School ordered to slash staff and pupil numbers after losing planning appeal

Quite sad and pathetic that local residents feel they have to complain about a school.
School places are in short supply in the borough and the NIMBY attitude of the Northward residents is nothing more than typical. Shame on them, and shame on the local council for letting get this far to start with.
Maybe one day common sense will prevail and children will be able to continue to enjoy an education without the stuck up attitudes of the local residents.
Message for the local residents - get a grip, and let children enjoy an education as it's clear though your actions you clearly didn't enjoy your childhood.

These were the same residents who deliberately chose to clog up the road by refusing to park on their own drives when the council were examining the issue of traffic, thereby causing the congestion. The same residents who allow their pets to roam on the school premises and foul the grounds. The same residents who refused to allow additional parking on the school's premises and the same residents that knowingly purchase a house on road with a school on it and then complain. I don't have children at the school, but these local residents are pathetic - and as has already been said - need to get a grip.

Mahesh Shah, the spokesperson and coordinator for the Pinner Hill residents, actually lives on the Gatehill estate. He can't even see Potter St Hill from his house.

You will also find that some of the people who complained actually have sent their children to the school !!
Just about says it all really - double standards from the Northwood NIMBYS.

I was reading about a similar case in the news the other day. A group of travellers/gypsies built houses without getting sufficient planning permission. Their houses are going to be demolished, and let's face it those are peoples homes! Personally I don't see the difference between them and a bunch rich folk who happen to pay extra for their kids education. No one should be above the law.

The problem is, the Northwood NIMBYS think they are above the law.
They’re sad lonely lives are clearly taken up with their NIMBY meetings in which they have now decided the easiest target to get their self-gratification are children who just want a good education. Sad, pathetic and not a good advert for the Northwood area.

Also-
The staff also arrive earlier than students so cutting their numbers is both illogical and irrational.

How sad and shortsighted the residents are. Surely to have one of the most successful and well known schools in North London in their mist has only increased the value of their properties.

How immature their petty behaviour has been over the last few years as to actively plan each day to obstruct the road with their cars and of late a large skip - which remains near empty bar a few twigs and a mattress!

Get out and get a life.

Being an ex-student there and attending the school for 7years I can understand the pleas to limit staff and pupils due to excess amounts of traffic on the road leading to the schools main entrance. Although I think that cutting staff and pupil numbers is a disappointment. As I was in my final years of school life in st-johns, I felt that the school had improved and grown to be a close community of staff and students alike. These growing numbers in pupils and staff in no way disadvantaged us after all we were the ones sitting in this supposed 'country' lane traffic.
I of course noticed that the road would not easily permit two vehicles at one time, but I was also aware of mothers contacting the council to amend this by cutting down roadside trees to make way but these were listened to with deaf ears.
I also believe that the statement of 20 long vehicle lines is a complete over-exaggeration. Lines usually never occurred unless there were events on site or pick up and drop off time which also happens to occur in other schools believe it or not!
Even when there was moderate traffic, it wouldn’t be prolonged. By the way it doesn’t help when disgruntled home owners park their cars on the road where two cars cannot fit at once and then complain about the ‘chaos’ when they own drive ways that could fit the '20 long line of traffic', yet choose to leave them empty.
There have also been recent measures to prevent these ’20 car long’ lines. This was a new drop off system which allowed parents to only drop of their children and depart immediately. I noticed that this worked very efficiently when I drop my brother to school in the mornings.
In my opinion to sack 25 teachers and limit the number of pupils will not aid the situation substantially but will be a step backward for a school that has spent both time and money to develop, so it is an environment in which a close community can heighten and thrive in multiple areas such as arts, academics, sports and drama to enrich and cultivate students, preparing them for their academic journey ahead of leaving the school.
I believe this decision will be a body blow for the schools high reputation and that this decision is both selfish and unjust.
The staff also arrive earlier than students so cutting their numbers is both illogical and irrational.
Also-
The staff also arrive much earlier than students so cutting their numbers is both illogical and irrationally thought out.

The attitude of the residents in this case is an outrage.

