Welcome to your local community website...
Planning condition confusion in St John's school row
CONFUSION about the number of teachers and other workers at a Northwood Hills school may have contributed to it being declared in breach of a planning condition, it has emerged.
Nearly 2,000 people have signed a petition calling for staff to keep their jobs at St John's School, Potter Street Hill, which recently lost a High Court appeal against an order to slash numbers.
The private school, which is on green belt land, has submitted a new planning application which would allow it to keep staff numbers the same.
It was given permission to build an extension in 2001 on condition that it did not take on more than 350 pupils and 40 full time staff.
But it claims the total number of staff has not increased since 2001, with about 40 teachers and 25 other staff members always having worked at the school.
It believes the planning condition referred only to teaching staff and hopes the new application will clarify this - allowing all staff to keep their jobs.
The number of students, which at the moments stands at 405, will still have to be reduced.
Residents had opposed any increase to staff or students, complaining about traffic problems during arrival and home times.
The petition, which was set up by staff independently of the school and closed with 1,920 signatures, says it is not staff who cause the problems with traffic.
It adds: "Without the current staff numbers, our school cannot continue to thrive and provide the boys with opportunities to grow and develop into responsible members of the community."
The school also has a separate petition on the community section of its website.
Chairman of governors Johny Armstrong said: "We have never tried to hide the fact that St John's needs around 65 full time equivalent staff in order to operate.
"This arrangement and staff-pupil ratio is in line with local comparable schools.
"It was about the same in 2001 when this first came before London Borough of Hillingdon
"Our application simply seeks to reflect our total numbers, which have stayed roughly the same for many years and we don't plan to increase them at all.
"We're very glad that such a huge number have supported us in this so far."
A date for a decision to be made about the application has not yet been set.
We'd like to hear from you. Send your stories, pics and videos
At last! some commonsense reporting of the real facts and issues facing the St John's school staff. 1,920 reasons for continuity of the high standard of teaching.
1,920 over a pathetic amount of Northwood NIMBY complaints. Just about says it all in regards to how the council should now approach this. You never know, common sense will prevail and the school will be left to continue to teach the children. If the local NIMBYs don't like it then they can easily leave. The school was there before them and it will be there after they have hopefully moved away. The council should name and shame the NIMBYs who have dug up this lame attempt at forcing this absurd saga to start with. The general public can then keep a close eye on these twits who have nothing else better to do than stir up selfish pompous dribbel.
I would like to wish all the staff at St Johns a Happy Xmas and my message to the Northwood NIMBYs is a simple one. GET A LIFE.
I support the application to allow the staff of St John's School to remain at its present level, that is 40 teachers and 25 support staff. It seems very clear that there has been a misunderstanding, which can quickly and easily be rectified without any loss of employment or education.
I am sure that all right minded people would agree that a council's job is to ensure that empoyment and good education is proteced wherever possible!
I would certainly NOT re-elect a council which was responsible for axing jobs and thereby forcing closure of a school which takes no revenue from my council tax!
I hope the London Borough of Hillingdon have enough places and finance to educate the children from St. John's School if the number of staff are cut and the school is forced to close. Let alone the increase in their unemployment figures.
How can this have happened. Did the school not know, in advance, how many children and teachers were allowed on site? This is a massive issue for the school and, like with any private establishment, whoever messed up should be sacked or have the decency to resign.
If it is a mistake on behalf of the local council, then the planner in charge should be sacked. Overall, a lot of problems for the parents who have children in the school who pay their fees in full.
It appears that St John's School has been found to be in breech of planning permission in which it was ordered to keep pupil numbers to 350 and staff numbers to 40. The council has ruled that the school must comply with the 2001 planning permission allowing 350 puils and 40 staff and the school has no option but to do so.The council demands that pupil numbers be reduced to 350 by September 2012. Obviously the school can not simply put 50 children out of eductaion to comply with this ruling, but the school is taking steps to reduce pupil numbers by not replacing pupils who leave and by reducing class numbers. The school has shown willingness to comply with the council ruling and has already begun to lower numbers in compliance with the council requirement.
The second part of the planning permission demands that staff numbers be cut to 40 , also by September 2012.
