There was a public meeting tonight to discuss the New Jewish School in Mill Hill. I decided to sit this out, because as far as I'm concerned the issues are clear cut and to do with environment and planning rather than the actual issue of the school.
Lets look at the issues which have caused the proposal for the New Jewish School to arise.
1) There is a general under provision of school places in Barnet. The school will help address this.
2) There is underprovision of places for parents who want a Jewish education. The School will also help address this.
Now Lets look at why people might oppose the new school.
1) They are anti semitic. The vast majority of people in Barnet would have no time for this argument.
2) They don't agree with faith schools. This is a more divisive issue. Lets put aside the rights and wrongs of the argument. There are currently faith schools in Barnet. To deny Jewish parents the right to select it is discriminatory. By all means campaign against the principle, but not a particular institution.
3) People are worried about the traffic, given the location of the school. This is a major issue. The location could probably not be worse. If the school causes traffic jams on the A41 or A1 it could gridlock Barnet. I personally can't see how this can be avoided. An extra hundred or so cars turning up at the same time will soon back up to Mill Hill Circus. This issue must be considered and discussed.
4) They object to the loss of amenity which the closure of the Garden Centre and Cafe will cause. This is a popular local landmark. Many local people were less than happy at the loss of the former Mill Hill Swimming pool and this latest plan represents more encroachment into the park.
I personally have much sympathy with the last two arguments. There are more suitable sites available in Mill Hill, which would cause far less problems and not result in the loss of facilities for local people. I noted that the website lists a whole swathe of people who are involved in the setting up of the school. None of these people seem to have strong Mill Hill connections. I would urge the school to engage with the Mill Hill Preservation Society and find some local people to join their committee, who understand the background to the site and who could advise in ways to make the site less contentious.
It is in all of our interest to see the school find a suitable home and be successful. I have children at faith schools so I do understand the desire for such facilities, but any institution has to be a "good neighbour". I am sure that the people promoting the school are good people with good intentions. As such I'd urge them to try and ensure that they take the community with them. There are already several well established Jewish Schools in Mill Hill, including Matilda Marks and Hasmonean. These are an integral part of the community and there are no issues with local people and how they operate. That gives me great hope that any early misconceptions can be ironed out.
Oh and my biggest criticism is that there has been an apparent air of secrecy about the plans. I spoke to several members of the parks committee who claimed that the first they knew of the proposal for the siting of the school was when this blog reported it. I suspect that the problems were due more to Barnet Council and it's desire to operate in a Stalinist manner than the schools own team. I spoke, off the record, to a major supporter of the school who admitted that the cock ups caused by Barnet had soured the atmosphere. He also suggested that Matthew Offord MP trying to paint all objectors as "anti semites being whipped up by Andrew Dismore" was less than helpful. I explained that as the school will be a permanent fixture in Mill Hill, they really should get it right. We have some work to do, to agree what getting it right constitutes, but at least we are all talking now.
Lets work together to get the best school proposal we can. We are not there yet.
Lets look at the issues which have caused the proposal for the New Jewish School to arise.
1) There is a general under provision of school places in Barnet. The school will help address this.
2) There is underprovision of places for parents who want a Jewish education. The School will also help address this.
Now Lets look at why people might oppose the new school.
1) They are anti semitic. The vast majority of people in Barnet would have no time for this argument.
2) They don't agree with faith schools. This is a more divisive issue. Lets put aside the rights and wrongs of the argument. There are currently faith schools in Barnet. To deny Jewish parents the right to select it is discriminatory. By all means campaign against the principle, but not a particular institution.
3) People are worried about the traffic, given the location of the school. This is a major issue. The location could probably not be worse. If the school causes traffic jams on the A41 or A1 it could gridlock Barnet. I personally can't see how this can be avoided. An extra hundred or so cars turning up at the same time will soon back up to Mill Hill Circus. This issue must be considered and discussed.
4) They object to the loss of amenity which the closure of the Garden Centre and Cafe will cause. This is a popular local landmark. Many local people were less than happy at the loss of the former Mill Hill Swimming pool and this latest plan represents more encroachment into the park.
I personally have much sympathy with the last two arguments. There are more suitable sites available in Mill Hill, which would cause far less problems and not result in the loss of facilities for local people. I noted that the website lists a whole swathe of people who are involved in the setting up of the school. None of these people seem to have strong Mill Hill connections. I would urge the school to engage with the Mill Hill Preservation Society and find some local people to join their committee, who understand the background to the site and who could advise in ways to make the site less contentious.