The school in question is one of North London's top preparatory schools. The fact that many parents choose to send their children there, at a high financial cost, eases pressure on other (state) schools within the borough of Hillingdon. Parents paying for private education do not receive tax breaks - they contribute towards the State Education system in the same way as everyone else, despite not using it.

The traffic flowing up and down Potter Street Hill moves steadily and at regular times (school opening and closing times). Traffic is rarely 'backed up' along that road unless residents choose to park their vehicles on the road deliberately to cause congestion (all residents have large houses with ample off-street parking).

The school's staff and students (and their parents) are polite, courteous, hard-working members of the community and have caused no-one any harm, injury or annoyance through any fault of their own. To threaten children/parents with being kicked out of a school, or to threaten staff with losing their jobs, is unacceptable. Perhaps the council could consider working with the school to promote car-sharing or a school bus system to ease the traffic congestion in this case.

I think the locals have every right to complain! When I was at the school traffic built up down the whole road and down the hill leaving local residents no where to get into their driveways. But it is very unfair to fire staff especially how the community at the school is very close and caring

Shame on the residents!!!! Rather then contributing to the community you are taking away the future of a child's education, the future of the teachers and also the possibility of the reputation the school has built up over the years.

This is not just school but a community in itself!!!

As for the build up of traffic had it not been for a sad and lonely resident who decided to have a skip put onto the road, the same resident who despite het long drive has her gardener park his White van on the road and the same resident who on several occasions been seen moving her car off her drive way and parking it on the road just before school drop-off in the morning
we wouldn't have traffic problems... Yes we all know who I am talking about!!!!

What the residents also forget is that the delivery vans form local residents often find themselves stuck at the top of the road when they realise they can't turn right into the estate and then have to reverse down to the entrance of the school to make a U-turn. This then causes traffic build up for parents wanting to drop off their children.

The school has made every effort to minimise the traffic problem by introducing a drive-through system and this eels to work well.

I feel it's a sad world when people forget how stressful it is bring up young children and doing what best for them without some busy bodies who have nothing better in their lives trying to make things worse..

I hope that the council sees how much this school has contributed to the reputation of Northwood and comes up with a solution that will minimise the disruption to a perfectly functioning school..

Instead of taking the drastic step of asking the school to reduce staff and students, the council should consider widening Potter St Hill (it is currently less than 6m wide) and making sure there is a continous footpath along the length of the street.

The fact is the residents who have objected live in a private estate which does not have any facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists and contributes nothing (other than some unaffordable housing and a private golf course) to the council, compared to a school which is one of the best preparatory schools in the area.

No one shoudl be above the law however, so perhaps the solution might be for the council to assist the school in funding the road improvements for the planning gain.

As a residents of Potter Street Hill for over 35 years , I have witnessed a school try to do anything for money. Most of the residents have lived on Potter Street hill for over 25 years. When they brought their homes it was to live in a quiet beautiful country setting.

The school has taken in pupils and not informed the parents that they are breaching planning to do so.

In order to try and keep their money they resorted in bullying the residents. The bursar was seen standing on residents property taking down number plates of their visitors, along with the caretaker hiding in the bushes taking photos of residents during their daily life. There is photographic evidence to show this.

The school also sent threatening letters to residents which resulted in a police visit to them cautioning them.

It is not right to point the finger at the residents, nor suggest the road should be widened to enable the school to continue to breach planning and rake money in.

it is for the school to abide by the law.

Lets look at the facts. The School got planning permissioning by stating that numbers would not increase but once permission was given they immediately broke this promise. The School claimed ignorance - they did not know of this limit! In the process they got more students and collected more fees to the tune of £600,000 every year. So they break the law and make more money - fair?
Then after 5 years they claim that School is crowded, premesis are inadequate for staff welfare and potentially dangerous. They unlawfully chop down 50 trees but write on their application form that only 3 trees will be affected. Is this blatant lying? Of couse we cannot say as it is politically incorrect. Perhaps ecomonical with the truth?

The School has ignored the law and profitted from this. Now it has to obey the law and do the right thing. There are a number of solutions if they want to keep the existing staff and students - they can relocate the nursery school somewhere else - as was the case before. Their associated Merchant Tayloy's School can absorb more students and staff. Existing students will not be affected - they can reduce numbers by reducing new intake.

