Islington Council is facing a High Court challenge over the looming closure of a local nursery amid conflicting accounts over who is responsible for the shutdown.
By Josef Steen, Local Democracy Reporter
Islington Council is facing a High Court challenge over the looming closure of a local nursery amid conflicting accounts over who is responsible for the shutdown.
Parents of children attending Islington’s Paradise Park Children’s Centre have formally requested a judicial review over the decision to shut the nursery at the end of the school term, having spent weeks warning the council of the stress and strain it will place on kids and their families.
Jonny Singer, one of 37 residents supporting the claim, said losing the “amazing” nursery and its “wonderful” staff would do “significant damage” to children and put pressure on families who had limited or unaffordable childcare alternatives. He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS): “We would much rather keep the nursery open without having to resort to legal proceedings.”
Islington Council announced on May 20 that it had “reluctantly” agreed to close the nursery at the request of the charity Islington Play Association (IPA), which was facing financial difficulties. The council said it was “extremely disappointed” in IPA’s handling of the situation.
But the charity has denied this version of events. IPA claims the idea to close the nursery “did not originate from the trustees” and said allegations of financial mismanagement were “unfounded”. The council’s press statement blaming IPA has since been removed from its website.
The announcement triggered protests outside the Town Hall last month, and over 4,600 people have now signed a petition to keep the nursery open and protect the jobs of 29 IPA staff members at risk of redundancy.
On Monday (June 29), Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, Cllr Sheila Chapman, reaffirmed that trustees had told the council in December 2025 that they could no longer run the nursery for financial reasons, adding that the charity’s poor communication since then had scuppered a “seamless transition”. Cllr Chapman said the council was mulling “temporary emergency transition care” at the same location over the summer and “possibly into the new term”.
The next day, the LDRS learned the claimants had formally lodged the legal challenge after sending a pre-action letter to the council on June 1.
Although IPA has run the centre for years – receiving £4.3m from the council in 2023 to last until 2030 – it is the council’s statutory duty to provide “sufficient” childcare to parents in the local area. The parents and co-claimants argue that the council is in breach because some families face year-long waiting periods for childcare places elsewhere. However, the council insists there remains enough provision in the borough.
The claimants are also challenging the council on the grounds that it failed to act despite warning signs of the charity’s financial problems over a year before the charity allegedly asked to close Paradise Park nursery. They have cited comments made by local councillors in October 2024 – including the current Council Leader Una O’Halloran – regarding the charity’s £170,000 budget shortfall that year.
The litigants further allege that IPA had told staff that the council served notice to terminate the contract early. If true, they argue, this creates more legal issues since Islington should have given notice much earlier than May and consulted with the families affected. Instead, they say, the delayed communication has forced families to “take what is available now or risk no place at all”.
The group’s claim is now with the High Court to decide if it will hold an interim hearing or not.
Islington Council said it could not comment on live legal proceedings. IPA did not respond to the LDRS’ request for comment.
