North Yorkshire Council
Richmond (Yorks) Area Committee
Minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 17 March 2025 commencing at 10.00 am.
Councillor Yvonne Peacock in the Chair and Councillors Caroline Dickinson, Kevin Foster, Bryn Griffiths, David Hugill, Tom Jones, Carl Les, Heather Moorhouse, Stuart Parsons, Karin Sedgwick, Angus Thompson, Steve Watson, David Webster, John Weighell OBE, Annabel Wilkinson, Peter Wilkinson and Malcolm Warne.
Officers in attendance for 10am section of the meeting
Gary Fielding – Corporate Director, Strategic Resources, Sir Stuart Carlton – Corporate Director - Children and Young Peoples’ Services, Amanda Newbold – Assistant Director, Inclusion, Howard Emmett – Assistant Director, Resources, Daniel Harry – Head of Democratic and Scrutiny Services and Steve Loach - Democratic Services
Other attendees: Councillor George Jabbour
19 members of the public for 10am section of the meeting.
Apologies: Alyson Baker.
|
Copies of all documents considered are in the Minute Book
|
|
134 |
Apologies for absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Alyson Baker (non-voting).
|
|
135 |
Minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2025
The minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 17 January 2025 having been printed and circulated, be taken as read and confirmed and signed by the Chair as an accurate record.
|
|
136 |
Declarations of interest
Councillor Yvonne Peacock declared a registered interest in relation to the agenda item North Yorkshire Council's Petition Scheme - 'Rethink North Yorkshire School Transport Cuts' and issues raised in relation to that during the public participation section of the meeting.
Councillor Yvonne Peacock left the meeting.
Councillor Caroline Dickinson in the Chair.
|
|
137 |
Public participation - petition item
The following questions or statements, as detailed below, were submitted by members of the public:
Rob Macdonald
It has been suggested that the scheduled review in the summer of 2026 is sufficient to address the very real concern raised by the School Transport Action Group’s petition.
You have said that the ‘findings of this review will be published in autumn 2026 and should a revision to the policy be required, there would be time for this to be proposed, consulted on and adopted in time for 12th September 2027 at the earliest.’
This tells us two important things:
First, is that your recommended turnaround time for conducting a valid, and therefore meaningful review is 15 months.
Second, is that if you started a review in Summer 2026, it could only impact children starting school in September 2028 at the earliest.
Let’s be really clear on that point. The first children to benefit from a summer 2026 review would be the September 2028 intake – three and a half years from now, at the earliest.
What if you try to pull that forward a year and schedule the review to run this Summer – in a few short months’ time?
Remember what you said – you need a full year’s actual data for a review to serve any legitimate purpose, and the earliest you will get that will be July 2026. If you try a Summer ’25 review, you won’t have the data, it won’t be legitimate, it won’t convince anybody, and it won’t solve the mess and unless you’ve already decided the outcome of a Summer ’25 review, you will not have time to formulate a proper response, with a proper consultation, and jump through all the legislative hoops required to implement a policy change in time for this September.
The earliest date any changes would be implemented from a 2025 review, would be for pupils starting school in September 2027.
At best, you’ll reduce three years chaos to two.
So, how will things look after two or three years of ‘nearest school’ madness?
Parents in the Dales forced to pay to keep their children safe – for years.
Parents in Craven forced to pay to get their kids to their nearest grammar school – for years.
Parents around Selby, Whitby and in North Richmondshire forced to pay to keep their kids within county and community – for years.
Every council taxpayer in the county from Harrogate to Hawes, forced to pay out for duplicate buses and extra private taxis – for years.
It’s clear. A review simply means delay. It prolongs the pain. It prolongs the pretence.
Until this policy is changed, the chaos, the costs, the injustice will roll on. Not just two years or three years but for seven more years after that while those children affected complete their schooling.
Let’s put a stop to this. You already know what to do. Bring back catchment now.
Oscar Kendall
I'd like to begin by wishing you all a good morning.
I'm sure many of you in attendance today will be wondering why I'm not in school and why I’ve been given special permission from my Mum and Head Teacher to miss out on my education this morning. My reason is, that if I do not plead the case for myself and many other children today - they shall miss out on so much more tomorrow.
Over the past few months there's been concern in our local community over the new Home to School Transport Policy. And that among you, our representatives here at County Hall, there has been endless division, arguing and tension.
Despite various councillors, MPs and even peers in the House of Lords discussing this policy, what has not been clearly heard yet are the real stories of those directly affected, especially those of a younger generation, the next generation.