The School transformed a house in green belt into a very large School which is clearly too big for this site and by the School's own admission is cramped and dangerous. Reduce the numbers or relocate to a bigger site which allows it to keep the larger numbers. Or merge with Merchant Taylors.

Lets look at the facts. The School got planning permissioning by stating that numbers would not increase but once permission was given they immediately broke this promise. The School claimed ignorance - they did not know of this limit! In the process they got more students and collected more fees to the tune of £600,000 every year. So they break the law and make more money - fair?
Then after 5 years they claim that School is crowded, premesis are inadequate for staff welfare and potentially dangerous. They unlawfully chop down 50 trees but write on their application form that only 3 trees will be affected. Is this blatant lying? Of couse we cannot say as it is politically incorrect. Perhaps ecomonical with the truth?

The School has ignored the law and profitted from this. Now it has to obey the law and do the right thing. There are a number of solutions if they want to keep the existing staff and students - they can relocate the nursery school somewhere else - as was the case before. Their associated Merchant Tayloy's School can absorb more students and staff. Existing students will not be affected - they can reduce numbers by reducing new intake.

The School transformed a house in green belt into a very large School which is clearly too big for this site and by the School's own admission is cramped and dangerous. Reduce the numbers or relocate to a bigger site which allows it to keep the larger numbers. Or merge with Merchant Taylors.

The phrase a little information is dangerous is very applicable here. So many posts here fall into this category. All the information has been laid out before the Council and an independent Inspectorate at various meetings. Those parties have no personal gain from the decision outcome, but coincidentally arrive at the SAME decision repeatedly. That conclusion being, given the special circumstances surrounding the area, the increase in numbers is inappropriate and dangerous. Obviously some people have a biased view and are entitled to that, but to criticise the consistent decision outcome of experts, who have all the information in front them, due to their own selfish interests shows a remarkable level of fatuousness.

Perhaps RationalVoice should have looked into their points first. They are obviously misinformed, possibly by the school - they are good at that. A few examples are the school parent’s are not polite. They are abusive to local residents and even to the school staff. The comment “caused no-one any harm” is a bad joke. As for the school bus system, the school surveyed that & received too little interest, so the idea was dropped as quote "not cost effective". Another example of the school viewing the pupils as walking £’s. The parents and school are the selfish ones, looking out only for themselves.

Perhaps RationalVoice should have looked into their points first. They are obviously misinformed, possibly by the school - they are good at that. A few examples are the school parent’s are not polite. They are abusive to local residents and even to the school staff. The comment “caused no-one any harm” is a bad joke. As for the school bus system, the school surveyed that & received too little interest, so the idea was dropped as quote "not cost effective". Another example of the school viewing the pupils as walking £’s. The parents and school are the selfish ones, looking out only for themselves.

Local resident and road user. how sad you are spending your time looking in builders skips.

not only is the school spying on the residents they have the school users at it too.!

is this a hobby of yours?

local resident and road user, spends their time looking into the skips of the residents on Potter Street Hill. Not only are the school spying on the residents they have others at it too.!!

Poor residents, having put up with chaotic traffic for years, not being able to leave their homes or return unless they join a massive queue. If they attempted to leave their homes they were met with abuse. Whats next will the school users be looking in the dustbins of the residents?? watch this space...

I'm sure the school could move to a more spacious site if that's what the residents want. The local council would almost certainly propose social housing for the property. The complainers should be careful what they wish for. And by the way, I think it's time to use google earth to see whether any of the neighbours have illegal sheds and additions.

I'm sure the school could move to a more spacious site. The council would almost certainly propose social housing for the property. The complainers should be careful what they wish for. And by the way, I think it's time to use google earth to see whether any of the neighbours have illegal sheds and additions.

