Agenda item

The Committee had before them the Council’s Home to School Transport Consultation document, the current Home to School Transport Policy, the proposed Options A1 and A2 and the Frequently Asked Questions originally posted on the consultation web-site.

 

Roy Leach, School Organisation & Planning Manager explained to Committee that the number of issues being consulted on had been reduced to 3 main areas:

a)           The 14-19 partnerships.  As these do not exist any more there is no need for this to be covered in the policy.  However, in order to remove this matter from the new Home to School Transport Policy, it must be consulted upon;

b)           Concessionary seat charges.  The average cost of a concessionary seat is £700.00; anything below this figure represents a subsidy.  Proposed is a one-off 10% increase, then a 5-8% increase over 3-5 years;

c)            Entitlement.  The Statutory requirement is for students to be transported to their nearest available school by the Council, if the school is over 2 miles for school aged children up to the age of 8, and over 3 miles for children aged 8-16.  The Council’s existing policy is more general.

 

As an example of the implications of the changes to the policies, the Committee were shown the map of Burford School, and it’s associated addresses.  The map, along with the full consultation pack and maps of the other schools affected by the proposed policy, are also available on the Oxfordshire County Council web-site at the following link:

https://myconsultations.oxfordshire.gov.uk/consult.ti/transport2015/consultationHome

It was noted that the dots on all the maps available represent an address from which travel is provided to schools, and not an address for each child attending school.  It also explained that the dots were colour coded to the nearest school to that address along the route that would be travelled to school, rather than as a straight line route.  Therefore, black dots equated to an address nearest to the school that was the subject of the map.  Coloured dots related to a different, nearer school, which had been coloured to correspond.

 

The Committee heard that in some cases villages would be split with different areas of the villages being allocated different schools.  Historically these villages would have links with a particular school, and in order to avoid split communities, officers suggested that all students in these circumstances could be entitled to attend one school or another on a Travel Area basis.

 

It was noted that Minster Lovell was a split village between Carterton Community College and The Henry Box School, whereas students from the village are currently transported to Burford School.  In terms of savings, Committee heard that students living in Brize Norton, would not be entitled to free transport to Burford School, due to the proximity of Carterton Community College.

 

The Committee were also asked to note that the Frequently Asked Questions attached to the Agenda had been updated and further questions now appeared on the website.

 

In discussion, Committee noted that this was a difficult policy area, but that the basis of the new document and methodology were leaps and bounds ahead of the summer presentation, with proposals much improved, easier to understand, fairer, eminently sensible, reasonable and logical.  It was to be noted that the Council had paused and reflected on this issue, and Councillor Tilley was congratulated on the revised approach.

 

Although a number of Councillors were supportive of Option A2, it was noted that the statutory walking distance of 2 miles did not appear to be “rural-proof” and there may be difficulties in walking an 8-year-old 2 miles in winter across fields and bridle-ways, and it was hoped that the Admissions Team took lighting etc. into account.

 

The merit in retaining the provision for mileage allowance was raised.  It was explained that there were reasons for retaining the provision, for example, in the case of a single child living in a hamlet with an entitlement to free transport, it may be preferable for both the parents of a child and the Council, to pay mileage if they were willing, providing very good value for the Council.  Although currently in use, a very minimal number of parents are entitled to receive these payments.

 

The concept of Travel Areas raised in Option A2 would enable children from the same village to attend the same school, but may make the issue unnecessarily complex, whereas in Option A1 villages were split, with some students paying for travel and some not.

 

Mrs Liz Jones felt that villages would be split by this.  In some areas, one end of a village may be more affluent than the other, and if cost was involved, this would lead to an emotional split in her view.

 

Councillor Bartholomew noted that the case for Option A2 was emotional, and the issue was not one of splitting villages, but of providing free transport.  Parents of school-aged children may prefer Option A2, but Option A1 may give greater savings to the wider community of Council Tax payers; there was a need to be firm and go for savings.

 

Although in disagreement with some of the things said, Councillor Owen agreed that this issue was one of finance and dealing with hard cash.

 

Councillor Brighouse told Committee that she had spent a lot of time looking at the data, noting that in some cases, 30 different primaries were feeding into one secondary school.  Currently villages do get split, and even twins get split if there is insufficient room when school places are allocated.

 

She agreed that the focus of this consultation is very clear; the Council were consulting on whether it can afford the current transportation costs to schools, as there is a £0.5 million shortfall on transport.

 

Previously contracts for school transport had squeezed companies out of business.  Although unsure whether this policy was fair and equitable, from a personal perspective a family member was currently cycling to school, along roads that were congested and had potholes, and was risking injury.  This had been a matter of choice for the child’s parents; had a different choice been made the child would have received free transport to another school.

 

Concern was raised over the potential of a blank cheque being made available to academies in terms of transport and view was expressed that Option A1 removes this risk, although it was unclear whether Option A2 does the same.  It was emphasised that Option A2 may prove cheaper, as there was no need to transport in 2 directions.

 

Carole Thomson noted that the Consultation document needed amendments; page 46, paragraph 32, line 1, the word “account” is missing, and the references to “F1 children” should be replaced with “reception children” throughout.  She noted that schools had been asked to consult on these proposals.  They had no idea of the impact on their budgets, and in particular if the bus routes provided are safe or not.  Parents need to be made aware of which routes are unsafe, and schools needed to be informed whether or not their routes were threatened.

 

In terms of increasing income, Committee heard that broader works were underway with regards to transport, encouraging the use of public buses and promoting school travel.  Home to School transport as community transport may be something that could be considered viable.

 

Councillor Hoare commented that the use of school buses by others may cause problems with child protection/safety measures, as the Council would not be able to restrict users of school transport to only parents.  He noted that there were savings with Option A1 and A2, with sensible differences between the two proposals, striking at the heart of how he understands a village community to work and function.  Also of note was the impact of differing term-times within schools, which would have a knock-on effect for parents in terms of childcare.

 

Councillor Waine reminded Committee that schools which have converted to academy status were able to set their own term-times, and asked if the Council would have to provide transport for different term dates.  The Committee were informed by Roy Leach that schools have been advised that where it can accommodate changes to term dates, the Council will provide transport.  Where this is not possible the school itself will have to meet the extra transport costs until the transport contracts are renewed.

 

In discussion, it was queried whether or not there would be an opportunity for a review of the consultation before the matter returned to Cabinet on the 28^th January 2014.  The Committee were advised by the Clerk that the timescales were very tight between the end of the consultation date and the meeting of Cabinet when this would be considered.  It was suggested that the report to Cabinet could be emailed to members for comment.  Members were split between the view that the outcome of the consultation was a matter for Cabinet, which members could comment on and attend, and the view that a thorough examination of the matter by Committee would be useful, although it was acknowledged that sight of the results of the consultation would be useful.

 

The Chair noted that the consultation on this matter closed on the 20^th December 2013, and was due to go to Cabinet on the 28^th January 2014.  Mindful of the resources available to discuss this again, the issue of a further meeting was put to the vote and it was:

 

RESOLVED:  that there would be no further meeting of the Committee to discuss the matter, but the Cabinet report would be circulated to all Committee members prior to Cabinet taking place.