areas attended a nursery in the Clermiston, East Craigs or Fox Covert area. In the opposite direction the flow was 12%. Accordingly, the relationship in terms of pupil flow between these areas is weak and adding additional capacity to the Corstorphine, Gylemuir and Carrick Knowe area may not have a significant impact on the waiting lists in the Clermiston, East Craigs or Fox Covert area and vice versa.

4. Expansion of Existing Facilities

4.1. The size of the site at Corstorphine Primary School prohibits expansion of the existing nursery facilities here. Gylemuir and Carrick Knowe nurseries are already operating at the Council’s preferred maximum nursery capacity (120 pupils). There is scope to increase the capacity available at Clermiston by 40 pupils (from 40/40 to 60/60) with works to reconfigure the interior of the building.

4.2. The existing nursery at East Craig’s Primary School may not be extended beyond its current 40/40 capacity due to site constraints. While expansion of the building may be possible, the external play area, which is already small would be greatly diminished and would not meet Care Commission requirements.

4.3. East Craigs Primary does have grass pitches that may offer the opportunity to build a new nursery on the site. However, a new gym hall at East Craigs Primary school is a priority in the Children and Families Asset Management Plan. A feasibility study to identify a location on the site for the new hall is underway and until this is concluded how a new nursery building would fit onto the site cannot be determined. In addition; to replace the existing 40/40 nursery at East Craigs with a 60/60 nursery would result in a net gain of only 40 spaces - not sufficient on its own to address waiting lists in the area.

5. Location for New Provision

5.1. There are few Council owned sites within this area of the city suitable for a new nursery facility. Aside from park land and the primary schools with which the current nursery classes are associated, the other significant Council properties in the area are:

• Clermiston House Care Home for Older People;

• Drumbrae Leisure Centre;

• Craigmount High School;

• Drumbrae Hub site including Rannoch Community Centre;

• Fox Covert ND Primary School and Fox Covert RC Primary School.

5.2. Appendix 1 shows the location of these properties and other significant properties in the Clermiston, East Craigs and Fox Covert area.

5.3. It is understood that, despite the construction of a new care home on the site of the former Drumbrae Primary School, Health and Social Care services are to be retained in the Clermiston House building. Furthermore, a visit by Early Years staff to Clermiston House has determined that it does not offer suitable accommodation or grounds for a nursery.

5.4. The specialist accommodation offered at Drumbrae Leisure Centre means that it has not been considered in any detail. The grounds in which it sits are part of Drumbrae Park.

5.5. Craigmount High School is a PPP school and has an occupancy rate of 91% at a time when secondary schools are falling. However, increasing nursery and primary rolls will eventually impact on the secondary sector at which point all Craigmount’s spare capacity will be required.

5.6. There are potential synergies between the services offered at the Drumbrae Hub and Early Years services. However, the newly built Hub building is well used with limited accommodation for additional services. The surrounding grounds are shared with Rannoch Community Centre and, while there is space available, the shape and size of the spaces available would require compromises in the design of the nursery building and external play area. Accordingly, it is considered that the site is too tight a fit for a nursery building.

5.7. Fox Covert ND Primary School and Fox Covert RC Primary School already host a private nursery provider on their shared campus. How a new service would integrate with the services provided by the partner provider is an issue that would have to be addressed. While consultation with both school communities is anticipated, legal advice is being sought on whether the presence of the nursery facility already on the Fox Covert site means a statutory consultation is not necessary. Furthermore, the grounds available to the two schools extend to 2 hectares – exceeding the requirements of the Schools Premises Regulations.

5.8. Accordingly, within the Council’s own estate, it is concluded that the Fox Covert site represents the only currently viable option for the location of a new Early Years service within the west Edinburgh area.

6. A New Fox Covert Nursery

6.1. The total waiting list for nursery places in April 2013 at East Craigs and Clermiston nursery classes is 69. Establishing a new 120 place nursery facility on the Fox Covert campus would result in a net gain for this area of at least 60 places (subject to decision about the future role of the partner provider already on site). Children who are unable to gain a place at either Clermiston or East Craigs could be offered a place at the Fox Covert nursery allowing them to stay within this area of the city.

Stand-alone or Extension?

6.2. While there are no catchment boundaries for nursery provision, for reasons of geography and continuity between nursery and primary school, nursery classes principally attract pupils from the catchment area of the associated primary school. A nursery at Fox Covert may be a more attractive option for parents from the Clermiston and East Craigs areas if it is perceived to be a ‘cluster’ facility with links to all schools in the area. Accordingly, building a nursery school that is physically connected to either of the Fox Covert schools and is incorporated within their existing management structures may lessen its potential to address the waiting lists at surrounding facilities.

6.3. In addition, while all nurseries are non-denominational regardless of the school with which they are located, establishing a nursery on the Fox Covert site that is physically connected to either the Non-Denominational or Roman Catholic school could lead to a perception that it is a ‘feeder’ for that particular school as opposed to the other. Finally, an extension to either part of the Fox Covert campus could restrict the potential to extend the primary element of either school in the future should it be required.

6.4. Accordingly, it is proposed that a new nursery located on the Fox Covert campus would be a stand-alone building.

Existing Nursery Provision at Fox Covert

6.5. The means and extent to which a new nursery service replaces or integrates with the existing service offered by the partner provider already operating from the Fox Covert site are beyond the scope of this document and will be considered separately.

Management

6.6. The management structures within which a new nursery at Fox Covert may operate are beyond the scope of this document and will be considered separately.

7. Conclusions

7.1. Increasing the capacity of the Council’s nursery estate to address waiting lists in the west of the city may not be achieved through expansion of existing services. A new nursery facility is required.

7.2. Within the Council’s own property estate, the Fox Covert joint-campus site represents the only currently viable option for the location of a new nursery. A new 60/60 nursery established here will offer the potential to address waiting lists at Clermiston and East Craigs nurseries.

7.3. The new nursery should be a standalone building on the Fox Covert joint campus site to avoid issues of association with one school or another and offer its services as a cluster facility.

7.4. Issues to be considered to allow this proposal to progress would include :

• means and extent to which a new nursery service replaces or integrates with the existing service offered by the partner provider and;

• the management structures that would be put in place to run the new nursery.

APPENDIX 1: Significant Properties and Council Account Holdings within the Clermiston, East Craigs and Fox Covert Areas

Appendix 6

Fox Covert School Pupil Questionnaire Proposed nursery places in your school

Focus group on

For : 10 / 16 Against : 2 / 16 Not sure: 4 / 16

For

• Because lots of people need a nursery • Nice to have own class in school • People need places • Because the parent could stay in one place • There would be more space for the younger children. We would have to see how many people would be joining because it does cost a lot of money. Mostly yes, because there a lot of children in the nursery but we will loose some of our field • Because there is lots of people joining the nursery • They get to play • Other places • The children will get to play and do things • All children get a nursery place

Against

• Too noisy

• They don’t get out • Lots of children get a nursery. Both taking away some of the field • Because the school will get too crowded! • Take too much space on grass, too many people in school later on and not enough space

Do you think a nursery would make a big difference to your school?

• Yes - People need places, no – taking up spaces in school

• Yes - Children in the nursery get to play on the field, no – because of football

Any questions or other comments? The City of Edinburgh Council

10am, Thursday, 1 May 2014

Outcome of the Consultation Process for the Proposal to Close Wellington Special School in Midlothian

Item number Report number Executive/routine Wards All

Executive summary

This report advises on the outcome of the statutory consultation carried out for the proposal to close Wellington Special School in Midlothian with effect from July 2014. The report responds to the questions raised during the consultation process and makes recommendations on how to proceed with the proposal. The use of the services at Wellington has declined significantly in recent years as the Council is committed to providing care and education for Edinburgh’s young people wherever possible in the city of Edinburgh. HM Inspectors found that the proposal to close Wellington School and transfer young people to Gorgie Mills, Panmure St Ann’s and mainstream schools to be of overall educational benefit to the young people directly affected by it. They recognise that the implementation of the proposal will also help the Council to secure its duty to deliver best value. The Council is confident issues identified through the consultation have either been addressed or plans are in place to do so. After taking account of the representations made and the issues arising, the Director of Children and Families considers that the case has been made for closure.

Links

Coalition pledges P1, P4 Council outcomes CO2, CO3, CO5, CO6 Single Outcome Agreement SO3

Report

Outcome of the Consultation Process for the Proposal to Close Wellington Special School in Midlothian

Recommendations

The Council is asked to: 1.1 Approve that Wellington School should close in July 2014; 1.2 Note the statutory requirement to refer the Council’s decision to Scottish Ministers; 1.3 Approve that the school site and buildings be declared surplus from the end of the 2013/14 school session and be made available for sale as soon as possible thereafter.