I need to respond and clarify some of the points raised. It is true that I live on the Gatehill estate but I wish the second bit was also true. Yes, I was unable to see the School until the Summer of 2007. Then the School decided to erase all the trees, shrubs, bushes that had previously totally screened the School from my house. When I asked the headmaster why they had done this and why nobody had bothered to at least speak to me before he simply stated "This is our land and we can do what we like". It is then that I found out that the School did in fact do what they liked. I did not like the School's attitude and they behaved like they could ride rough - shod over anything that came in its way. 6 months later I found out the real reason why they had cleared the ground - they wanted to build a massive extension of about 10,000 sq feet. There is a presumption against any development in Green Belt Land and the School were aware of this so why did they chop the trees down before they got the necessary planning permission? Also, the trees were to be retained under a previous planning condition. In their application form the School misled the planners that the development would only involve the cutting down of 3 apple trees.
The above application was withdrawn and a second application submitted. In this the School claimed a desperate need for space as the School was cramped, overcrowded and potentially dangerous. Planning permission was refused.
All of the above is a matter of public record and those of you who are interested in finding out the truth can examine the relevant applications on the Hillingdon Planning site.
The amount of traffic and queues of 20+ cars were confirmed by traffic surveys conducted by the School. The Schools travel plan admits the traffic issue and conceeds that there in not much that they can do to ease the problem.
Some people have commented on residents parking on the street. Unlike the School, the residents are not doing anything illegal. But more to the point, if one or two cars parked on the road can cause traffic chaos then surely the road is not suitable to absorb so many cars.
The simple truth is that the School has simply outgrown the site - it is a victim of its own success. The fact that the overwhelming majority of pupils come from outside Hillingdon only makes the problem worse as these people will need to travel by car. The location on a steep narrow hill with no pavement for a significant portion of the road just makes matters worse.
So, blame residents if you wish, but the real reason is that you just cannot fit a quart into a pint.As suggested, the Schools Governors should take their responsibility seriously and recognise the reality of the situation and reduce numbers or relocate. Anything else will be a breach of their fiduciary duties.

Perhaps all of you who have written silly comments under anonymous names should take note of what Mr Shah has come forward and said.

if you were to take the time to check the information rather than looking in residents skips and in their driveways, who knows even their dustbins to. you would see how unknowledgable on the situation you truly are.

Most of the above comments are abusive and childish ,wrongly targeted at the residents.

When you have all got bored of looking in residents bins , how about trying to think how you would drive out of the drive with the two way congested traffic caused by the school. Guess what, you may decide to park outside your house so that you could exit!!!

Many of you seem to be totally unaware of the true facts. shame on the school to try and use the residents as a scape goat.

But you carry on. Just shows again how badly the school and the parents behave.

You are all proving what the residnets have said for a while, that the parents are rude and abusive.

You bought a house next to a school and then complain about people going in and out twice a day. Exactly how dumb are you?

Let us not pretend this isn't about class. What is that these days, those with more money than others? I tell you who really does have class, those who stand up for the residence in Northwood Hills and want to make it a lovely place to grow up. Probably the parents feel betrayed because the school has promised something the school could not provide. I can understand that those in charge of the school get frustrated when they don't get the special treatment they feel they are entitled. Especially when they probably enjoyed the thought of out witting the residence through deception and claiming ignorance of the law. Never mind higher social status more anti-social I'd say. Did they stop to think how the schools actions might devalued the houses along that road, do the themselves what to live there - probably not. Clearly the master plan didnt work ou. Where is the big society in all of this - they are the residence of Northwood Hills not members of some fancy school. The residence are the ones with class.

R Sole's comments are outrageous. You buy a house 20 years ago. It is on a nice country lane and you buy the house because of its peace and tranquility. Yes, there is a School there but at the time it has about 200 pupils and at that time most are local students, car usage is much less etc.
20 years on, the School has increased in size physically by about 8 times (imagine your neighbour buys a house and over the years keeps building until it is 8x the original size AND more activity. How would you feel?)and student and staff numbers have grown by another 200. Car usage has increased and students no longer from local catchment area.
I don't think anyone with a fair mind would accuse a resident of being dumb in these circumstances. Of couse there are people who are not fair, like the School. Perhaps one day you should watch outside the School entrance and observe for yourself what happens. When traffic gets congested, parents are directed through the private Potter Hill Golf Estate. The analogy is someone cutting through your drive as there is too much traffic on the road.
The School has wide reach - it seems that includes bigots amongst its followers and supporters.

