'How dare you': Islington rejects claims it buried nursery closure until after local elections

A bitter row has erupted at Islington Town Hall after Labour councillors were accused of keeping the closure of a popular nursery quiet until after May's local elections.The dispute dominated a heated council meeting as councillors debated a petition calling for the reopening of the nursery at Paradise Park Children's Centre, which closed in July after its operator ran into financial difficulties.Parents have fiercely opposed the closure, describing Paradise Park as a "wonderful and caring" nursery and warning of a shortage of affordable childcare places.But the political fallout has now shifted to whether residents were told about the looming closure soon enough.During Thursday's meeting, Green councillor Carlos Valero suggested the timing of the announcement would raise questions among residents, noting that news of the closure emerged less than two weeks after local elections in which Labour narrowly held control of the council despite significant Green gains."It is curious to me, and maybe to members of the public, that the decision was communicated to the public 13 days after an election," he said.His comments prompted an angry response from Labour's Sheila Chapman, Islington's cabinet member for children, schools and families."What an unhelpful contribution," she said. "And how dare you suggest that this administration is trying to sweep things under the carpet."Council denies responsibilityThe nursery was run by Islington Play Association (IPA), an independent charity that surrendered its contract after coming under severe financial pressure.A council statement published in May said it had "reluctantly agreed" to a request from trustees to close the nursery provision at the end of the summer term.Councillor Chapman told councillors that IPA had informed the council as early as December 2025 that it could no longer continue operating the nursery.Read More"I don't know how else to say this," she said. "This was a unilateral decision due to financial circumstances taken by a third-party provider. Once again, not the council's decision."IPA has disputed suggestions that the closure originated with its trustees and has rejected allegations of financial mismanagement, although the charity has acknowledged facing serious financial difficulties.The Labour administration insists there are enough childcare places elsewhere in the borough and says setting up a replacement council-run nursery would not represent value for money.Chapman also told councillors she was unaware of any families still unable to secure alternative childcare places and urged affected parents to come forward.Parents' fearsThe closure sparked a campaign by parents, some of whom warned that moving children from a familiar nursery environment could cause significant disruption.Others argued there were few affordable alternatives available nearby, particularly for children with additional needs.Those concerns ultimately led a group of parents to launch a legal challenge against the council.The claim argued that the authority had failed in its statutory duty to ensure enough childcare places were available for local families.However, the challenge was dismissed by the High Court in July, as Mrs Justice Eady ruled that the case was "totally without merit".Despite that ruling, opposition councillors continued to press for a review into how the closure was handled.Green councillor Janet Falkenberg called for an investigation into what she described as the "human cost" of the decision.But Labour rejected the demand, insisting the council had acted transparently throughout and that responsibility for the closure lay with the nursery's operator rather than the local authority.With temporary childcare provision now operating from the site, the political argument over one of Islington's best-known nurseries shows little sign of disappearing.