Background

2.1 It is a priority for the Council to provide high quality care and learning for young people wherever possible in their own communities and within the city of Edinburgh. During the recent Inspection of Children’s Services in Edinburgh the Care Inspectorate found that “tackling inequalities and promoting inclusive services are clearly articulated as being central to achieving the vision for children”. Inspectors identified the “strong commitment from leaders about improving the lives of looked after children and embedding the responsibilities of the corporate parent across the Council and its partners” as key strengths. 2.2 Wellington is a school which currently provides education to 11 boys, two of whom stay overnight at the school’s residential unit. The school is located in Midlothian, to the south of Penicuik on the road to Peebles. It has its origins as a 19th century reformatory and was designated to Edinburgh at the time of local government reorganisation in 1996. It provides services to boys aged 13 to 16 who have social, emotional and behavioural support needs. 2.3 The service has the capacity to provide up to six residential placements, two respite placements and 42 day placements. 2.4 Numbers have reduced due to declining demand and the school is operating well below capacity. There are currently two young people in residential places

Page 2

and nine in day placements. By June 2014 the school roll is expected to reduce to seven. 2.5 The average attendance rate for session 2012/13 was 75.65%. 2.6 Neither the location of the school or the model of provision fit well with present day practice. Despite the best efforts of the staff the provision has become increasingly out of step with the Council’s priorities for Looked After Children and the ethos of Getting it Right for Every Child. 2.7 In light of the above, careful consideration was given to the future of Wellington school which established a case for a consultation exercise regarding a proposal to close the school with effect from July 2014. 2.8 The legislation requires a minimum six week consultation period of term time during which representations on the proposal can be made and public meetings are held. 2.9 Following the consultation period the views of Education Scotland were sought under the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. Education Scotland has prepared a report on the educational aspects of the relevant proposals and this report has been submitted to the Council. The Council has taken account of Education Scotland’s report in preparing this report on the outcomes of the consultation process.

Main report

3.1 On 8 October 2013 the Education, Children and Families Committee approved that a statutory consultation should be carried out regarding the proposed closure of Wellington School. The statutory consultation period ran from 4 December 2013 to 31 January 2014. The full consultation paper can be accessed here and a summary is in appendix 1. 3.2 During the week commencing 10 February 2014 Education Scotland carried out visits to Wellington, Panmure St Ann’s and Gorgie Mills Schools in preparation of their report on the educational aspects of the proposal. 3.3 In their report Education Scotland concluded that the Council’s proposal to close Wellington School is of overall educational benefit to the young people directly affected by it. They also concluded that implementation of the proposal will help the Council secure its duty to deliver best value. The full report from Education Scotland is in appendix 2. 3.4 The Council’s response to Education Scotland’s report is considered in the section of the report ‘Response to Education Scotland’. 3.5 Two public meetings were held on 21 and 23 January 2014 attended by 32 people. The meetings were independently chaired. A record of both meetings is included in appendix 3.

Page 3

3.6 The independent advocacy service Who Cares? Scotland led an extensive consultation exercise with pupils taking part in face to face sessions. The aim of the consultation process was to give every pupil currently attending Wellington the opportunity to discuss and express their views, as well as enabling pupils at Panmure St Ann’s and Gorgie Mills schools to consider what the potential impacts would be on them and their schools. The results of this consultation process are included in appendix 4. 3.7 Representations were also invited by letter and by e-mail; only one written representation was made and is included in appendix 5. 3.8 Responses to issues raised during the consultation process that are not addressed in the ‘Response to Education Scotland’ section which follows are considered in the ‘Key Themes and Issues and Council Responses’ section of this report.

Involvement of Education Scotland Legislative Context 3.9 The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 requires that the authority refer the proposals to Education Scotland so that they may prepare a report on the educational aspects. In producing their report (appendix 2), Education Scotland considered the proposals of the authority as set out in the consultation document and the verbal and written responses received during the consultation period. Summary Findings 3.10 HM Inspectors state they found that the proposal from the City of Edinburgh Council to close Wellington School and transfer young people to Gorgie Mills, Panmure St Ann’s and mainstream schools to be of overall educational benefit to the young people directly affected by it. They recognise that the implementation of the proposal will also help the Council to secure its duty to deliver best value. 3.11 HM Inspectors stated that the Council should consider extending the proposed date of closure to ensure it can put in place appropriate transitional arrangements for the young people affected.

Response to Education Scotland 3.12 The Act requires that the Council’s consultation report include ‘a statement of the authority's response to Education Scotland’s report’. 3.13 The various issues, and the Council response to them, are set out below in the order in which they appear in the Education Scotland report with references quoted being to that report. The Council is confident that the issues identified have either already been addressed or that all required arrangements and plans

Page 4

are in place to ensure that any actions which are necessary to mitigate these issues will be taken timeously. As a consequence, the Council remains confident that the educational benefits identified in the proposal will be fully realised.

Issue raised Paragraph 2.1 - most of the young people currently attending Wellington School who responded to the consultation process disagreed with the proposal to close Wellington School.

Council response Significant consultation has taken place with young people at Wellington School about the proposal for closure. The initial consultation took place at a relatively early stage. Since the initial consultation detailed transition plans have been agreed for all seven of the young people who would continue to require an educational placement in August 2014. Three of the young people would transfer to Panmure St Ann’s and four would transfer to Gorgie Mills School. All seven young people have started to engage in regular visits/part time educational provision in their new placement. The schools they would move to would offer similarly small classes, specialist support and provision. There would also be the opportunity for continuity of relationships with some staff who would also transfer to the same establishments.

Issue raised Paragraphs 2.2, 3.8 - parents and carers of young people attending Wellington School are not happy about the proposed closure. The issue of reduced attendance resulting from the proposal for closure is also raised.

Council response The Council recognises that parents become understandably anxious when their children may transfer to a new school. For young people and families with a history of vulnerability such change may cause heightened concern. It is for these reasons that the Council engaged with parents at the earliest possible stage to ensure their views were heard and acted upon. Despite their anxieties about the impact of change on their children, parents acknowledge that attending other schools, such as Gorgie Mills School, would give their children a better education and it would not be so easy for them to opt out of particular classes. Attendance levels at Wellington School have not changed significantly since the proposal to close the school was announced.

Issue raised Paragraph 2.3 - staff at Wellington School are concerned about the likely outcomes for the young people who currently attend

Page 5

the school if it closes.

Council response The Council considers the needs of young people currently attending Wellington School to be central to the proposal for closure. Their needs are similar to those successfully met at two other educational establishments in the city, Gorgie Mills School and Panmure St Ann’s. Provision in Gorgie Mills School would be enhanced and the number of places there increased should the closure of Wellington School go ahead. The Head Teacher of Gorgie Mills has in the past year also undertaken the role of Acting Head Teacher in Wellington School. As a result she is in the unique position of being familiar with the needs of young people and the levels of staff skills and confidence in both establishments. She is confident that the staff in Gorgie Mills School have the requisite specialist skills and experience to meet the needs of young people in Wellington should they transfer. Similarly, staff from Panmure St Ann’s feel that the school is able to meet the needs of pupils from Wellington. Young people, parents, staff and senior managers in Panmure St Ann’s and Gorgie Mills Schools have indicated their willingness to welcome and support young people from Wellington School if the proposal for closure goes ahead. They expressed confidence and enthusiasm about the benefits of attending Panmure St Ann’s and Gorgie Mills Schools.

Issue raised Paragraph 2.6 - some staff (at Gorgie Mills School) are under the impression that almost all young people from Wellington School would be placed in a separately run unit within their school rather than being included within Gorgie Mills classes.

Council response Enhanced provision at Gorgie Mills School would consist of an additional class of six places plus an on-campus intensive support unit for up to six young people. Plans are in place for four young people to transfer from Wellington School to Gorgie Mills School. Of these, three would be included in an additional class and one young person would continue their education within the intensive support unit. The placement process has now been fully explained and clarified with all staff in the school who remain positive about the prospect of welcoming additional young people to Gorgie Mills School from Wellington School.

Issue raised Paragraphs 2.7-2.9 concern raised by young people, parents and staff at Panmure St Ann’s about the impact of increased numbers of pupils.

Page 6

Council response It is anticipated that three young people from Wellington School would transfer to Panmure St Ann’s in August 2014. It is expected that the school would have no difficulty identifying a place for these additional young people and the impact on staff and accommodation is anticipated to be minimal. The young people who would transfer from Wellington School to Panmure St Ann’s have already started to visit and are starting to develop relationships with young people currently attending the school. This gradual process of introducing new pupils from Wellington School should minimise any unsettling effects which parents have raised concerns about.

Issue raised Paragraph 3.5 – Concern that developments to enhance provision in mainstream schools to support social and emotional needs are at an early stage.

Council response There have now been a series of meetings with Head Teachers of mainstream secondary schools and a proposal outlining a model of enhanced provision has been developed and would be implemented should the proposal to close Wellington School go ahead.

Issue raised Paragraphs 3.6 and 4.4 – concern that relevant building work may not be completed by August 2014 in Gorgie Mills School

Council response The Council plans to divide existing accommodation in one wing of Gorgie Mills School to create two rooms from a single two- storey room. The plans and preparation for these works are well underway. As is the case for works undertaken in any school, in determining how and when to undertake such works the emphasis will very much be on minimising any disruption and/or inconvenience to the school and its pupils and teaching staff. For this reason, all preparation and planning will take place between now and June, and the structural work will commence at the end of June when teaching staff and pupils will be off site throughout the six week Summer holiday. The feasibility of using other available parts of Gorgie Mills School for the new specialist unit has been considered alongside the progression of structural alterations. While it is anticipated that these alterations will be complete by August 2014 the availability of other currently unoccupied spaces within the school allows for temporary alternative accommodation should this be required.

