Etz Chaim School - Mill Hill - Official response to the Action Group statement - Guest Blog

Last week, The Barnet Eye published a blog detailing the issues related to the proposed Etz Chaim Free School on the site of Wyevale nursery, Daws Lane Mill Hill. We invited both sided of the argument to state their case in guest blogs. Earlier this week the Action Group opposing the site detailed their case. Today the supporters of the school issued their response. We do not comment on guest blogs, but felt that it is necessary to set the context for this particular post.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest blog by  Mark Frazer (on behalf of Etz Chaim School),

We’re grateful for this rare opportunity to respond directly to some of the points raised by the ‘action group’ and we’d like to say how disappointed we are at much of the content of their guest blog which ranges from skewed information which is likely to mislead readers to plain untruths.

I’d like to begin by addressing perhaps the most upsetting accusation, which may also be the most misleading part of the blog entry. Ms Samuelson says, “To take away a resource is selfish”. We must be very clear on this point. The school is not taking anything away from the community. It is now widely known that the Garden Centre’s parent company is being sold off by Lloyds Banking Group and though we will all be very sorry to see it close, it is entirely wrong to suggest that the school is at fault for the financial position of the Garden Centre Group. Frankly, the ‘action group’s’ constant assertions that we have offered some extortionate amount of money for the site or that Sir Tom Hunter has somehow personally intervened to sell off a successful business because of his interest in educational causes, are insulting. These suggestions, which are supported by no evidence at all, do the ‘action group’ no credit. Ms Samuelson should hope that Sir Tom’s lawyers are not among the readers of ‘Barnet Eye’.

The ‘action group’ suggest that they have ‘offered’ a number of locations to us, this despite our explanation that each of their suggestions had already been considered and ruled out for various reasons. I do hope that Ms Samuelson and her colleagues will understand that given the choice between taking advice from them or from Partnerships for Schools and the Department for Education, we have felt compelled to take the latter option.

Ms Samuelson says that the projected uptake for the school ‘will fall in the next 2 years’ and further suggests that she has heard this prediction directly from us. I can only say that this is entirely false. We have been given no reason to believe that uptake will fall in the next two years and have never suggested any such thing.

We have also apparently ‘refused’ to speak with the elderly and disabled members of our community. Once again, this is simply untrue, we have spoken to many hundreds of residents and continue to do so. Ms Samuelson would have us believe that the Garden Centre is some sort of publicly funded clinical therapy home and not simply the private retail establishment that it is. Supporters of the school are also local residents and will certainly miss what has been a popular venue in Mill Hill but, at the risk of being repetitive, we are not responsible for its closure; we can only be responsible for what replaces it.

Finally, Ms Samuelson assures us that she has read ‘all the documents’ and goes on to make a number of quite silly points:

1.       “Primary school place shortages list does not include Mill Hill” – It’s not clear which ‘list’ she is referring to but demonstrating a shortage of places was an essential prerequisite to our funding application. If there were no demand there would certainly be no school. It is disappointing that the ‘action group’ still pursue this argument despite their assurances that they are not opposed to the school, only the location.  

2.       “There is not one child of school age marked on the school catchment map in the immediate area down to go to the school and only 2 children of nursery age.” With respect, this again, is simply not true. While our policy is not to release specific numbers, I can assure readers that Etz Chaim will serve the local community and suggestions to the contrary are very troubling.

3.       “According to the catchment shown it is likely that 150 – 190 cars (including staff) will drive to this location.  This is matched by comparisons with other schools in the immediate area.” When the school opens we will have less than 50 pupils and eight members of staff. Ms Samuelson appears to be suggesting that each pupil will bring with them an entourage of 3 to 4 cars. We have repeatedly stressed that Etz Chaim, as a one form entry school cannot be compared to other larger schools. The truth of course is that our travel plan will mean that there is very little impact on traffic in the early years of the school. Even when the school reaches its capacity we have measures in place to ensure that the traffic impact is kept to a minimum. These plans have been submitted with our publicly available planning application.

4.       “Athletics and dance are hardly suitable opportunities for the elderly and disabled.” Athletics and dance are just two of the suggestions that we have received for community activities. Others have included ‘Sunday Clubs’ and an allotment which may well be suitable for the elderly and disabled. We are not trying to replace the Garden Centre or replicate exactly what it offered to the community - we expect that some positive uses will be lost and that new and different positive uses will emerge in their place.  

5.       “We have heard that it could be a Tesco. Yet Barnet Council acknowledge that they have received no other enquiries for the site, despite the rumours and misinformation put out by the School’s proponents.” Firstly, we have never suggested that anyone else is purchasing the site save for making the point that another party could do so if we were not on the scene. It should be of no surprise that Barnet Council has received no other offers for the site at this stage since the school has an agreement in place with the Garden Centre, subject of course to planning permission.

To be clear, the ‘action group’ have never offered ‘to work with’ the proponents of the school. Ms Samuelson may though be referring to their offer to ‘help us to find an alternate location’. In fact no constructive advice or support has ever been offered. This is clearly demonstrated by Ms Samuelson’s ‘solution’. She suggests a second temporary location and then, “From there, find and develop a permanent site which will not remove the heart of the community from the community.”  This could not be more revealing, the action group’s proposed solution is to find a different site. If they have properly read any of this response I hope they will recognise that not only is there no other appropriate site but that given the circumstances, Etz Chaim will prove to be a huge asset that Mill Hill can be proud of. We welcome all constructive suggestions for ways in which we can serve the community at our specially dedicated website and we look forward to hearing from you all.  

Mark Frazer

The Barnet Eye always welcomes guest blogs on subjects of local interest. Please email me via the email in the side bar. The views represented in this blog are the views of the author and do not reflect the views of the Barnet Eye. Guest blogs are printed without comment or editing.