In the next few months, my mother, younger half-brother and I, are looking to move four miles down the road from where we currently live in Whaw, to the village of Reeth. I am currently a proud Richmond School student, and I am also in the middle of my GCSE coursework, a very stressful time that requires most of my attention. From the moment my primary address changes from Whaw to Reeth, I would be reassessed on whether I'd still qualify for my free transport to Richmond School. As the new ‘nearest school only’ rule will apply, I will no longer qualify for free transport to Richmond School.
I would most likely have to transfer to Wensleydale School as that would be the closest school with only 2 miles in it.
Changing of schools during my GCSE coursework would be detrimental to not only my current education, but future career aspects. Wensleydale School does not offer all the GCSE courses I currently take at Richmond, so I would have to learn an entirely new course programme in what would be my final exam year. I also may have to settle for potentially different courses at A-Level courses than the one I am currently hoping for the opportunity for me to take the relevant GCSE courses, will have been removed.
Finally, I'd like to reiterate I'm not the only one who will be negatively impacted by this policy change. We live in a world where things cost more than ever, especially the cost of raising of a child. For this council to decide to put further financial burden on families, such as having to pay for the transport to their local catchment school is unwarranted and unfair.
On behalf of the many concerned children and adults, who are in a state of uncertainty and worry, I appeal to this committee and council to please revert this policy urgently and bring back catchment.
Carol Livingston
To those who voted for this policy change last July, I’d like you to ask yourself this simple question - did you really know what you were voting for?
Did you know then, that this policy takes North Yorkshire schools’ education budget and hands it to neighbouring local authorities by giving some families no choice other than to bus their children to schools out of county?
Were you aware that it puts 1 in 4 primary schools with under 100 students in danger of losing pupils, and that officers have admitted that some will be ‘no longer viable’?
Did you think about students like Oscar who are being forced to change schools in the middle of their GCSEs? Would you want this to happen to your children or grandchildren?
Did you realise that ten-year-olds who have studied for over a year for entrance exams, are having to turn down offers of a Grammar School place because the other school in their town is marginally closer. Because until last week, your fellow Conservative councillors from Skipton & Ripon didn’t have a clue.
You have forced hundreds of working Mums to consider giving up their careers to do the school run. And just let’s be clear about this, it is mostly Mums that will suffer from this decision. Annabel, Karin, Caroline, Heather – are you really ok about voting for that?
Did you realise this decision would leave children in tears? Such as one little girl from Scorton, in your ward Carl. Two weeks ago today, she went to school excited about the future after finding our she’d got a place with all her friends at Richmond School (her catchment). Later that day, her Mum, along with the rest of the village, heard the news. As a single working Mum, she then had to explain to her distraught daughter why she’d have to swap to Risedale, which you say is a quarter of a mile nearer.
Too many families with children starting school this year, urgently need your help right now. Major mistakes were made by this council when applying this policy change and parents are the ones left picking up the pieces. Did you really vote for a summer of chaos, upset and wall to wall appeals? Because that’s what’s coming your way.
You said at the time that your decision was based on ‘financial necessity’. Well, we now know that the £4m+ savings that you voted for in July, have since dropped by 60%. And still, no implementation costs have been factored in, despite officers admitting that scrapping catchment means more drivers, more vehicles and more routes, for seven more years. Be honest, how many of you here feel hoodwinked into voting for savings that never really existed?
Councillors, if you didn’t know all this when you voted, well, you do now. So, it is your duty to do something about it.
I am a finance director, and I understand that at times, difficult choices need to be made. But when new information comes to light that undermines the reasons behind a financial decision, the responsible thing to do is to act, without delay, to make a change that avoids further time and money being wasted.
I have been a Conservative voter all my life, like many others in my community. We need you to know how disappointed we are that, as a party, those we have supported in the past have not acknowledged the need to bring catchment back. That single change is the quickest way to get this mess sorted out. The special Full Council meeting that has been called, has given you an opportunity to put this right.
Please, do not blow this chance. You absolutely must act now. Because every day you wait, more unnecessary damage is being done to the people who put you where you are now.
On behalf of all the distraught families out there, who are anxiously watching to see what you decide to do next with our lives, we need you to know this - if you let us down this time, it will never be forgotten. We will not forgive you.
Linda Rukin
In September, my daughter and her friends will be starting their secondary school education. They are among the first wave of children to feel the impact of your decision to reduce free school transport to nearest school only. Along with all the other children in our part of the Dales, the plan was for her to get the bus to, Richmond School, the long-established catchment school for our area.
I am here today to share the experience that I and other parents I’ve spoken to have had as we have attempted to navigate through the stress and confusion created by the last-minute school transport policy change.
