PLANS to temporarily change a Slough school’s parking lot into a ‘park and ride’ for Heathrow Airport were rejected by the council.

To get some additional income during the school break, Ryvers Primary School in Trelawney Avenue wanted to temporarily allow vehicles to be stored at its school playground and staff parking area.

This would serve as an overflow parking area for park and ride services to Heathrow Airport. Access to the site would have been restricted between 7am and 7pm during the school holidays.

The Langley school said it wants to draw income for them without disrupting the children’s learning and its operations.

READ MORE: Slough driver arrested after stolen BMW found by police

But nearby residents, including Colnbrook with Poyle councillor Dexter Smith, lodged objections to the “ill-conceived” scheme.

They believed the airport parking is “inappropriate” for the residential area and the air and noise pollution would be “harmful” to neighbours. They also believed the extra traffic will cause more congestion and impact their “privacy and tranquillity”.

One resident wrote: “Residents are already having issues with parking. Many being forced to pay the council to drop kerbs.

“Gardens have been converting to driveways/ parking costing both financially and environmentally.

“Residents have long suffered antisocial behaviour due to lack of parking in the Ryvers School Vicinity during term time. The usage of the school playground during holidays means this is now an all-year issue.”

READ MORE: Thames Valley Buses changes in Slough, Maidenhead and Bracknell

Another wrote: “There is no benefit to the local community in fact it will be an inconvenience.

“In previous years the school grounds and facilities have been used for other activities, holiday clubs and events during the school holidays which benefited the school children and the local community which would no longer be possible. The school would be able to gain additional income in this way.”

About 30 Trelawney Avenue residents signed a petition urging the council to reject the proposal.

Planning officers sided with the residents and refused the plans on the grounds it will impact highway safety, no evidence was submitted it won’t cause noise and disturbance to neighbours, and the development is “sustainable”.