This road is a public highway which means 'main road or thoroughfare available to the public for use for travel or transportation' Mr Shah quite rightly points out it is not illegal for the residents to park outside their house. However it is illegal to deliberately obstruct a public highway causing danger to the public, every morning children walk down this road to school in Northwood and the resident who has a skip and cars and vans parked either side of the said skip causes an obstruction and is putting children's lives at risk.

I think its very clear that the residents stuck up for themselves. Well done you.

I would be very proud to be associated with the Northwood Hills residents. Maybe they can help others who are in similar situations.

It also seems that on the many occasions the school has tried to justify themselves their case has been thrown out of court.

I saw a photo the other day of the caretaker hiding in the bushes with a digital camera. By a residents house on Potter Street Hill.!!! Unbelievable how that school behaves.

I wonder if photos can be posted on this blog?

I regularly walk this route and am astounded at the queues of traffic and congestion down Potter Street Hill coming from the school.

The school broke the law.

THE SCHOOL HAS CAUSED CHAOS AND DANGER BY BREAKING THE LAW.

The school promised they would not take in more puplis as this would cause an enormous amount of traffic and danger.

The school LIED, They broke the law.

Nothing to do with a public highway. The residents have not broken the law.

All these anonymous comments are very silly. probably why they are anonymous!!

Outraged needs to stick to the facts and not exaggerate. Twenty years ago it was a major road through from Watford until the residents who couldn't afford to live on the private part of the estate got the through road closed therefore a massive reduction in traffic. It was not and never has been a country lane. Another shock for you private schools are businesses and therefore develop and grow. The Schools policy is that parents should not drive through the private estate and would therefore never direct traffic through it (so please don't lie about these things) instead they must drive down the chav road that has a skip in the middle of it. Either way the school will keep applying and eventually win so why not move to a private road instead of pretending to live on one.

Outraged needs to stick to the facts and not exaggerate. Twenty years ago it was a major road through from Watford until the residents who couldn't afford to live on the private part of the estate got the through road closed therefore a massive reduction in traffic. It was not and never has been a country lane. Another shock for you private schools are businesses and therefore develop and grow. The Schools policy is that parents should not drive through the private estate and would therefore never direct traffic through it (so please don't lie about these things) instead they must drive down the chav road that has a skip in the middle of it. Either way the school will keep applying and eventually win so why not move to a private road instead of pretending to live on one.

Obviously R soles isnt aware of the true facts. The road was closed off due to a fatal accident.

Was there a skip involved in this accident because it most likely will be in the next

Was there a skip involved in this accident because it most likely will be in the next

As I said on June 18 12:30pm “All the information has been laid out before the Council and an independent Inspectorate at various meetings. Those parties have no personal gain from the decision outcome, but coincidentally arrive at the SAME decision repeatedly. That conclusion being ….”.
This information can be freely viewed on the council’s web-site (there is a long history here) as Mr Shah points out, or even look at the Inspectorate’s comments which are even more illuminating I have.
I really can’t believe the level, sorry childish disposition of so many of these comments - it really makes me despair. I would have thought people would educate themselves on the facts before commenting; else it only leads to embarrassment especially when they metaphorically throw their toys out of the pram. Grow up! Accept matters, and move on with your lives. Your behaviour/comments just aren’t worth the time or effort. They belie any little credibility that existed in your position.

R Soles (or whatever his name really is!) is the one who needs to "stick to the facts and not exaggerate". Potter Street Hill was closed at its junction with Sandy Lane approximately 30 years ago, not 20 years. It was nothing to do with the Potter Street Hill residents but, as L Green says, as a result of a fatal accident. The accident was in Sandy Lane which has always been, and still is, a proper country lane. It should never have been part of a through road from Pinner to Watford.

In all the dialogue about this planning decision virtually no mention has been made about the additional traffic experienced over the last 5 to 10 years in Sandy Lane. This is the result of the St John's parents who choose to drop off their children on the North side of the road closure, in some cases, no doubt, to avoid the congestion in Potter Street Hill. The cars (mainly big 4x4's) are driven far too fast along Sandy Lane and are then parked inconsiderately while the children are dropped off. When challenged the parents are often rude and abusive.