Issue raised Paragraph 3.7 concern that a number of these staff have already

Page 7

left Wellington School for permanent posts elsewhere.

Council response The Council has taken a number of steps which will help to mitigate the effects of change on young people currently attending Wellington School. Providing young people with the opportunity for continuity in relationships with some key teaching and support staff is a significant element of this. The Head Teacher of Gorgie Mills School undertook the role of Acting Head Teacher in Wellington School between May and December 2013. The knowledge she gained of young people during this time and the relationships which she forged with them would be of considerable value in terms of continuity for the young people who transfer to Gorgie Mills School in August 2014. In addition, two staff from Wellington School have already taken up temporary posts in Gorgie Mills School, and it is anticipated that this number may increase if the proposal for closure goes ahead. Only one teacher and two care staff have left Wellington School in the last few months for permanent posts elsewhere. This reflects normal rates of staff turn-over. Should the proposal to close Wellington School go ahead redeployment options would be made for affected staff.

Issue raised Paragraph 4.1 – concern regarding timescales.

Council response The Council is aware of the right of Scottish Ministers to call-in a decision to close a school, the process is detailed in the ‘Next Steps’ section of this report. Transition planning has already started with the seven young people who would continue to require an educational placement in August 2014. Detailed transition plans have been developed with each young person and both they and their parents/carers have been consulted on their choice of future school. In order to ensure effective communication with parents/carers and young people, and to alleviate their concerns about the changes anticipated, letters would be sent to parents/carers immediately following any Council decision on 1 May 2014 to close the school, asking them to confirm the choices already made about future schools. The letter would acknowledge that there is still the possibility that the Scottish Government could call-in the decision. However as all seven young people now know where they would continue their education if the closure goes ahead the impact is reduced. They have started to engage in regular visits/part time educational provision in their new

Page 8

schools, it is not anticipated that there would be a lack of time to prepare and support young people and their families through this process.

Issue raised Paragraph 4.2 – Concern that some stakeholders are unclear about the consultation process.

Council response The Council recognises that it is sometimes easy for speculation and the necessary preparation and planning for transition to result in some level of confusion about the consultation process for stakeholders. The Council has held two public meetings and a number of others for staff and young people at which it has tried to ensure the consultation process is understood by all stakeholders. Written information about the consultation process has also been made available through the Council website, and in hard copy at the public meetings. Since the visit by Education Scotland further meetings have been held with school teaching and care staff to help clarify the consultation process. It has however been necessary to continue with the transition planning meetings with young people to ensure arrangements are in place should the closure go ahead. The Council considers this a necessary part of their duty of care to young people affected by the proposal.

Issue raised Paragraph 4.3 – reassure parents and carers of young people currently attending Wellington School that their concerns are being taken seriously and will be acted upon.

Council response Since the consultation closed work has continued with the young people and their families to make sure their concerns are responded to and resolved. Throughout the consultation process young people and their families have had access to the independent advocacy service Who Cares? Scotland. This has provided an important and purposeful communication channel directly from parents and their families to Senior Officers to ensure issues are given consideration and addressed promptly.

Key Themes and Issues and Council Responses 3.14 A number of points were recurrent in the public meetings, the consultation undertaken with pupils and in the response received during the consultation period. This section of the report draws out the main themes and issues together with the Council’s response.

Page 9

3.15 Theme: Care and Learning

Issue raised Would there be an opportunity to be away from home/community if necessary?

Council response The city has extensive residential resources there are nine residential units distributed across all neighbourhoods; all have the capacity to offer short term respite when appropriate. In addition, the Edinburgh Families Project has five respite beds that can be accessed in a planned way or, in exceptional circumstances, used to help young people through periods of crisis. Family based care continues to expand the number of respite and emergency carers who can provide young people with time away from their families if required.

Issue raised Are numbers low at Wellington School because young people are not being referred?

Council response The Council oversight group for referrals for additional support, the Case Management Review Group for P7 & secondary, has continued to refer young people to Wellington School throughout the consultation process. Seven new pupils have been placed at Wellington since January 2013. Demand has not approached capacity at any time in this period.

Issue raised What is the level of secure education and accommodation service?

Council response Edinburgh Secure Services delivers a comprehensive education programme to all young people which fully meets the requirements of the Curriculum for Excellence. When young people are transitioning out of secure care, they are usually supported to gradually return to their previous school. If this is not in their best interests, a placement request is submitted for an appropriate alternative. The Case Management Review Group - P7 & secondary would explore placement options, Panmure St Ann’s and Gorgie Mills Schools would be included in this process.

Issue raised Is there a true picture in terms of the demand for residential care or have referral figures been capped?

Council response Demand for residential care and residential school accommodation has been in decline across Scotland in the past 5 years. Demand for residential placements within Council

Page 10

resources has followed a similar trend. In 2010, there were 105 young people in residential care compared to 82 at present. Better outcomes have been achieved by targeted help to young people and their families at an earlier stage to support them to remain in their communities.

Issue raised Consultation with Children’s Panel Members; what information on the full range of options is available to young people with additional learning and support needs?

Council response The full range of additional support for learning options are described on the City of Edinburgh website. As members of the public, Children’s Panel members are invited to contribute to the consultation process. Managers from Support to Children & Young People have regular engagement with the Panel Chairs about proposed changes to services including the proposal to close Wellington.

Issue raised Is the reduction of numbers at Wellington School indicative of plans to reduce numbers at other SEBN schools.

Council response No. There are no other plans to reduce numbers at other SEBN schools.

3.16 Theme: Costs and Visits

Issue raised What are the costs associated with running the Wellington School? What would happen to the £2m saving if Wellington School closes?

Council response The cost is £2.25m per annum to run the school. £1.187m would go towards protecting the overall Children and Families budget in Edinburgh and the other £1.065m would be reinvested to support young people with social emotional and behavioural difficulties.

Issue raised Have Elected Members visited Wellington Schools?

Council response The Convener of Education, Children and Families has met with Wellington staff. Senior Officers from Care and Education backgrounds have regularly visited Wellington School including the Head of Service.

3.17 Theme: Property related matters

Issue raised Concern regarding security, services and potential sale of the

Page 11

property if the proposal to close Wellington goes ahead.

Council response A number of the buildings are not currently in use. Should the decision be made to close the school all buildings would be declared surplus to operational requirements. In line with normal procedures services would be isolated and the property secured and marketed for sale. The Council will consider whether the demolition of some, or all, of the buildings would be appropriate to deliver a timely sale of the land, maximise sale proceeds and minimise security, utilities and rates costs associated with empty properties in the interim. The Council would also consider applying for planning permission prior to marketing for sale if this was felt necessary to deliver a timely sale and maximise sale proceeds.

3.18 Theme: Preservation of Wellington’s Archive and Legacy

Issue raised A number of records of particular historical interest existed with regard to Wellington School. Would these be preserved?

Council response The archive would be preserved and correct procedures would be followed. The City Archivist had already been working with the school to preserve items of historic interest and relocate these where appropriate.

Issue raised Have ex pupils and ex residents been contacted with regard to closure? If the school closed, would there be opportunities to mark the impact and successes of the School?

Council response Communication has been maintained with a number of ex pupils through the care service. The importance of maintaining the legacy of Wellington for former residents and employees is recognised by the Council. The closure would be marked appropriately and in line with current staff and pupils wishes. To mark the considerable value and heritage of the service and we would hope to involve former users and staff and those for whom Wellington has had a significant impact on their personal and/or professional lives.

Special Safeguards for Rural Schools 3.19 Scottish Ministers are required to maintain a list of “rural schools” as referred to in Section 14 of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. Wellington School has been designated an “accessible rural school”.

Page 12

3.20 The consultation on a proposal to close Wellington school set out the special safeguards for Rural Schools in section 8. The three factors below were taken into account and reviewed. Factor 1: Any viable alternative to closure Factor 2: Likely effect on the local community of closure Factor 3: Likely effect on different travelling arrangements 3.21 Following the consultation there has been no change of attitude to the three factors as detailed in the original proposal.

Conclusions The following conclusions have been drawn: 3.22 The school roll has fallen significantly over the last five years and is expected to reduce further from current 11 places to seven in June 2014. 3.23 The number of residential places has decreased, in line with demand, as more young people are accommodated in Edinburgh. 3.24 Educational outcomes for learners are limited in both range and level of achievement. 3.25 Social, emotional and behavioural needs can be met through enhanced pupil support services in special schools and mainstream education. 3.26 The location of the school and the accommodation it offers is not well suited to the current needs and modern models of care and effective education of children and young people with social, emotional and behavioural needs. 3.27 There are long travel times for learners coming from Edinburgh and high transport costs for the Council in providing this service. 3.28 The school buildings are deemed to be in generally poor condition. 3.29 The current education cost per learner is 200% greater than the cost of comparable provision at Gorgie Mills School and Panmure St Ann’s, a difference of £44K per learner. 3.30 The current care cost per young person is 25% greater than the cost of comparable provision within the Young People’ Centres. 3.31 The current cost of a residential school placement is 50% greater than the average purchased placement, ranging from a difference of £26K to £124K. 3.32 The closure of Wellington School would not require changes to be made to existing secondary catchment areas as placement in Wellington School is through a city wide allocation process.