Specifically:
When I looked on your website for guidance around school admissions, the information presented about the Home to School transport seemed to say different things in different places. Some pages referred to free transport still being available to catchment schools.
Why wasn’t more effort made to explain the details of the policy change to parents at the Richmond School Open Evening? Surely that was a golden opportunity for someone from the North Yorkshire Council team to answer questions. At the very least, printed copies of the policy could have been available for parents to take away.
(I understand that Richmond School did ask the Council to come to the Open Evening (on 19th September 2024) to help explain the impact of the policy, but that invite was declined. I've also been told that the week after the event, the school received a presentation about the policy from the Council with a request to display it at their Open Evening - but by then it was too late.)
I note that there are regulations in place that set out what a Local Authority must do in way of sharing information about travel arrangements and policies. This includes: · placing it on their website; · making copies available without charge at County Hall and every school; · distribute copies without charge to parents with children in their final year of primary school; · make copies available for reference at local libraries
(These fall within Part 1 of Schedule 3 of the School Information (England) Regulations 2008. Under the regulations, at para 8, the Local Authority was required to publish the new transport policy by 19th September 2024 (six weeks before 31st October) in formats as listed above.)
I think the Council has completely failed on this point. The policy may have been on the website but as the versions presented seemed to vary, how were parents supposed to know which was the right one to follow?
To be clear, I never saw any copies of the policy out to pick up at school, or at the open day for Richmond, nor did the Council send me a copy. I don't think it's good enough to send a letter by email via our primary school with a link in it to the website (which showed different policies at different places). To distribute a copy or make copies available without charge - surely - must mean a printed copy.
The impact of this for me and other families is that we were left in the dark.
I am concerned that some parents have made school choices they may not have made had they had full knowledge of the facts. They now face transport costs which many cannot afford. If the Council had complied with the regulations and if Richmond School had been provided with the support they asked for, more families would have been fully equipped to make an informed decision.
Can I therefore ask the Council:
Do you accept that mistakes have been made in communicating the policy change?
What advice can you give to parents who have been impacted by these communication failures?
|
|
138 |
North Yorkshire Council's petition scheme - 'Rethink North Yorkshire School Transport Cuts'
Details of the petition and its aims were set out in the published report, together with a response from representatives of Children and Young Peoples Services.
The key features of the Council’s arrangements for receiving and debating petitions, as published on the Council’s website, are as follows:
Receipt of the petition is published on the Council’s website (which has been done in the case of this petition).
If a petition contains 500 or more signatures (but less than 30,130 signatories), it will be scheduled for debate at a meeting of the appropriate Area Committee which is the case for this petition.
The petition organiser is offered the opportunity to speak for five minutes at the Area Committee meeting to present their petition. Subsequently, at the meeting, the petition will be discussed by Councillors for a maximum of 15 minutes and a decision will be made on how to respond to the petition.
The possible responses by the Council to petitions, as shown on the website, are:
a) to take the action requested by the petition b) not to take the action requested for reasons put forward in the debate c) to commission further investigation into the matter, for example by a relevant committee; or d) where the issue is one on which the council Executive is required to make the final decision, the council will decide whether to make recommendations to inform that decision.
The petition organiser will receive written confirmation of this decision. This confirmation will also be published on the website.
In accordance with the arrangements described above, the petition organiser was invited to join the meeting to present their petition.
Statement by the petitioner, Ian Dawson
The following statement was read on behalf of the petitioner:
Good morning.
Before I start reading, I want to ask you to remember why it is that you are sitting here today, the reasons why you wanted to become a councillor. To make a real difference? To represent the views of your constituents? To do what is right? I know that it must sometimes be a hard job but also rewarding.
We are just a group, made up of concerned parents and residents who just want the best outcome for our children and communities of North Yorkshire. I hope everyone in this room has that same goal.
Back in November we handed you the petition asking for a rethink of the policy, to bring back catchment. That has brought us here today. Back then we were just a small group from Richmondshire, now we’re a determined team with a support in all corners of the county. We have 360 active supporters and many more cheering us on. We’ve come this far, and we won’t stop until we get this fixed. Too much is riding on this, for too many people for us to give up now.
Since we were last sitting round this table, two notable things have happened. Neither one could be described as North Yorkshire Council’s finest moment.
The first, at the Full Council meeting on 26 February. The Admissions Arrangement document presented to Council contained grave errors and had to be corrected at the eleventh hour. Even then, there remains a serious contradiction in advice given to parents on whether to include their catchment school on the application if it is not in the list of your five nearest schools.