If you take all the emotion and personal considerations out of this matter the simple conclusion is that planning conditions are made by experts for a reason and should be adhered to by all – no-one should be above the law. It is a pathetically sad indictment of the levels of administration at the school for the Headmaster and Bursar to both admit that they were unaware of the conditions – perhaps they should be the first of the 25 staff to go?

It seems to me that St Johns has two choices – either agree to reduce to the required size over a realistic period of time so that the education of no present pupil is disrupted (and in so doing reduce the number of pupils travelling from out side the natural catchment area) or relocate to a larger campus such as some independent schools in Harrow have done, foe example Heathfield and Peterborough & St Margarets.

On another matter that has come out of this discussion. If the school has felled trees in the Green Belt without permission they should be heavily fined and made to replace them with mature trees. That is undoubtedly what would happen if I, or one of my neighbours, was to do the same thing.

Before some sanctimonious commentator accuses me of being against private education I would mention that my children were privately educated from the age of 4. I believe that there is a place in the community for independent schools so long as they assume their place in that community and keep within the law.

I think it is not appropriate for R soles to make a joke about a fatal accident.

The poor family concerned. But this again highlightes the school ethics. No consideration for anyone other than themselves. They will sink to any level to try and get what they want.

The fact that they are breaking the law is secondary.

The parents again are a law unto themselves. Rude, extremely abusive and try to dictate to the residents , again with out success.

Clearly R soles connected with the school , behaves as does the headmaster and the burser.

The school does not own the rights to potter street Hill.

The schools reputation is going down the drain rapidly , by throwing their toys out of the pram.

R Soles seems to speak with some degree of certainty and authority when he says “the school will keep applying and eventually win” and “the Schools policy is….”. Perhaps R Soles is a pseudonym and is really a member of the School’s administration? If you really are someone who is not involved with the School, come and meet the residents and observe the daily reality of the School’s traffic.
In any event, it was exactly this kind of response that made me sit up and actively participate in fighting the School. R Soles admits that private schools are businesses and all those who have shown sympathy and support should bear that in mind. By ignoring the restriction on numbers the School has earned approx £5million in fees so far and £600,000 per year from now until they are comply with the law.
R Soles resorts to insults – “chav” road! Clearly you feel so upper class and superior to all the local residents! Can you stoop any lower?
The most frightening bit about the blog is the bold and aggressive statement of intent. “The school will keep applying and eventually win”. This has been the history of the School to date. Despite it being in a Green Belt land the School has simply ignored the principle that there is a presumption against development. It seems that rules and regulations are for others, not the School.
I have no problems with business nor private schools. But I do have a problem with arrogant aggressive people who think that they can take the law in their own hands.
Come on R Soles, Stop hiding in the bushes and reveal your true identity if you dare!

Mahesh

I think its clear to all the residents who R Soles is. We know exactly who you are.

Behaving exactly as you have done all along.

Rude, arrogant, and attacking the residents. You are walking in the shoes of the school.

All the residents will continue to behave in the correct manner we wont break the law , nor will we lower ourselves to your level.

But rest assured we will make sure the school complies.

Whoever R Soles is he has even sunk about as low as he could go in his choice of pseudonym!

R Soles just seems to be out to stir up the situation and we shouldn't give him or her the satisfaction. Having said that the person responsible for the placement of the skip should be ashamed of themselves they have let down the area and given up the moral ground in this instance. It forces our children out on to the road when walking home and yes it obstructs the traffic at pick up time so where does this help our cause.

Resident???

A skip takes up the same space as a car. It is legally in place.

The 30 cars that queue up and down the road from the school is what causes the problem and forces resident to walk in the road. Not a skip!!!

The school cars that park half in the road and half on the pavement cause residents to walk in the road. All 16 of them day in and day out.

Are you realy sure you are a resident. We think not.

Its quite amazing again, how the school parents feel they have a right to dictate to the residents. We live here.

You would be better off speaking to the school and stopping 30 cars queueing twice daily and two way traffic.