Page 13

Next Steps Scottish Ministers Call-In Powers 3.33 Should the Council approve the recommendation to close Wellington School, the Council is required to refer the decision to Scottish Ministers to allow them the opportunity to call in the proposals if they so wish. 3.34 The Council must notify the Scottish Ministers of a closure decision within six working days (starting on and including the day on which the decision was made) and supply the Scottish Ministers with a copy of the proposal paper and of the consultation report. 3.35 Scottish Ministers have six weeks from the date of the closure decision being made by the Council in which to decide whether to issue a call-in notice to the authority. A call-in notice means that Scottish Ministers may either refuse to consent to the closure proposal or grant their consent for the implementation of the proposal unconditionally or subject to certain conditions. 3.36 A proposal will be called in by Scottish Ministers if they determine that the Council has either failed significantly to comply with the requirements of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 or has failed to “take proper account of a material consideration relevant to its decision to implement the proposal”. 3.37 In considering whether to call in the proposal, Scottish Ministers are to take account of representations made to them within the first three weeks of the six week call-in period. Any persons wishing to make representations to the Scottish Ministers that the decision should, or should not, be called in have three weeks from the date of the Authority’s decision to convey their representations to the Scottish Ministers. 3.38 The Council cannot proceed further with implementing the closure decision wholly or partly before the six week period has expired, unless the Scottish Ministers have given notice before the end of the period that they will not call the decision in.

Timescales 3.39 Should Council take a decision on 1 May 2014 to close Wellington School the six week potential call-in period would conclude on 12 June 2014. If Scottish Ministers did not call in the closure decision then the Council could then enact it. Wellington School would cease to operate from the end of the 2013/14 school year. 3.40 On return from the summer holidays the seven pupils who continue to require an educational placement would attend their new schools. If the school was closed there would be ongoing liaison with staff, parents and pupils. The Children and Families service would work closely with the management teams and staff within

Page 14

Wellington School and the receiving schools to ensure that the transition and integration process was as effective as possible. 3.41 Should Scottish Ministers decide to call in any decision to close Wellington School the Council would be unable to proceed until such time as Scottish Ministers issued their decision. No timescale is set out within the Act for a determination by Scottish Ministers if the Council decision is called in.

Measures of success

4.1 In the event that Council approves the recommendation to close Wellington School with effect from July 2014 the key measures of success are: • The transition and integration process for the remaining seven pupils from Wellington School to their new school being as smooth as possible; • Alternative residential care provision is available; • The education and care needs of children and young people are met within the city of Edinburgh; • Educational outcomes for children with additional needs are improved.

Financial impact

5.1 The current annual cost of services at Wellington is £2.252m. At full capacity this would equate to a residential cost per place of £155,000 a year and education costs per day place of £30,000 a year. At current occupancy levels the cost per day school place is £65,000 a year per head and the cost of a residential placement is £190,000 per child. 5.2 The annual recurring revenue savings from closing Wellington School are £2.252m. The closure would release £1.065m for re-investment to strengthen support for pupils with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties in Edinburgh delivering net annual recurring revenue savings of £1.187m. In addition further economies would be achieved in staff travel and pupil transport. 5.3 The re-investment to strengthen support for pupils with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties would be through: • an additional 12 places at Gorgie Mills School, including 6 enhanced places - £318,000 • additional resources in mainstream secondary schools to meet the needs of pupils within the school - £497,000 • £250,000 designated for any necessary residential places

Page 15

5.4 These proposals offer best use of resources through targeted reinvestment to improve services for children and young people in need whilst also achieving direct economies of approximately £1.187m a year. 5.5 The profile of revenue costs and savings is estimated to be:

Wellington School costs and savings 2014/15 – 2016/17

Description 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total £K £K £K £K

Wellington School 582 0 0 582 running costs

Transition Costs 270 154 0 424

Total Wellington 852 154 0 1,006 School Costs

Funding 2,252 2,252 2,252 6,756

Net Wellington School 1,400 2,098 2,252 5,750 Saving

SEBD reinvestment 2014/15 – 2016/17

Gorgie Mills School 296 318 318 932

Mainstream schools 331 497 497 1,325

Residential provision 157 250 250 657

Net investment 784 1,065 1,065 2,914

Total Savings net of 616 1,033 1,187 2,836 investment

5.6 The transition costs of closing Wellington School will be subject to further assessment should the closure be approved. These costs relate to rates, utilities, security of the site and staffing. The costs would be mitigated wherever possible and be contained within Children and Families budgets and corporate resources where applicable. The value of transition costs would be dependant

Page 16

on the time taken to sell the site and therefore the service will engage with Estates immediately following closure of the school to instigate the sale process. 5.7 It is expected that the displacement of staff could be managed through natural turnover and transfer/redeployment to other Children and Families’ residential and educational services. The Council’s procedures for voluntary release would also be considered where this was felt to be in the best interests of the Council and the employee. 5.8 The school has minimal impact on the local environment and economy. For example, all supplies and services are provided and purchased by the city of Edinburgh Council. However, we plan to advise Midlothian Council and any relevant local stakeholders of the proposals at the earliest opportunity. 5.9 The existing site would become surplus and sold to generate a corporate capital receipt. The service will work with Estates to determine if demolition of some or all buildings on the site is appropriate to deliver a timely sale of the site, maximise sale proceeds and minimise security, utilities and rates costs associated with empty properties in the interim. The Council would also consider applying for planning permission prior to marketing the site if this is felt necessary to deliver a timely sale and maximise sale proceeds. Any costs of demolition and planning permission would be offset against a future capital receipt. 5.10 Whilst the ring-fencing of capital receipts is no longer permitted; in determining the potential use of any capital receipt arising from the disposal of this site Council is asked to note and take into consideration the considerable scale of currently unfunded capital priorities which exist in the Children and Families estate. 5.11 It should be noted that, based on a condition survey in February 2013, an estimated repairs and maintenance pressure at Wellington School of £1,235,892 over the next 5 years would be avoided were the school to close.

Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact

6.1 Key risks to the Council should the recommendations within this report be rejected include: • An estimated repairs and maintenance pressure at Wellington School of over £1.2m over the next five years would remain; • Budgeted net financial savings of £616K in 2014/15, £1.033m in 2015/16 and £1.187m from 2016/17 onwards would not be realised; • Budgeted investment of £784K in 2014/15 and £1.065m from 2015/16 onwards to support young people with social, emotional and behavioural needs would not be available.

Page 17

Equalities impact

7.1 A full equalities impact assessment has been carried out. There are considered to be no infringements of the rights of the young people in relation to this proposal. 7.2 Wellington School provides care and education for boys. The impact on equalities will be positive as enhanced support alternatives will be available to both sexes. Young people will have their needs met locally within Edinburgh.

Sustainability impact

8.1 There are positive impacts on the environment arising from this proposal. The reduction of significant daily transport demands to the school and the subsequent reduction in fuel consumption would have a beneficial environmental impact and the six buildings at Wellington will no longer require maintenance and heating.

Consultation and engagement

9.1 The Council is required to carry out formal statutory consultation procedures with regard to the closure of school as prescribed in the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. The consultation has been undertaken and this report sets out the Council’s response. 9.2 The Council is further required to advertise and publish this report three weeks before its consideration on 1 May 2014 to allow those who made a response an opportunity to consider the report and its conclusion and give them time, if they so wish, to express their views. 9.3 The outcome to the consultation will be published on the Council website and reference copies of will be made available at the three affected schools, Fountainbridge Library, Central Library, Balgreen Library, Penicuik Library and at Waverley Court Reception.

Background reading / external references

Improving Support for Children and Young People in Need in Edinburgh – Consultation on a Proposal to Close Wellington Special School in Midlothian – E,C&F Report 8 October 2013 Wellington HMIe Inspection Report – August 2010 Wellington Care Inspectorate Report – June 2013

Page 18

Curriculum for Excellence – the Senior Phase A Statement from the Curriculum for Excellence Management Board.

Gillian Tee Director of Children and Families Contact: Alistair Gaw, Head of Support to Children and Young People E-mail: [email protected]| Tel: 0131 469 3388 Links

Coalition pledges P1. Increase support for vulnerable children, including help for families so that fewer go into care P4. Draw up a long-term strategic plan to tackle both overcrowding and under use in schools

Council outcomes CO2. Our children and young people are successful learners, confident individuals and responsible citizens making a positive contribution to their communities CO3. Our children and young people in need, or with a disability, have improved life chances CO5. Our children and young people are safe from harm or fear of harm, and do not harm others within their communities CO6. Our children and young people’s outcomes are not undermined by poverty and inequality

Single Outcome SO3. Edinburgh’s children and young people enjoy their Agreement childhood and fulfil their potential

Appendices 1. Summary of Consultation paper 2. Education Scotland Report 3. Record of public meetings 21 and 23 January 2014 4. Consultation with pupils report 5. Written response to consultation

Page 19

Consultation on a Proposal to Close Wellington School Affecting Gorgie Mills School and Panmure St Ann’s

Summary Paper

The City of Edinburgh Council is consulting on a proposal to close Wellington School which is situated south of Penicuik in Midlothian. This paper provides a summary of the proposal. A more detailed consultation paper is available – please see the contact details at the end of this paper for more information.

