Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6513

Wednesday 4 July 2018

Vol cxlviii No 37

pp. 757–796

Fly-sheets reprinted

Fly-sheets relating to the ballot on Grace 3 of 10 May 2018 (proposed University nursery building)

In accordance with the Council’s Notice on Discussions and Fly-sheets (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 110), the fly-sheets from the ballot on Grace 3 of 10 May 2018 (proposed University nursery building) are reprinted below. For the result of the ballot, see p. 770.

Ballot on Grace 3 of 10 May 2018 (proposed University nursery building)

Placet fly-sheet

The Grace on which this ballot has been called concerns the recommendation by the Council that a new University nursery should be built on Harrison Drive, off Hills Road (Reporter, 6502, 2017–18, p. 516). The Postdocs of Cambridge (PdOC) Society supports this recommendation.

A PdOC Society survey of Cambridge early-career researchers who have children in Lent Term 2018 showed that these families often struggle with the cost of housing and childcare, the limited availability of nursery places and the difficulty of meeting other researchers who are parents. It also showed that schools and nurseries are a key way for these families to build a support network. This is particularly relevant for the large number of research staff who come to Cambridge from overseas. Lack of appropriate and affordable childcare creates a barrier to early-career researchers flourishing in their career. This is often most keenly felt by women.

The creation of a fourth University nursery, on the south side of Cambridge, would enable more early career researchers to access affordable childcare that is designed with University families in mind. It may be particularly useful to researchers working at the Biomedical Campus, which hosts the largest concentration of early-career researchers in the University. This would in turn help the University to attract talented early-career researchers and support them to achieve excellence in research and flourish in their careers. It would also promote inclusivity by addressing work-life balance difficulties often experienced by parents and carers, particularly women.

We therefore urge you to vote Placet.

C. H. Braithwaite

A. M. Jungwirth

C. G. Smith

J. T. D. Gardom

S. R. Kell

D. R. Thomas

S. J. Gathercole

M. Mesquita da Costa

D. M. Williamson

A. J. Hutchings

D. A. Ritchie

Placet Fly sheet

The Nursery Project Board was convened to address the need to expand the University’s childcare provision. The University’s nurseries are heavily oversubscribed, and not all members of staff enjoy the benefit of access to subsidised funding under the Workplace Nursery Scheme, despite this being listed as a benefit available to all staff. Demand for places at the University’s nurseries continues to increase, and with it, dissatisfaction at the lack of availability of places. A survey of childcare and nursery provision at the University was conducted on the Board’s behalf by the Cambridge Centre for Housing & Planning Research in 2016. This made clear the substantial gap between the University’s current level of provision, and the forecast level of need.

In considering the location of the next nursery, the Board prioritised the south of the city, from where it is difficult to access existing University nursery provision. The Board were able to identify land that is currently leased by the University from Homerton College over a long period, and is currently used as a car park by the Faculty of Education. Estate Management subsequently conducted a review, and were unable to identify any other suitable sites in University ownership in that part of the city that could be developed economically in the short term. Once the site was established as a serious potential opportunity, a member of the Faculty of Education was invited to join the Board from early 2016; the Faculty nominated a representative at this point, and since Spring 2017 this role has been undertaken by the Head of the Faculty. A number of visits have been made to the Faculty to discuss the proposal by members of the Board. This included a presentation of the Concept Design to the Faculty of Education Advisory Group in February 2018. The concerns of the Faculty have been noted by the Board and considerable effort has been undertaken to ensure that the Faculty could be fully represented throughout the process. Written comments provided by the Faculty in response to the Concept Design were incorporated into the formal RIBA Stage 2 Report.

The nursery has been carefully designed, not just to an excellent standard, but also with consideration for prospective neighbours. The design aims to minimise noise, but it is important to note that the nursery will be situated within an already noisy urban environment. The site lies between Hills Road, one of the main arterial routes of Cambridge, and the mainline railway to London terminals, together with the guided busway. It is close to Hills Road Sixth Form College and is bordered (inter alia) by Hills Road Sports Centre (with its large outdoor tennis facility), the Faculty of Education Building and Homerton College.