The consequences of this for families in Stapleton, Barton, Croft, Keld, Aldbrough St John, Whitby, Tockwith and elsewhere in North Yorkshire is real where these children have 5 nearest above their catchment.
North Yorkshire now has in place two conflicting school policies - an admissions policy based on catchment and a school transport policy based solely on distance. This makes no sense, and it exposes you to hundreds of costly appeals. In fact, we now question whether these contradictions make them legal.
The second key date was what happened on 3 March - National Offer Day. Families across the county with children starting secondary school in September, discovered which school they had received a place at. It was the biggest test yet for the new Home to School Transport Policy and it’s fair to say it failed spectacularly. Our inbox and phone lines have never been busier with distressed parents seeking help, from us, just a group of other parents.
The fallout is still happening, we know the number of appeals are mounting fast and all the while, this council’s reputation is being damaged. And it’s going to get worse. Parents are now in limbo, waiting until the end of May to be told whether their child qualifies for free transport. If they do qualify, they are told NYC will be in touch, if they don’t hear from you, they’ve been warned that’s how they’ll know they have been left in the lurch. That’s appalling. Are you going to do the same to parents with primary school children when those school places are announced in April?
It’s clear now, that many parents were not aware of the changes when they filled out their application forms. Your communication to parents has been both sparse and inconsistent, despite the fact the transport policy change happened just two weeks before the admission process opened.
Councillors this whole thing is broken. Your own approved budget is evidence that there are no savings from any of this. Other councils have made better choices. Only 3 out of our 13 neighbouring local authorities have imposed ‘nearest school only’ on their residents in the same way as you have. Those three are in urban areas with public transport and where most pupils are within walking distance. So, the impact is nowhere near as harmful as it is for the 73% of families here in our county who are rural.
We remind you once again that all of this mess, and all the angst being inflicted on families and schools, can go away with one small change to the Home to School Transport policy – bring back catchment.
Sometimes you just have to be big enough to admit you’ve got it wrong. Cllr Thompson has been brave enough to say publicly, “If I knew then, what I know now I would not have voted for this”. We thank him for his honesty and ask you to listen to what he has to say. Unlike some, he has understood that there are no real savings to be had and that the cost to North Yorkshire children and schools is just too high.
It’s not for me to tell you how to vote today. Do whatever guarantees that this policy gets back to Full Council as fast as possible then back the amendment to bring catchment back.
Please do not waste this chance. Do not look for excuses to delay. Because every day you do, more damage is being done. Our children are depending on you. Please don’t let them down
Finally, I’d like to end with an invitation.
We are serious about wanting to work this out. We have seen close up how decisions are made in this council, and we are worried. We believe this council would be stronger if the public had a proper voice. With that in mind -
Annabel and Carl, please will you and Stuart Carlton meet with three of our team to have a proper conversation about the policy and listen to why we are so concerned. We know you are sick of hearing from us but we too are sick of the deflected answers. We believe there is a better way. The consequences of the implementation of this fall out from this policy is too severe to ignore. And the urgency is real. You cannot put an entire year of 5-year-olds and 10-year-olds through this. They need your help now. Please show North Yorkshire that you are listening, that you really do understand and that you care.
Response
Amanda Newbold– Assistant Director, Inclusion responded to the issues raised in public statements and by the petitioner, at this and the previous meeting as follows:
I would first like to offer a response to the statements made at the previous meeting as I was not given the opportunity to do so at the time.
As a reminder, the speakers talked about making difficult choices and asked the council to support parents to choose catchment schools for their children and access travel assistance.
They spoke about the cost of purchasing seats on home to school transport and some families needing to choose a school that is different to other children in their community due to transport costs. The issue of term dates was raised in reference to children attending schools outside of the county area.
They also spoke about concerns to the cohort attending Richmond school and the impact on the school’s curriculum offer, teacher specialisms and sixth form offer.
Wider transport availability in Swaledale was raised.
Written questions were submitted that questioned inconsistencies in the distance calculations, the expected savings, and differences between council areas as well as the safety of routes that might be used.
I would like to start by reading an extract from the DfE’s blog, ‘Free school transport explained: From who’s eligible to how it works’ (Nov 2023). When choosing which schools to apply for, it is important to consider how your child will get there. Some children are eligible for free travel, but this isn’t the case for everyone.
Most parents should expect to be responsible for making arrangements for their child to get to and from school. [The Government] set the national eligibility criteria for free travel to school and your local authority is responsible for deciding whether your child meets these criteria.