Why is the Council considering the closure of Wellington School?

The City of Edinburgh Council is committed to delivering the highest level of service for every child and family in Edinburgh wherever possible in their own communities and within the city of Edinburgh.

Most looked after and accommodated children and young people in Edinburgh are placed in foster care or kinship care and the need for residential care placements has declined over recent years. Overall demand for residential school placements for children and young people from Edinburgh has reduced from 43 in 2008 to 20 in 2013. As the priority is to further develop community-based provision in the city, this figure is expected to continue to fall.

The City of Edinburgh Council makes provision for most children and young people with additional support for learning needs within mainstream schools. In addition, around 850 learners with a range of additional support needs attend 13 special schools.

Wellington School currently provides services to 23 boys. The service has the capacity to provide 50 places; 42 day placements, up to six residential and two respite placements. Due to declining demand the school is operating well below capacity. There are currently six young people in the residential unit and 17 in day placements. The average attendance rate for session 2012/13 was 75.65%. Neither the location of the school nor the model of provision fit well with present day practice. Despite the best efforts of the staff the provision has become increasingly out of step with the Council’s priorities for Looked After Children, the ethos of Getting it Right for Every Child and the effective delivery of school education.

The rationale for closure

The rationale for the closure of Wellington School can be summarised as follows: • The school roll has fallen significantly over the last five years and is expected to reduce further. • Educational outcomes for learners are limited in both range and level of achievement. • The location of the school and the accommodation it offers is not well suited to the current needs and modern models of care and effective education of children and young people with social, emotional and behavioural needs.

• The school buildings are deemed to be in generally poor condition. • The number of residential places has decreased, in line with demand as more young people are accommodated in Edinburgh. • The quality of education and care compares less favourably with other special schools and residential provision. • The current education cost per learner is 200% greater than the cost of comparable provision at Gorgie Mills School and Panmure St Ann’s, a difference of £44K per learner. • The current care cost per young person is 25% greater than the cost of comparable provision within the Young People’ Centres. • The current cost of a residential school placement is 50% greater than the average purchased placement, ranging from a difference of £26K to £124K. • There are long travel times for learners coming from Edinburgh and high transport costs for the Council in providing this service.

Proposed alternative provision

The closure of Wellington School would not require changes to be made to existing secondary catchment areas as placement in Wellington School is through a city wide allocation process.

A range of options offer more suitable alternative provision. These are: • If the closure of Wellington goes ahead, from August 2014 the capacity of Gorgie Mills School will increase from 60 to 72 full time learner places by creating o an additional class of up to six places. o an on-campus intensive support service for up to six young people. • Full-time special school places from S2 to leavers in Panmure St Ann’s • Additional resources for mainstream secondary schools to strengthen support for children and young people within those schools. • Enhanced family and community support services working as part of an integrated approach including additional supports in communities and schools. • Commissioned services from proven providers – if the learning and care needs of any young person would not be fully met by any of the options above, the Council will commission care and education services based on the young person’s care plan and a full assessment of need.

The small number of learners who may require residential provision will be accommodated within suitable care provision in Edinburgh.

When would this happen?

It is proposed that Wellington School would close in June 2014 at the end of the 2013/14 session. The changes for Gorgie Mills, Panmure St Ann’s and mainstream provision would be implemented for the August 2014 start of session.

What would happen to the school site?

If the decision is taken to close Wellington School, it is proposed that the associated land and buildings would be declared surplus and sold for a capital receipt. Any cost

2 legitimately incurred in disposing of the land and building would be offset against the capital receipt.

There would be one off-costs associated with closing the building (e.g. boarding up/ utility disconnections/ and removal of furniture and fittings. Ongoing security costs would be accrued until the future use of the buildings is resolved.

Where can I get more information or comment on the proposals?

The Council website, www.edinburgh.gov.uk/wellingtonconsultation 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 by e-mail to [email protected]. All responses to the consultation paper should be received by Friday 31 January 2014 and addressed to the Director of Children and Families.

The consultation period for the proposal paper will run from 4 December 2013 to 31 January 2014 and the full consultation paper is available electronically and in paper format. Public meetings will be held in respect of the proposal at the venues listed below.

Venue Date Time Tynecastle High School Tuesday 21 January 2014 7pm – 9pm 17-19 McLeod Street Edinburgh EH11 2NJ Penicuik Town Hall Thursday 23 January 2014 7pm – 9pm 33 High Street Penicuik EH26 8HS

At the end of the consultation period, the Council will send to Education Scotland a copy of the proposal paper; written representations received by the authority during the consultation period (or, if agreed, a summary of representations) and a record of the public meetings.

When will a decision be taken on whether to proceed with the proposed closure?

Following the statutory consultation period, officers will consider all the points that have been raised in writing or at the public meetings and will make a final recommendation to Councillors. This report will be discussed at the Council Meeting on 1 May 2014 when the final decision will be taken.

Gillian Tee Director of Children and Families City of Edinburgh Council Council Headquarters Waverley Court Level 1:9 (Wellington Consultation) 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG 3

You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats if you ask us. Please contact Interpretation and Translation Service (ITS) on 0131 242 8181 and quote reference number 13-0777A. ITS can also give information on community language translations. You can get more copies of this document by calling Fran Cattanach on 0131 469 3074 or email your request to [email protected]

Consultation proposal by The City of Edinburgh Council

Report by Education Scotland, addressing educational aspects of the proposal to close Wellington School.

Context

This report from Education Scotland is required under the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. It has been prepared by HM Inspectors in accordance with the terms of the Act. The purpose of this report is to provide an independent and impartial consideration of the council’s consultation proposal. Section 2 of this report sets out the views expressed by consultees during the initial consultation process. Section 3 sets out HM Inspectors’ consideration of the educational aspects of the proposal and the views expressed by consultees. Section 4 summarises HM Inspectors’ overall view of the proposal. Upon receipt of this report, the Act requires the council to consider it and then prepare its final consultation report. The council’s final consultation report should include a copy of this report and must contain an explanation of how it has reviewed the initial proposal, including a summary of points raised during the consultation and the council’s response to them. The council has to publish its final consultation report three weeks before it takes its final decision. As the council is proposing to close a school, it will need to follow all legislative obligations set out in the 2010 Act, including notifying Ministers within six working days of making its final decision and explaining the opportunity for representations to be made to Ministers.

1. Introduction

1.1 The City of Edinburgh Council proposes to close Wellington School from August 2014. Wellington School is a special school for boys between the ages of 13 and 16 with significant social, emotional and behavioural needs. It can also offer residential and respite placements for young people.

1.2 The report from Education Scotland is required under the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. It has been prepared by HM Inspectors 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 meetings held on Tuesday 21 January and Thursday 23 January 2014 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 information on all schools affected; and  visits to the site of Gorgie Mills School, Wellington School and Panmure St Ann’s School, including discussion with relevant consultees.

1.4 HM Inspectors considered:

 the likely effects of the proposal for children and young people of the school; any other users 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.

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.

Young people attending Wellington School have been involved in a consultation process with Who Cares? Scotland. This involved focus groups and online questionnaires. Most of the young people who responded to the consultation process disagreed with the proposal to close Wellington School. None of them could think of any advantages to the proposal and their concerns included the need to move to other residential accommodation and uncertainty in relation to where they would continue their education. Since the consultation, several young people have had meetings to discuss where they could continue their education if the proposal is accepted. A few of them are attending other educational establishments on a part-time trial basis. Young people appreciate the small classes at Wellington School and the one-to-one support from teachers and care staff. A few young people indicated that they have attended Wellington School when they would not have attended their mainstream school.

2.2 Parents and carers of young people attending Wellington school are not happy about the proposed closure. They appreciate the difference which Wellington School has made to their children, who attend the school regularly when they would not attend their mainstream school. The support provided by care staff is particularly appreciated. They acknowledge, however, that attending other schools, such as Gorgie Mills School, would give their children a better education and it would not be so easy for them to opt out of particular classes. They reported that information about the proposed closure had a very negative effect on their children, a few of whom were now refusing to attend because they feel that there is no point in doing so.

2.3 Staff at Wellington School are concerned about the likely outcomes for the young people who currently attend the school if it closes. They recognise that there are financial difficulties with continuing to offer provision on the current site, but feel that creating a small base within Gorgie Mills school could not meet the specific needs of young people requiring the highest levels of intervention and support as well as Wellington School currently does. They feel that the authority has not been accepting referrals for the school for quite some time and that this has contributed to the decline in pupil numbers. The authority has however placed seven young people in Wellington since early 2013. Relationships between staff and young people, especially those young people who are resident at the school, are seen as an

important factor in helping pupils to develop confidence and social skills. Wellington School senior managers feel that prior to the consultation, the school was at the beginning of a period of positive change with a focus on improving the quality of education. Since the announcement of the proposal, morale is low and young people are reluctant to engage in learning. Staff feel that the school should not close and that there is a need to continue to offer education, support and care there for some young people.

