Agenda item

Roy Leach, School Organisation & Planning Manager and Neil Darlington, Admissions & Transport Services Manager to attend and inform the Committee on the proposed Home to School Transport Policy 2014.

The Committee had before them a report on the Proposed Home to School Transport Policy together with a summary of the consultation responses received so far.

Roy Leach, School Organisation and Planning Manager explained that the Collaborative Learning Partnerships had been an initiative of the previous Government and no longer existed. The Council was promoting collaborative companies. He set the proposals in the context of the wider financial position of the Council and the need to make savings. Proposal 5 would lead to savings of £300,000. Referring to slides he explained the impact of the catchment areas on transport in the Burford/Carterton area and for the area around Matthew Arnold School.

Responding to questions he explained the relevance of the statutory walking distances and indicated that most authorities adhered to them. He explained that family links were considered as part of the allocation policy which gave priority to siblings but that this was not relevant to free home to school transport. He clarified the statutory responsibility to provide free home to school transport making it clear that this was to the nearest school with an available place. He responded to individual queries about how home to school transport process worked clarifying that it worked across county boundaries and that there was no entitlement for free transport post 16. Referring to historic anomalies Roy Leach acknowledged that there were routes that had not been checked for many years. Some had already been changed and it was good practice to check routes frequently as they were now doing.

During a question and answer session with officers the following were amongst the areas considered:

1) A great deal of concern was expressed over the impact on rural communities with individual councillors referring to particular difficulties in their division. It was however noted that there some schools affected were in the  urban areas.

2) In particular it was felt that paragraph 45 which excluded street lighting in terms of safety was urban centric and did not take into account rural settings where often there was no street lighting.

3) Collaborative working between secondary and primary schools could be badly affected by the proposals.

4) Doubt was cast over the level of saving that would be achieved with the changes likely to result in some new routes.

5) Members discussed the use of the Road Safety GB Guidelines and sought an understanding of what was included. There was a general view that they should be applied with some consideration of local circumstances and factors. For instance the existence of a footpath was not proof of a safe route if at times in the year it was impassable due to flooding. Roy Leach explained that lack of street lighting on its own was not a proof of an unsafe route. The determination of a route as safe could be challenged both now and in the future through the appeals process. Roy Leach clarified how the appeals process worked.

6) Members recognised the uncertainty due to the changing nature of schools provision and noted that Academies would set their own catchment areas which could impact on the Council under the current policy. Roy Leach confirmed that catchment areas would still be used for allocation to schools and would be under the control of the relevant admissions authorities which for academies would be the governing Bodies. He also confirmed that under the new proposals the nearest schools would include all publicly funded schools.

7) Responding to comments Roy Leach confirmed that they were open to other options and would look sympathetically on suggestions that still allowed the necessary savings to be achieved.

8) There was discussion of the consultation undertaken and officers explained the steps taken to consult which included publication on the consultation portal of the Council’s website, with links sent to every school, the arch diocese, parish councillors, Councillors and a letter to parents through the schools. The consultation had been extended following representations and so far 1,600 responses had been received. As a result of concerns over the consultation a frequently asked questions section had been added to the webpages. This would be extended further following today’s meeting.

Following further extensive discussion the further points were made:

9) Whilst recognising that savings needed to be made there was a view that the proposals caused a great deal of disturbance for the amount to be saved.

10) Legal advice should be sought before any decision was taken to ensure that the consultation process did not leave the Council open to challenge, particularly in terms of the revised closing date being the day before the cabinet meeting thus not giving sufficient time for views to be properly considered.

11) A member raised the issue of the general competence given to Council’s and queried whether there had been sufficient consideration of this.

12) It was felt that the consultation had not been sufficiently clear about who was affected and how. In particular there had insufficient information about the proportional impact on rural schools. In addition there were remaining concerns about whether the consultation had targeted the right people and groups and been long enough.

13) There was a view from several members that the proposals had been rushed and that the timing was poor given the uncertainty around future provision and the implications to catchments, term times and school hours.

14) It was suggested that consultations of this type needed to go directly to governors to ensure they were included in consultation. However despite the fact that consultation could be improved one member felt strongly that the decision could not be put off simply because it was difficult and suggested that there was a case for temporary deferral by Cabinet to allow proper consideration of the consultation responses received up to 15 July. He could not support a longer deferral as noted that the initial savings were already in the Council’s budget.

Following a proposal by Councillor Hoare and initial discussion the Chairman proposed: that legal assurance be sought that the consultation process has not left the Council open to challenge; and that there should be a detailed review of proposals with a lengthier targeted consultation process and that the policy decision be delayed by a year to allow for that review.

Following further discussion it was:

AGREED: (by 8 votes for to 3 against) to recommend to Cabinet:

(a)               to seek legal advice to ensure that the manner of the consultation has not left the council open to challenge;

(b)               that there should be a detailed review of proposals and a lengthier, targeted consultation process with this policy decision to be deferred for a year in order for that review to take place in a thorough and measured way.