An evaluation of the impact on traffic on site has been undertaken, and would, in any case, be a part of the Local Planning Authority’s assessment of the suitability of the site for the nursery. Although the nursery will use some of the space currently used by the Faculty for car parking, an alternative nearby car park at Homerton College has the capacity to absorb much of the car parking that will be lost by building the nursery. The re-provisioning of a majority of the spaces used, and an increase in the provision of cycle parking is consistent with the University objectives to reduce car use and provide for and promote more sustainable modes of travel, as detailed in the University Travel Plan.1 The cycle parking will include space for non-standard bikes such as cargo bikes, and a buggy store for those walking to and from the nursery.

The Finance Committee has considered and approved the financial model for the nursery. This development is fundamental as part of the University’s response to repeated calls to prioritise nursery provision. The Harrison Drive Nursery would address the urgent need for more nursery places, in the part of the city with the most immediate requirement and with minimal cost to the University. We therefore urge you to vote Placet to this proposal.

C. Abell

A. L. Greer

R. W. Prager

P. M. Allmendinger

D. J. Maskell

G. J. Virgo

E. V. Ferran

M. J. Millett

A. L. Fowden

A. D. Neely

Flysheet on Grace 3 of 10 May 2018 Proposed University Nursery Building

Voting Non Placet on the proposed University Nursery Building is not a vote against expanding childcare places for University staff. That need must be urgently addressed, particularly on the south side of the city near the large and growing biomedical campus.

Voting Non Placet on the proposed University Nursery Building is a vote for:

demanding the University revise its financial model for childcare, which presently has a disproportionately negative effect on staff who are on lower salary spines and who are women;

holding the University to a world-class standard in guaranteeing the safety of our community’s children and meeting their developmental needs;

avoiding reputational risk for the Faculty of Education by handing on responsibility for quality assurance to an independent childcare provider.

There is undoubtedly an urgent demand for childcare places in the University. The proposal for a new University nursery building on Harrison Drive off Hills Road is to address this demand. The nursery will replace the Faculty of Education’s car park. Staff in the Faculty of Education have many reasonable objections to this such as health, safety and environment, reputational risk, loss of access for support staff and impact on the Faculty’s core mission.

However, it is the more general concerns that should be given attention to by members of the University; these include the financial model employed for nursery provision, affordability (equality and diversity), and the quality of education provided.

The financial model

The University is moving to a new financial model for the proposed nursery which is not dissimilar to a Private Finance Initiative (PFI). The University provides capital funding for the build and then an outsourced nursery provider will pay the University a market rate for use of the building based on a ‘market’ return on investment. It is a rent-seeking project where costs are passed on to the commercial nursery provider who will pass on costs to the users of the service. University nursery provision should be designed around needs rather than the University’s drive to seek income streams.

Affordability (Equality and Diversity)

Many parents on average or lower incomes find childcare costs crippling. This affects particular groups of people more than others, especially women, who may find greater barriers to career growth. All proposals should be assessed for impact on equality and diversity. We believe no such assessment has been made.

Quality of education

Experts in early years education in the Faculty of Education have significant concerns about the adequacy of the proposed nursery in terms of offering the highest standard of education. The limited space on the proposed site and the ‘outsourced’ approach to provision are just two areas of concern. We believe that the University should aspire to excellence in all its educational provision. If the University follow the proposed model and hand responsibility for provision onto a private provider there will be no control over quality assurance in terms of provision of curriculum, staffing and resources – opening the way for real reputational risk for the University.

Furthermore, there has been a breakdown in governance and transparency in developing this proposal. Members of the University have not been adequately consulted on the proposal, which means that the proposal has got to an advanced stage without the fundamental flaws being exposed or examined. The proposal should not be taken further until effective consultation has been concluded.

We ask that the University review the current approach to nursery provision, rethink the PFl-type financing model, provide reassurance that provision will be affordable for all staff and that the quality of education will be not just adequate but consistent with the ambitions of the University. The current proposal does not yet meet these criteria.

Opposition to this Grace is not a vote against expanding nursery provision, it is a vote to ensure that workplace nursery provision is sustainable, affordable and meets sufficient standards of educational excellence. We also wish to ensure that revised proposals are subject to proper consultation.

We are asking that you vote Non Placet on Grace 3 of 10 May 2018.