2.4 Young people attending Gorgie Mills School are very positive about welcoming young people from Wellington School to their own school. They understand that starting at a new school is a difficult process as they have all gone through it themselves and that it will take some time for them to settle. However, they think that it is helpful that young people attending Wellington School know many of their peers who attend Gorgie Mills School. They think that young people from Wellington School will enjoy attending Gorgie Mills School as learning is fun in lessons and they will have more opportunity to take part in team sports.

2.5 Parents of young people attending Gorgie Mills School are extremely enthusiastic about the benefits which they have found through their child being placed there and think that it provides a good quality of education. They are sure that parents of young people who currently attend Wellington School will also appreciate the family-centred approach of Gorgie Mills School. They are particularly grateful for the support they have received from the headteacher and which their children have received from the family support team. They would be keen to support parents of young people who currently attend Wellington School in any way they can.

2.6 Staff at Gorgie Mills School are positive about the proposal and about the prospect of young people from Wellington coming to their school. Teachers acknowledge that it would be appropriate to have provision for young people with more severe and complex needs within their own school rather than referring them on to a separate, distant provision. Support staff think that the proposal builds on joint work which is already taking place between Gorgie Mills School, Wellington School and Panmure St Ann’s School. Senior managers welcome the possibility of additional young people attending the school and the proposed unit provision to meet the needs of young people who require a high level of support. However, some staff are under the impression that almost all young people from Wellington School would be placed in a separately run unit within their school rather than being included within Gorgie Mills classes.

2.7 Young people attending Panmure St Ann’s School are very enthusiastic about the opportunities which their school offers. They feel well supported by staff in their classes, but are concerned that if more young people come to their school from Wellington School, it could put staff under strain by having to deal with higher numbers. They are also aware of the restricted nature of available space in their school and that there can be issues with space for learning and meetings. They would, however, welcome young people coming from Wellington School and are certain that they would benefit from coming to Panmure St Ann’s School. Many of those who attend the school have significantly higher levels of attendance than they had at mainstream school.

2.8 Parents of young people attending Panmure St Ann’s School have some concerns that introducing new pupils from Wellington School could unsettle their children. However, they realise that the school has benefited their children and would be likely to help other young people who are referred there. They feel that Panmure St Ann’s School provides their children with a more appropriate education than mainstream did and that skilled staff provide them with a high level of support for their learning.

2.9 Staff from Panmure St Ann’s School feel that the school is able to meet the needs of some pupils from Wellington School. However, they also feel that there is a need to continue to offer a range of provision across the city and Wellington School should be retained. Some members of staff feel that each of the existing establishments has a place in offering support to match the range of needs of young people. Staff are also concerned about the lack of space and especially the lack of outdoor space at break times and for physical activity. They have concerns about how additional pupils will impact on their ability to provide high levels of support to young people within their groups. They are reluctant to introduce restraint approaches as a form of managing challenging behaviour. However, staff are clear that young people from Wellington School will be well supported and welcomed to the school. Senior managers in Panmure St Ann’s school also welcome the prospect of Wellington pupils attending, whilst sharing similar concerns to that of staff in relation to facilities and space.

3. Educational aspects of the proposal

3.1 The City of Edinburgh Council have initiated this proposal because of a declining roll at Wellington School. Numbers have decreased from 46 in 2009/10 to 11 in 2013/14. This is largely because of increasing capacity for meeting behaviour needs within secondary schools and improved provision within the council for children and young people who are looked after, or are at risk of becoming looked after.

3.2 Young people have a comparatively restricted curriculum at Wellington School compared to other special schools. Young people attending Gorgie Mills School and Panmure St Ann’s School have access to greater curricular choice and a wider range of achievement and accreditation than those who attend Wellington School. This is accepted by staff at Wellington School as well as by parents and carers. As such, the move is of overall educational benefit to those young people directly affected by it.

3.3 According to data provided by the council, young people who attend Wellington School do not attain as well or as broadly as those who attend other special schools such as Gorgie Mills or Panmure St Ann’s Schools. Similarly, these schools have demonstrated continuous improvement in attainment and achievement over the past three years where Wellington School has not. The council makes a reasonable case that young people will get a better education by attending either of these special schools.

3.4 The council also notes a range of financial aspects which have contributed to the rationale for closure. For example, the current education cost per learner at Wellington School is 200% greater than that at Gorgie Mills and Panmure St Ann’s Schools, and the care cost is 25% greater. Similarly, the cost of a residential placement at Wellington School is 50% greater than the average purchased placement. There are also high costs to transport non-residents to the school and long journey times for these young people. Implementation of the proposal will support the council in its duty to secure best value.

3.5 The council indicates that developments in mainstream schools to support social and emotional needs will be further enhanced, as appropriate, to facilitate an increased availability of a range of support, including better integrated approaches incorporating family and community support. However, discussions relating to these developments are at an early stage.

3.6 The council will continue to offer provision for young people who require more intensive support. It proposes to increase the capacity of Gorgie Mills School from 60 to 72 places, whilst an additional class of up to six young people will be created within the current school accommodation. The proposal notes that this will require a ‘small scale modification’, but does not highlight that this will involve structural alterations to the building, including the subdivision and re-flooring of an area which is currently two stories in height, creating an extra room on the first floor. Other areas of the school are currently unoccupied and could serve as alternative accommodation for the specialist facility.

3.7 The council realises that any relocation from Wellington School to a new, specialist facility in Gorgie Mills School will be difficult for young people. It intends to mitigate these effects by ensuring that some of the staff who have been working with them at Wellington School will transfer with them to Gorgie Mills School. However, a number of these staff have already left Wellington School for permanent posts elsewhere.

3.8 Young people attending Wellington School have already been adversely affected by the proposal. In order to ensure that enough time is available for transition, future needs meetings have been held for these young people in advance of the proposal being approved. Very few young people now attend Wellington School on a regular basis.

4. Summary

4.1 The City of Edinburgh Council proposal to close Wellington School from August 2014 is of overall educational benefit to the young people directly affected by it. Implementation of the proposal will also help the council secure its duty to deliver best value. However, the council needs to consider extending the proposed date of closure to ensure it can put in place appropriate transitional arrangements for young people with such significant needs. Scottish Ministers have the right to call-in decisions to close schools. The current timeline for this proposal does not give sufficient consideration to the possible impact of this process on the council’s plans and on the young people concerned. If the council cannot advise young people and parents definitively until a late stage in the school year of the school they will be

expected to attend in the following school session, it could be very detrimental to the young people’s education. The current timescale for the proposal makes it difficult to avoid this. In taking forward the proposal, the council needs to ensure that it provides sufficient time for effective communication with parents, staff and young people to alleviate some of their concerns and ensure appropriately planned, effective transitions for young people.

4.2 In taking forward the proposal the council needs to ensure that all stakeholders are clear about the consultation process. A number of young people, parents and staff from each of the schools involved in the proposal are under the impression that the proposed closure has already been agreed and will therefore take place. This has been underlined by the series of transition planning meetings for young people at Wellington School which have been taking place before the consultation process is complete or a decision reached on whether or not the proposal should go ahead.

4.3 The council needs to reassure parents and carers of young people currently attending Wellington School that their concerns are being taken seriously and will be acted upon. Parents and carers are extremely worried about the outcomes for their children as a result of the proposal and they have reported direct effects on the young people who are worried about the move.

4.4 Given the proposed date for the closure of the school in August 2014, the council needs to investigate the feasibility of the relevant building work being completed by this date, subject to the proposal being accepted. This aspect was not made clear in the proposal, nor was it highlighted in the public consultation meetings. The council proposes to subdivide existing accommodation horizontally, creating two rooms from a single two-storey room. The proposal refers to this as a small scale modification to enhance the accommodation. The council also needs to investigate the feasibility of using other available parts of Gorgie Mills School accommodation for the new specialist facility.

4.5 The council plans to provide enhanced support to mainstream schools to increase the capacity of these schools to meet a wider range of needs. However, the discussions about how best to do this are currently at an early stage.

HM Inspectors Education Scotland February 2014

Record of Meeting

Proposed Closure of Wellington School Public Consultation Meeting held at 7.00 pm, Tuesday, 21 January 2014, Tynecastle High School, Edinburgh

Present: Approximately 12 members of the public In Attendance: Peter Wilson (Independent Chair), Councillor Cathy Fullerton, Gillian Tee (Director of Children and Families), Alastair Gaw (Head of Support to Children and Young People), Rosie Wilson (Service Manager, Special Schools and Specialist Provision), Frank Phelan (Team Manager Specialist Residential Care), Moyra Wilson (Senior Education Manager), Fran Cattanach (Business Support) Terri Dwyer (Head Teacher, Gorgie Mills School).