It is in all of our interest to see the school find a suitable home and be successful. I have children at faith schools so I do understand the desire for such facilities, but any institution has to be a "good neighbour". I am sure that the people promoting the school are good people with good intentions. As such I'd urge them to try and ensure that they take the community with them. There are already several well established Jewish Schools in Mill Hill, including Matilda Marks and Hasmonean. These are an integral part of the community and there are no issues with local people and how they operate. That gives me great hope that any early misconceptions can be ironed out.
Oh and my biggest criticism is that there has been an apparent air of secrecy about the plans. I spoke to several members of the parks committee who claimed that the first they knew of the proposal for the siting of the school was when this blog reported it. I suspect that the problems were due more to Barnet Council and it's desire to operate in a Stalinist manner than the schools own team. I spoke, off the record, to a major supporter of the school who admitted that the cock ups caused by Barnet had soured the atmosphere. He also suggested that Matthew Offord MP trying to paint all objectors as "anti semites being whipped up by Andrew Dismore" was less than helpful. I explained that as the school will be a permanent fixture in Mill Hill, they really should get it right. We have some work to do, to agree what getting it right constitutes, but at least we are all talking now.
Lets work together to get the best school proposal we can. We are not there yet.
I was at the meeting last night - never have I seen such NIMBYism.
ReplyDeleteFerocious NIMBYism would be the best way to describe it. The opponents main suggestion was to dump the new school in Copthall even though this was not viable.
I think this school will go ahead at the garden centre site and these same people won't be complaining when their house prices rocket.
There is a lot of bad feeling towards the proposed siting of the school locally however this is largely in my opinion due to the almost complete lack of information about the school.
ReplyDeleteOur councillors have been publically silent from what I can see - I emailled them all last week to find out what was being proposed and got a fast response from Cllr Schama telling me that since he was on the planning committee he had to remain "neutral" and therefore could not respond to my query.
Cllr Khatri responded on Friday and in fairness gave me a copy of the planning document for the school and notice of the public meeting to be held on Sunday. As we were at a Purim party at the time we could not attend.
Reading the planning document shows that only the Garden Centre site is being used with the Decontamination Centre being used on a temporary basis. There is no proposal to close the car park or to take any land away from the park, contrary to local rumours.
These rumours would not have taken hold if the council had been fair, open and transparent.
Just done some searching around the Council site and I've found another document related to the Etz Chaim application. This one specifically mentions the Car Park:
ReplyDelete6.15 The adjoining car park, is in Council ownership, and consideration is currently being given to introducing charging. The lease to Wyevale Garden Centre affords rights to the lessee for pedestrian access, and to maintain the area as public car parking. These rights may be altered in the event of the Council granting a change of use.
6.16 In addition, the Council may redevelop the car park, but may be required to provide alternative parking in the vicinity.
Just done some searching around the Council site and I've found another document related to the Etz Chaim application. This one specifically mentions the Car Park:
ReplyDelete6.15 The adjoining car park, is in Council ownership, and consideration is currently being given to introducing charging. The lease to Wyevale Garden Centre affords rights to the lessee for pedestrian access, and to maintain the area as public car parking. These rights may be altered in the event of the Council granting a change of use.
6.16 In addition, the Council may redevelop the car park, but may be required to provide alternative parking in the vicinity.
So what can we make of this? The council have clearly had their eye on using the car park to make money for some time, indeed an earlier attempt by Barnet Council to turn the car park into a paying car park failed 10 years ago thanks to a combination of the Residents Association and our former Lib Dem councillors.
Etz Chaim School won't have a claim on the car park and indeed the car park is specifically not included in the school's footprint; but who's to say the Council won't take the opportunity to sneak in a payment system for the car park while the school construction work is underway, and allow the school's opponents to think this is also part of the package.
It's times like these when I really wish we still had Casey, Davies and Hooker fighting Mill Hill's corner on the Council!
This blog is excellent. It is clear, calm and unemotional, and I agree that the key issue is not whether a school is needed in the area. It is about meeting the needs of the local community and listening to the community's voice.
ReplyDeleteAll public concerns could be addressed much more swiftly if there weren't such a cloak of secrecy over the whole matter. The council has been discussing and agreeing it for over 8 months if not a year, and still has not gone to public consultation. Key questions that need to be addressed include: How large will this school be? What consideration is being given to solutions to the ever increasing traffic problems in the area? What will be the impact of this school on the whole community? Is this school filling a need for the local community or neighbouring communities?
I sit on the Board of a large NHS organisation. If we proposed to close down any community facility without public consultation, there would be an outcry and we would be referred to judicial review and even parliament. Barnet Council are forgetting their public accountabilities. If not rectified, their behaviour will have to be referred to higher authorities and ombudsmen.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRima -
ReplyDeleteAre you comparing a loss-making garden centre to a life-saving NHS facility?