B. M. Allcott

K. Forbes

P. F. Perez-Paredes

P. A. Burnard

S. Hennessy

P. M. Rose

D. J. Carter

R. J. Hofmann

R. Sabates

J. L. Chiffins

I. S. Ilie

N. Singal

P. Coltman

R. S. Kershner

A. Stylianides

H. J. Cremin

Y. Liu

S. E. Swaffield

A. L. Cutts

L. C. Major

J. D. H. M. Vermunt

T. J. Denmead

C. M.-J. Mclaughlin

S. Watson

P. J. Dudley

R. W. Mclellan

E. G. Wilson

M. J. Evans

M. G. Morrison-Helme

E. J. Winter

L. Fisher

M. Nikolajeva

M. Winterbottom

Flysheet on Grace 3 of the 10th May 2018, concerning a new University nursery building at Harrison Drive

The Council’s proposal for a new University nursery building to be situated on Harrison Drive, off Hills Road and near the Biomedical Campus, has been opposed by 29 members of the Regent House, mainly from the nearby Faculty of Education.

We strongly endorse the original Report. The need for a new University nursery on the South side of the city is unarguable: firstly, current University provision can never meet demand for places and secondly, more than a quarter of university staff work on sites south of the railway station, yet the nearest university childcare provision is at Chaucer Road with other provision much further away.

The childcare survey conducted in 2016 by the Cambridge Centre for Housing concluded overall that after allowing for the existing University nurseries, the potential existing demand for (workplace) nursery provision would require an additional three or four to serve the Biomedical Campus (excluding any existing or future provision for the staff of Addenbrooke’s Hospital). On a multi-stakeholder, tightly packed site, we do not have the luxury of available land for even one such facility.

A breakdown in childcare arrangements is the highest cause of unscheduled absence for working parents. If staff have access to reliable childcare they are likely to take fewer days’ unscheduled leave, are more likely to be focused at work and less likely to experience negative effects on wellbeing such as stress. An additional benefit of proximity of childcare to the workplace means the parent is immediately on hand if there are problems such as the child falling ill, and this is recognised as particularly important to parents who work outside traditional ‘core’ hours (such as most scientists and clinicians), or work flexibly, something the School is keen to promote since it is known to increase staff satisfaction, retention and productivity. Furthermore, many of our staff cannot afford to live in Cambridge, so accessibly located near-workplace childcare is the only feasible means of returning to work after a career break.

The School of Clinical Medicine has grown from some 1800 staff in 2012, to 2400 in 2015, to its current size of over 2700 – about 23% of University Staff – mainly because of incorporation of the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute and five MRC units into the University. We have welcomed this growth, as it has added both scientific and personnel diversity. However, this has not been accompanied by any increase in nursery provision despite the careful and consultative work of the Nursery Project Board over the past four years. Lack of available childcare was the biggest source of staff dissatisfaction in both our 2012 and 2015 staff surveys.

We are working hard on strategies to mitigate our gender pay gap and diminish the well- recognised ‘leakiness’ of the career pipeline that particularly affects women. To this end, better provision of childcare to all members of the university should mean that our female staff become less likely to step off the career ladder or not return at all after having children. We believe that further delay in expanding University Childcare Facilities will be highly detrimental to recruitment and retention of staff of childbearing age.

We urge members of the Regent House to vote placet to the Grace.

E. T. Bullmore

M. Gurnell

P. Moore

M. Burgess

J. Hall

J. A. Nathan

M. Z. Cader

J. Hirst

L. Ramakrishnan

F. J. Calero Nieto

B. J. P. Huntly

R. J. Read

D. J. Cheesman

J. R. James

E. A. L. Reid

E. R. Chilvers

P. B. Jones

F. Reiman

M. C. H. Clarke

N. Kaneider-Kaser

D. H. Rowitch

J. E. Deane

F. E. Karet

D. C. Rubinsztein

C. J. Edmonds

A. Kaser

H. J. Sharpe

J. M. R. Elias

M. C. Lee

S. Siniossoglou

F. J. Gilbert

A. M. L. Lever

K. G. C. Smith

J. C. Goodall

Paul A. Lyons

Sarah Smith

A. R. Green

S. J. Marciniak

M. P. Weekes

J. M. Green

A. L. Martin

R. P. Williams

F. M. Gribble

P. H. Maxwell

J. R. Wilson

G. M. Griffiths

D. K. Menon

N. K. Wilson