1. Introduction Mr Peter Wilson introduced himself and advised that he had been invited by the Council as an independent person to chair the public consultation meeting. The consultation was based on the proposal to close Wellington School in Midlothian. The Schools (Consultation Scotland) Act 2010 required the Council to consult Education Scotland on the proposals. The public consultation would provide people with the opportunity to express their views and feed directly into the consultation process, which would ensure that the correct decision was made in terms of whether Wellington School was closed or not. Councillor Cathy Fullerton welcomed everyone to the meeting. Reassurance was given that no decision had been made in terms of whether Wellington School would close, and the consultation process would encompass the views of parents and the public to ensure that the final decision that would be made reflected these views. A decision would be taken by Full Council on 1 May 2014. The decision would be based on a report that incorporated all the views expressed by parents and the public. 2. Presentation Alastair Gaw (Head of Support to Children and Young People), gave a presentation that provided some context in terms of the provision available for children and young people with additional support for learning needs and the reasons for the proposed closure of Wellington School. Most children and young people with additional support for learning needs attended mainstream schools in Edinburgh. Currently, around eight hundred and thirty learners with a range of significant additional support needs attended specialist provision that

included special schools. The use of residential schools for pupils with social, emotional and/or behavioural needs had reduced significantly. Wellington School was proposed for closure for several reasons. The school was working below capacity partly because of its rural location and that it was a considerable distance from Edinburgh. The school currently provided services to fifteen boys, with five of the boys using the residential service and ten in day placements. The buildings had the capacity to provide fifty places, forty two day placements and up to six residential and two respite placements. The demand for places at Wellington School had fallen, the school roll had fallen significantly in the last five years and the roll was expected to reduce further. The educational outcomes for learners were limited in both range and level of achievement, and the rural location of the school did not support learning. In terms of the accommodation, Wellington School was not suited to the best models of care, the number of residential places had decreased as demand had fallen, and the accommodation was used on a part-time basis. The costs of transporting students to and from Wellington School were high, and travelling conditions could be poor in the winter time, and the school buildings were generally in poor condition. A condition survey had been carried out of the buildings in February 2013, and was rated ‘C – poor’ (showing major defects and/or not operating properly.) The survey recommended that £1,235, 892 of investment was required over the next 5 years, which equated to approximately £1,035,000 of capital improvements and £201,000 of revenue day to day repairs. The education costs per learner were two hundred per cent greater than the costs of comparable provision, which was a difference of £44,000 per learner. The care costs per young person were twenty five per cent greater than the cost of comparable provision within the Young Peoples’ Centres, and the current cost of a residential school placement was fifty per cent greater than the average purchased placement, and ranged from a difference of £26,000 to £124,000. 3. The Proposal Alastair explained the proposal as follow:- • Wellington School would be closed in July 2014 • The capacity of Gorgie Mills School would be increased from sixty to seventy two full time learner places • Enhanced provision would be used at Panmure St Ann’s • Services within mainstream schools would be enhanced • Exceptional services would be commissioned Work was currently being carried out with Head Teachers to develop additional provision for children and young people in mainstream schools. As mentioned above, the capacity of Gorgie Mills School would be increased from sixty to seven-two full time learners, and an additional class would be created for up to six places, and on-campus enhanced support would be offered for up to six young people. There would be full- Public Consultation Meeting, Tynecastle High School, Edinburgh - Proposed Closure of Wellington School, 21 January 2014 Page 2 time places from S2 to leavers in Panmure St Ann’s school, and specific services would always be maintained and/or, if required, commissioned for students who had needs that could not be supported within the current provision. Reassurance was given that the City of Edinburgh Council was committed to delivering the highest level of service for every child and family wherever possible in their own communities, and £8.6m from the Change Fund had been invested including enhanced community-based family support services. It was acknowledged that individual care and learning plans were very important in supporting young people in their transition from Wellington School. The consultation would finish on 31 January 2014, and the views of pupils in Wellington, Gorgie Mills and Panmure St Ann’s were currently being gathered. The minute of tonight’s meeting would be sent to Education Scotland, who would produce a report for consideration and decision by Full Council on 1 May 2014. 4. Questions and Comments

Question1 – What are the views of the staff and pupils from Wellington, Gorgie Mills and Panmure St Ann’s Schools on the closure of Wellington School? Answer – ‘Who Cares’ are an independent organisation that have been speaking to pupils in Gorgie Mills School about how they feel about pupils from Wellington School moving to Gorgie Mills School. Most of the pupils from Gorgie Mills felt positive about pupils from Wellington School moving to Gorgie Mills. (Frank Phelan) – Some of the pupils from Wellington are anxious about moving, some are excited and some are feeling a combination of both. Some staff and pupils want Wellington School to continue as it is,and staff are worried about what will happen to the next generation of pupils that may not be able to attend Wellington School if it closes. Question 2 – The same issues will still be present when pupils move to Gorgie Mills – how will this be tackled? How will these young peoples’ needs change? I am surprised that pupils have not been on visits. Answer – (Alistair Gaw) There are a number of ways of meeting the levels of need that young people have and Wellington Schools has been a model for doing this. In Edinburgh, the intention is to offer a better range of services to meet their needs. Joint work with primary school age children in Rowanfield primary school has been carried out to make the transition to secondary school easier. The majority of pupils from special needs primary schools will go to mainstream secondary school and will thrive there. The residential school environment makes it difficult for pupils to be rehabilitated back into a mainstream environment. A small majority of young people may require a level of care that other young people do not. This can be provided through enhanced support at Gorgie Mills School or pupils can be held in one of the twelve secure places available in Edinburgh. This level of support can be provided without the need for residential care. Question 3 – What enhanced level of service is possible at Gorgie Mills School in terms of secure accommodation? Question 4 – Where do young people go that are in residential secure accommodation?

Public Consultation Meeting, Tynecastle High School, Edinburgh - Proposed Closure of Wellington School, 21 January 2014 Page 3 Answer – (Gillian Tee) I acknowledge that not all the needs of young people will be met in mainstream schools. Provision is being enhances at Gorgie Mills School along with the twelve secure places that are available for those who need it. (Alastair Gaw) We would like to take one step at a time and would only propose to reduce the level of residential care after the proposal to close Wellington School was approved. Currently, there was not the demand for the twelve secure places available and the residential population had always traditionally been much younger girls. Alternative ways of meeting their needs were being investigated. Question 5 – Would visits to Gorgie Mills and Panmure St Ann’s School be offered to Wellington School pupils? Answer – (Gillian Tee) Pupils from Wellington School are being given a choice in terms of whether they visit Gorgie Mills and Panmure St Ann’s Schools. The views of pupils from Wellington, Gorgie Mills and Panmure St Ann’s will be included in the report that goes to Full Council on 1 May 2014. Question 6 - There is a coalition pledge and strategic plan to tackle provision for pupils will support needs in schools. What work are Head Teachers doing in schools and what is contained within the strategic plan? Answer – (Alastair Gaw) The City of Edinburgh Council is trying to meet the needs of pupils with support needs within a family setting and believe that sending pupils to a rural location is not the right thing to do. This comes from the Children and Families Services Plan for 2013-2016. Enhanced services are all highly consistent with coalition pledges and young people with support needs being close to their communities. (Gillian Tee) The capacity of schools are expanded and contracted according to where the children are. Schools that will be under pressure in future years in terms of their capacity will be identified and schools that will have more capacity and places in the future will be identified. A strengthening support member/officer working group is in place to ensure that young people with support needs are given the provision they require at every part of the system. All of this work cannot be done in isolation, and a partnership approach is essential with relevant organisations to deliver the provision required. The City of Edinburgh Council has a strong commitment to early intervention, strengthening provision and building on good practice. Question 7 – Is there a true picture in terms of the demand for residential care or have referral figures been capped in mainstream education? Answer – (Alastair Gaw) The changes at Rowanfield Primary School and the work being done with primary seven pupils to ease the transition to mainstream secondary schools has led to a decrease in the number of referrals to residential care. Better outcomes have been achieved by not placing young people in secure or residential care. A period of change was happening in the department and there was a move away from referring young people to secure or residential accommodation. Question 8 – Children’s Panel Members would like to see the full range of options that are available to young people with additional learning and support needs. Is the Children’s Panel being formally consulted about their views on the closure of Wellington School?