A skip fully & legally on the road and not on the pavement alongside it "forces our children out on to the road". Really, come on! Facts are facts, it can do nothing of the sort. Does every skip or car parked on any road force your children into the road, if so you lead a very strange life. Another example of the school supporters twisting matters to suit their ends

As a parent at the school I'd like to add light to the darkness.
It would appear to be without question that the school has exceeded its permitted pupil and staff numbers whether it was aware of it or not.
If no resident had a problem with this then whilst still wrong, the council would possibly never have known.
But at some point, especially with continued growth, at least one resident would have a problem with it.
If a resident had a problem with less than 350 pupils and 40 staff ... their concern might be acknowledged but would most likely be set aside.
With the numbers in excess of 350 and 40 then the resident(s) have every opportunity and right to seek regress (go back to the permitted numbers).

We, the parents, have had very little information provided to us, we have not been consulted openly about the issue at all. It would appear that this lack of dialogue is reflected in the relationship between the school and the residents ... perhaps you (residents) can enlighten us.

The vast majority of parents would completely acknowledge the residents' right to ease of access to and from their property at all times. The vast majority of parents never use the private roads of the Pinner Hill Estate or the roads of the Gatehill Estate. Whilst it would be far more convenient to use these roads at times .. out of respect the vast majoriy of parents never use them.
I apologise to the residents for the few, if there are any, parents that show disrespect to your right to peaceful enjoyment of your estates.

The queues to the school may be short-lived and at known and arguably avoidable times of the day, but why should any resident (anywhere) have to avoid leaving or coming home at a particular time to avoid traffic that is greater than it might otherwise be if the pupil numbers were limited to the 350 permitted. The residents are not saying the school should close or move and they/you are aware that the traffic congestion may not be any better ... but it might, and it probably will be ... and that is reason enough to seek enforcement of the 350 limit.

Maybe if there had been better two-way communication, a solution that rid everyone of the traffic congestion might have been found by agreement, and perhaps without the congestion the residents would not have felt the need to push ahead with the legal challenge.

Most of us are not party to any of the exchanges between the school and the residents .. but we do know that we were never engaged. More's the pity.

I apologise to the residents for the few parents that have shown retaliation and possibly abuse ... they have been riled and incensed by the picture taking and the skip and car placement ... but largely have mis-placed loyalty .. nothing more vindictive. Your (residents) actions have only been brought about by your situation and own anger at the school.

Your comments about the parents are far too generalised and I am sure cause many great offence.. I therefore accept your apology on their behalf for likewise mis-placed animosity.

It would be far nicer for everyone if a peace was restored. Pursue the legal case by all means. Unless there is some loop-hole then 350 should mean 350. And if a middle ground is reached, or a graduated reduction put in place, then it would be nice to think the new status quo would be harmonious.

The resident families should be able to enjoy the benefits of the school ... be invited to the Fireworks night, welcomed at the Fun Days ... given dates and times of sporting and musical fixtures and events, either for their enjoyment or merely out of courtesy (in case it effects traffic even with the permitted number of pupils!).

If parents and residents can be courteous and understanding in the meantime then there is no need for skips or cars parked in the road when they need not be (by residents or parents) ... not because they can't be .. but because there is no longer a need to prove a point either way.

Let the legal case be fought and let the law be the winner. Let's not be reduced to pitched battles, or any other kind of battle, in the still beautiful place of Potter Street Hill, Northwood.

The school is not breaking the law by having too many pupils, it is in breach of a planning condition this is different.

Mr Shah doesn't even live on Potter Street Hill. He can only see the school from the corner of his window. It's like complaining about the existence of the City of London, because you can see it from the corner of your window. 25 teachers' jobs on the line - 25 families destroyed - and potentially 25 homes repossesed. Happy? Why don't we all give ourselves a pat on the back? Also, I never knew that St John's sent the CIA to carry out undercover surveillance operations to investigate dustbins and skips. Never knew that this fake private road with 100 bollards blocking a main road to Watford, with driveways stretching all the way to Australia was such a dodgy area.

Enjoy being responsible for ruining lives of teachers, pupils and a whole school.