Agenda item

Jim Leivers, Director for Children’s Services, Roy Leach, School Organisation and Planning Manager and Neil Darlington attended for this item. Jim Leivers set the proposals in the overall context of the Directorate’s and the County Council’s financial position. Incredibly tough decisions were needed. Savings had to be made here or elsewhere. The changes were the result of necessity not desire.  He stressed that the current position was not sustainable with the rise in academies that set their own catchment areas. This would leave the Council exposed to financial risk in the future. Roy Leach in presenting the proposals emphasised that no-one currently receiving transport would be affected by the proposals. He explained the concept of split villages and that such proposals had to be applied across the County. He gave examples of the level at which a split village could be defined ranging from 15 – 25%.

During detailed questioning and discussion the following points were raised:

1.       Concern was raised over the potential of a blank cheque being made available to academies in terms of transport and the view was expressed that Option A1 removed this risk, although it was unclear whether Option A2 did the same. 

2.       Members felt it was important to go to nearest school and supported the extension of this to the nearest school in Oxfordshire

3.       There was concern about the split villages, as the percentages in future years might change and this would make it complicated.

4.       Members in supporting the proposal relating to split villages commented that it would enable children from the same village to attend the same school, but may make the issue unnecessarily complex.

5.       Some Members commented that the case for Option A2 was emotional, and the issue was not one of splitting villages, but of providing free transport.

6.       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.

7.       It was emphasised that Option A2 may prove cheaper, as there was no need to transport in 2 directions

8.       It was noted that split villages only spoke about the rural aspects and this had not been explored for the towns.

9.       Some felt that for simplicity the policy should only use nearest school.

10.    Would it be worthwhile to hold off until the new Department for Education guidance comes out.

11.    There was concern about the links to the policy and the admissions team given the budgets will be in Environment & Economy.

12.    Schools had a wide discretion for spending on improving education outcomes and transport would be no different.

13.    There was concern about the amount parents would have to pay and the problem if parents had to pay this up front.  It was noted that the payment is currently payable in three instalments, but officers were considering 12 monthly instalments.

14.    There was some concern about the consultation not including extended transport options. It was suggested that the Council consider a more proactive role in the Big Society approach to school transport including alternative arrangements.

15.    There was concern about the unknown risks, such as free schools, and housing growth but it was accepted that the policy could not be hostage to these.

16.    Members generally felt that changes were fair, logical and reasonable to put forward and protections were proposed to support the split villages

17.    Members welcomed that there was no change to children currently receiving transport to school

18.    There was recognition that even if the exact figure was in dispute it was accepted that whatever the final figure is the Council would be making savings

19.    Concern was expressed that nothing had changed since the last consultation and the new guidance was not available to guide us.

20.    It was suggested that most savings could be made by looking at the taxi budget

21.    It was noted that safe travel routes had not been explored.

22.    The costs for educational rather than vocational may affect the choice of children staying on in education

23.    There was a suggestion that the concessionary charges was an arbitrary figure; children choosing to use these seats should be charged what they cost

24.    A Member disagreed with any increase in Post 16 since the educational age has been increased. It was suggested that Council lobby the government to fund this since they changed the rules

25.    The committee supported further work to be undertaken, including safe routes, admissions policies, and the taxi budget.  The study of alternative transport arrangements and the dissemination of best practice could be included in this work.  There is an SEN pilot in place at the moment which should be incorporated.

26.    The committee would also like to press the government to overhaul the principles of home to school transport in the light of the new Post 16 regulations. 

Following questions and discussion the Committee took a series of votes by a show of hands in order to set down their views for Cabinet to consider.

The Committee supported

(a)          (by 9 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions) the provision of free transport to the nearest available school in Oxfordshire;

(b)          (by 5 votes to 4 with 3 abstentions  a 'split village' entitlement;

(c)          where at least 20% (By 5 votes to 0 with 7 abstentions ) of addresses, but not all, are nearest to the catchment school and the rest are nearest to another school; in such cases free transport to be provided to the catchment school for all addresses;

(d)          (by 8 votes to 0 with 4 abstentions) the introduction of the new policy from September 2015 for children starting primary school or transferring to secondary school, and to phase the policy change in year by year as children start schools or transfer between phases of education. Those in receipt of free travel under the current policy in September 2014 would continue to receive it on the same terms until they leave that phase of education or move to an alternative school;

(e)          (by 6 votes to 1 with 4 abstentions) to increase the charges for concessionary travel and post 16 travel by 10% in September 2014. This would involve increasing concessionary fares in 2014/15 to £290.40 (£96.80 per two terms of the 6 term year) for those who live under 3 miles from the school attended, and £541.20 per annum (£180.40 per two terms of the 6 term year) for those who live over 3 miles from the school attended;

(f)           (by 9 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions) from September 2015, to increase concessionary and post-16 fares by 5% per year for the following five years;

(g)          from 2014 to remove all references to collaborative learning transport from the Home to School Transport Policy;

(h)          in order to administer the changes, particularly the determination of the “nearest available school” and the need to process an anticipated increase in the number of Home to School Transport appeals, the Admissions Team to be increased, for two years, by an additional 1 Full Time Equivalent (at a cost of £34,923 per annum).