The second part of the order is more difficult...as reported in the article...about 40 teachers were in place at the school in 2000/2001...but there were also about 25 support staff: grounds, cleaning, kitchen and office staff who were essential to the running of the school, who were employed at the time. These jobs were not reflected in the 2001 planning permission, but without them, the school could not have run in 2001 and can not run in the future.The council is enforcing the planning permission which allows only 40 full time staff, effectively ensuring the loss of 25 jobs in September 2012.
The school has put in a new Planning Application, Number 10795/App/2011/2627 to confirm the school's staffing numbers to be about 40 teachers and 25 support staff...just as it was before 2001. There is NO MENTION in this application of enlarging the school footprint or any intention of exceeding the stipulated pupil number of 350.
If 10795/APP/2011/2627 is rejected JOBS WILL BE LOST. If this application is rejected and 25 jobs are 'axed' the school will be unable to function. 65 jobs will be forfeit and 350 boys will lose their school.
The fear of this has been hanging over the St John's School community all over the Christmas period.
We all know that school traffic is annoying and nobody wants schools to grow too big, but this part of the battle has been won...if you want to do your bit to keep 65 people in their jobs and save countless families the anguish of either lack of income or education, please email
elavery@hillingdon.gov.uk and rphillips@hillingdon.gov.uk and copy our ward councillors jbianco@hillingdon.gov.uk
aretter@hillingdon.gov.uk and jmorgan2@hillingdon.gov.uk and state your support for Application 10795/APP/2011/2627!
Please do the right thing.
I have lived in Sandy lane for over 35 years ,consequently way before the school broke the planning permission they were granted .
I have noticed a considerable increase in the traffic using the lane at pupil drop off and collection times of late.
Sandy Lane is very narrow cars passing in opposite directions hardly have sufficient space to pass one another ,one of the reasons the road was closed 34 years ago on the recommendations of the emergency services due to the large number of accidents that regularly happened.
Due to St Johns breaching their planning permission the volume of traffic now using Sandy Lane is extremely high at certain times of the day ,I have on more than one occasion had to leap into the hedge to avoid being run over when walking along the lane during the time of the school run as there are no pavements whatsoever.
There are now so many cars blocking the lane at the barrier due to parents parking their vehicles at the time they either drop off or collect their children that it would be impossible for any of the emergency services to be able to get access to the school in an emergency should the need so arise .
St Johns is not above the law ,we all have to abide by it otherwise civilisation will break down ,it is very clear if the actual facts are considered that the school has blatently disregarded the permission granted under the planning rules in not only exceeding the number of pupils there but also the number of staff employed.
At last, another local resident has come out of their ivory tower to pass judgement on St John’s School planning ruling.
No one is above the law, you included, but for “civilisation” to work, we all need to work together to find workable solutions to problems that arise. You appear to be judge and jury with your statement “blatantly disregarding” planning permission. Why do this? Also what was there to gain by doing it? Do you think it was a deliberate act?
There has been a well-documented increase in all traffic across the board, you only have to read the local paper to see that there are problems across the Borough, in all cases the affected are working in partnership to try and find workable, practicable solutions to the causes. What are you doing to help the situation? Perhaps writing this letter after 28 years of living by a thriving local school. Why have you waited for so long? You have it in your powers for all this time the workings of both a local and national democracy to find solutions, to put in place workable plans to suit all parties needs, in this case especially yours.
Of course should you find yourself a “winner” in September 2012 think of your glittering prize, 50 local children and their families without their favourite school, and 20 or more hardworking people made redundant, in what is the most difficult of economic times. Perhaps they could all march, not drive! (With the 1,920 people who signed a petition in support of the school) passed your house so that you could see for yourself the real cost of human suffering you would have contributed to.Why?
To the Sandy Lane resident plus the other people who complain about traffic I believe is time to have a wake up call. I know a lot of residence in the area that the prefer a bit of traffic for limited hours a week and peace during the nights and weekends.. You cannot have it all. Also the demands for school places in London (including Hillingdon) will increase by 100,000 over the next 2-3 years. Where do you think the kids will go to school ? And to be honest if the council decide at the end to destroy an outstanding school such as St Johns I will personally make sure that the same rules applies to all the states schools in the area that have increased by 100s of student numbers over the last 3-4 years and as I sensible person I accepted that. But to prove how damage such a decision is I will have to go against common sense. Who do you think it will be damaged at the end ?