Public Consultation Meeting, Tynecastle High School, Edinburgh - Proposed Closure of Wellington School, 21 January 2014 Page 4 Answer – (Alastair Gaw) Children’s Panel members are not part of the statutory consultation, but there is regular engagement with the Panel Chairs and regular dialogue in terms of the proposed closure of Wellington. I would encourage and welcome Children’s Panel members to feed their comments into the consultation process, and will check to see if they can be formally invited to comment. (Gillian Tee) We are determined that we will meet the needs of young people. Wellington School is for boys only and we need to meet the needs of all young people and make best use of the money we have. Better use could be made of the resources spent in Wellington in terms of the unit and transport costs. We will ensure that we have enough residential provision in Edinburgh for those who need it, and we currently have a lot of residential provision in comparison to other local authorities. We will also take on board of the feedback gathered from the consultation. (Councillor Cathy Fullerton) Care of children and young people is a top priority for the City of Edinburgh Council. Question 9 – What level of qualifications and calibre of staff will be filling positions at Gorgie Mills and Panmure St Ann’s Schools? What are the support arrangements for pupils that have specific behavioural problems in mainstream schools? Answer – (Terri Dwyer) The qualifications of the staff at Gorgie Mills are first class. If Wellington School does go ahead, as a Head Teacher, I would be looking for staff with the highest level of qualifications and skills, and anyone is welcome to visit the school. (Rosie Wilson) There is £318,000 going to Gorgie Mills School for two lots of staffing to enable the recruitment of high quality staff. (Gillian Tee) Work was taking place to look at this with Head Teachers. Restorative practice training was being rolled out to all staff in schools, it is acknowledged that this will not meet the needs of all young people. (Alastair Gaw) The Head Teacher of Portobello High School was leading on this and identifying which schools needed the most resources to provide the support required by young people. A bespoke service would not be introduced in schools and it will be up to each individual school to decide how they would like to do this. Question10/Comment – (Terri Dwyer) Lots of people think that the proposed closure of Wellington School is positive from the perspective of merging care and education for young people. Answer – (Gillian Tee) The staff at Wellington School have done valuable work over the years and the closure is not related to this. The good practice of the staff at Wellington will be maintained, and I want to make it absolutely clear that the work of the staff is valued. 5. Conclusion Peter Wilson, in concluding the meeting, thanked the audience for the questions and points made this evening. These would be recorded and submitted to Education Scotland, and a final report would be presented to Council on 1 May 2014 for a decision. Councillor Cathy Fullerton reassured the audience that members would carefully scrutinise the report before making a decision.

Public Consultation Meeting, Tynecastle High School, Edinburgh - Proposed Closure of Wellington School, 21 January 2014 Page 5 Record of Meeting

Proposed Closure of Wellington School Public Consultation Meeting held at 7.00 pm, Thursday, 23 January 2014, Penicuik Town Hall, Edinburgh

Present: Approximately 20 members of the public In Attendance: Peter Wilson (Independent Chair), Councillor Paul Godzik, Gillian Tee (Director of Children and Families), Alastair Gaw (Head of Support to Children and Young People), Rosie Wilson (Service Manager, Special Schools and Specialist Provision), Scott Dunbar (Service Manager ,Support to Children & Young People), Grace Vickers (Quality Improvement Manager, Schools & Community Services), Suzanne Glancy (Projects Manager, Support to Children & Young People), Terri Dwyer (Head Teacher Gorgie Mills), Angelina Lombardo (Head Teacher, Panmure).

1. Introduction Mr Peter Wilson introduced himself and advised that he had been invited by the Council as an independent person to chair the public consultation meeting. The consultation was based on the proposal to close Wellington School in Midlothian. The Schools (Consultation Scotland) Act 2010 required the Council to consult Education Scotland on the proposals. The public consultation would provide people with the opportunity to express their views and feed directly into the consultation process, which would ensure that the correct decision was made in terms of the whether Wellington School was closed or not. Councillor Paul Godzik welcomed everyone to the meeting. Reassurance was given that no decision had been made in terms of whether Wellington School would close, and the consultation process would encompass the views of parents and the public to ensure that the final decision that would be made reflected these views. A decision would be taken by Full Council on 1 May 2014. The decision would be based on a report that incorporated all the views expressed by parents and the public. 2. Presentation Alastair Gaw (Head of Support to Children and Young People), gave a presentation that provided some context in terms of the provision available for children and young people with additional support for learning needs and the reasons for the proposed closure of Wellington School. Most children and young people with additional support for learning needs attended mainstream schools in Edinburgh. Currently, around eight hundred and thirty learners with a range of significant additional support needs attended specialist provision that

o The increase of capacity from 60 to 72 full time learner places. o To provide a space in the school for an additional class of up to six places o To provide on-campus enhanced support service for up to six young people. • Use enhanced provision at Panmure St Ann’s, including:

o Full-time places from S2 to leavers in Panmure St Anns

Public Consultation Meeting, Penicuik Town Hall, Edinburgh - Proposed Closure of Wellington High School, 23 January 2014 Page 2 • To provide additional resources to strengthen support and enhance services within mainstream schools. • Commission exceptional services if required. 4. Questions and Comments Peter Wilson, as Chairman, then invited questions or comments from the audience - firstly from members of the public and parents with children at the school. Questions, taking these in groups where possible, and the answers from the Council officers, in summary, were as follows - Question 1 –City of Edinburgh Council Councillors along with other Council spokespersons had been invited to visit the Wellington School. Had a visit taken place? Answer – There had not yet been a visit by councillors, however, Councillor Paul Godzik agreed to meet with staff. Senior Officers from Care and Education background had visited the School and would continue to visit including Alistair Gaw, Head of Service. Question 2 – Has a final decision been made with regard to the closure of Wellington School? It would appear that actions had already been taken with a view to closing the school. Answer – The final decision on the future of Wellington School would be made at the Full Council meeting on 1 May 2014. The level of demand had fallen over a number of years due to work being undertaken at primary school stage and the long term strategy to cater for pupils in mainstream schools. Question 3 – What arrangements are in place for the security of the school and thereafter? Answer – The City of Edinburgh Council would be disposing of the site and would be responsible for making the building safe and secure. Question 4 – A number of records of particular historical interest existed with regard to Wellington School. Would these be preserved? Answer- The archive would be preserved and correct procedures would be carried out. The City Archivist was available to provide further information. Question 5 – Had there been any general feedback provided by the current pupils? Answer – A level of reassurance had been required for a lot of the pupils. There had been a lot of engagement and work undertaken to facilitate possible change as best as possible. Question 6 – What were the costs associated with running the school? Answer – The cost was £2.25m per annum to run the school. Question 7 - Why are a number of the buildings underused? Answer - Due to the under capacity use of the school a number of the buildings had been closed. There was also a level of legacy farm buildings.

Public Consultation Meeting, Penicuik Town Hall, Edinburgh - Proposed Closure of Wellington High School, 23 January 2014 Page 3 Question 7 – What job security would be offered to current staff at Wellington School? Answer – The Council had a no non-compulsory redundancy policy. Staff are highly skilled and needed within Edinburgh. All staff would be offered redeployment. Question 8 – Was it the intention of the Council to sell the property to a housing developer? Answer – It was the intention of the City of Edinburgh Council to secure maximum value for the site. Any planning permission would be subject to Midlothian Council approval. Question 9 – Were provisions in place to deal with street lighting and sewage works once the school had closed? Answer – These would be issues that Midlothian Council would be made aware of. A more detailed response could be built into the consultation papers. Question 10 – Had ex pupils and ex residents been contacted with regard to closure? Answer – Communication was maintained with a large number of ex pupils through the care service. It is important to maintain the legacy of Wellington for former resident and an employees. Question 11 – Was the reduction of numbers at Wellington School indicative of plans to reduce numbers at other SEBN schools. Answer – There was no other plans to close schools. Support would be provided where required. Question 12 – What would happen to the £2m saved by closing Wellington School? Answer - £1m would go towards protecting the Education budget in Edinburgh and the other £1m would be reinvested to support young people with social emotional and behavioural difficulties. Question 13 – If the school closed, would there be celebrations to mark the impact and success of the School? Answer – The closure would be marked appropriately and in line with current staff and pupils wishes. 5. Conclusion Peter Wilson, in concluding the meeting, thanked the audience for the questions and points made this evening. These were being recorded and would be submitted with the report to go to the Council on 1 May 2013. Nothing would be decided until that meeting of the Council when all the facts would be put before the elected members of the Council.

Public Consultation Meeting, Penicuik Town Hall, Edinburgh - Proposed Closure of Wellington High School, 23 January 2014 Page 4 Wellington School – Consultation on Closure Proposal

Pupil consultation report Pupils were consulted as part of the overall consultation on the proposal to close Wellington. The pupil consultation started in early December 2013 and finished on Friday 24 January 2014.

Background and context In preparation for the consultation with pupils, key questions on the principles underpinning the consultation from ‘Participants, not pawns’, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People’s guidance on consulting children and young people on proposed school closures (p12), were used to help develop and shape the approach taken.

The aim of the consultation was to ‘give every pupil currently attending Wellington the opportunity to discuss and express their views, as well as enabling pupils at other affected secondaries – Gorgie Mills and Panmure St. Ann’s - to consider what the potential impacts will be on them and their schools.

The young people taking part were informed that their views will be an important part of the consultation and while there could be no guarantee that any collective view would prevail in terms of the eventual decision, we did guarantee that their views would be reported on, heard and responded to by those making the decision.

The principles and aims of the consultation are included as Appendix 1.

Methodology A range of methods was used to gather and explore pupils’ views, including:

An online survey for Wellington pupils Pupils were given the option of completing the survey with or without support, on paper or online. The survey asked pupils the extent to which they agreed with several statements about Wellington. It also offered the opportunity for free text responses so that pupils could expand on their answers. A copy of the survey and a report of the pupils’ responses are included as Appendix 2. Nine pupil