Your child is eligible if they are of compulsory school age, go to their nearest suitable school and one of the following applies:
· they are under 8 and the school is more than 2 miles away · they are 8 or over and the school is more than 3 miles away · they wouldn’t be able to walk there safely, even if accompanied by a parent or guardian · they wouldn’t be able walk there because of their special educational needs, disability, or a mobility problem, even if accompanied by a parent or guardian.
A child will not normally be eligible for free travel solely because of their parent’s work commitments or caring responsibilities.
Your child may also be entitled to free transport if you have a low family income and they are entitled to free school meals or you get the maximum Working Tax Credit.
If your child doesn't meet the criteria above, you are responsible for arranging their travel to and from school. Some local authorities arrange travel for children who don’t meet the eligibility criteria, although they are not required to. Where they choose to do so, the [local authority] may charge you for the cost of it.
It is right that the council has a statutory duty to provide home to school travel for eligible children of compulsory school age in accordance with Statutory Guidance issued by the Department for Education (DfE).
Parents have the right to preference any school of their choice when applying for a school place, they do not however have a right to free-of-charge travel arrangements to that school.
Increases in the cost of fuel, transport and insurance resulted in full council voting, by a majority, to adopt a revised H2ST policy that is both in line with the Department for Education guidance, and targets resources at those who need it most and who are entitled to travel assistance in line with legislation. We are aware that schools, including Richmond, arrange transport for pupils who do not meet the council’s eligibility for free transport and that the charge to parents is often much greater than the council’s current fee for a paid for permit.
I would also like to respond briefly to the petition statement from the last meeting.
The petitioner spoke about the impact on families and communities, concerns about the level of achievable savings and a request to scrap ‘nearest only’ and return to a catchment-based policy.
You have heard already that the nearest school cannot be removed as it is in legislation.
However, catchments are geographical areas, from which children may be afforded priority for admission to a particular school. A catchment area is part of some schools’ admission arrangements.
Catchment areas do not prevent parents who live outside the catchment of a particular school from expressing a preference for the school. We know that around 1/3 of secondary children, and 45% of primary children, attend a school that is not their catchment school.
The previous eligibility for travel assistance under the ‘catchment’ criteria was a discretionary provision. The concept of ‘catchment’ does not appear in the DfE guidance for home to school travel - in today’s education system, some schools do not have catchments, some share catchments and some addresses have two or more catchments and so the change to the main criterion of ‘nearest suitable school’ reflects this national approach.
I would also like to respond to comments about the FOI that was referred to in the last meeting.
The information requested relates to some data that has already been exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 36(2)(b)(ii) and (c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
There has been some confusion about this (some requesters were asking for a ‘report’) however the information is held in a datasheet.
The Council received a Freedom of Information request, but withheld it, citing potential prejudice to public affairs. The data, linked to school admission numbers and financial stability, could impact individual schools if released, influencing parental choices in school admissions.
Created as an officer tool for early policy development, the data models the impact of proposed policy changes on pupil eligibility for school travel assistance. The outcome of the model showed the possible impact of pupil eligibility for travel to a school, if the proposed policy were to be introduced, and was a snapshot on a single day. It showed the net effect of which pupils would ‘retain’ assistance, could ‘lose’ assistance, or might ‘secure travel assistance’ but to a different school and, if so, which school. This data set was indicative only as it related to pupils already in the schools, already eligible for transport. The council has not removed eligibility for current pupils under the previous policy. Data modelling is a standard element that is taken into consideration when deciding to propose amendments to policies.
The Council believes officers need space to create data for policy proposals without public scrutiny. Disclosure could inhibit future free and frank exchanges and data collection.
The Council believes that it would be prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs as school’s potential admission numbers and their financial stability is linked to the numbers of pupils on roll which may be impacted if this information were in the public domain. The Council would argue that the release of this modelling data may adversely impact upon individual schools, as parents may be able to identify individual schools, and therefore use this data to form a view as to whether a school is financially viable, which would further influence the preferences for school placements in the school admissions process.
Schools who were captured in this initial data set have had the opportunity to access the data for their schools on request during the consultation process. Not all schools have taken up this offer.
I will now respond to the four public statements made in this meeting 17 March 2025.
Mr McDonald - Thank you for raising the matter of the post implementation review of the July 20204 Home to School Travel Policy
I note your concerns about the length of time before the review is undertaken and published.
I would like to clarify that the timing of the review does not relate to the length of time to undertake the review, rather it relates to the set of data required to inform the review. For a review of the new policy to be meaningful, it should include (but not be limited to) pupil data from the Sept 2025 admissions rounds, as well as 2025-26 financial year information which will take account of changes to transport contracts in the academic year Sept 25-July 26.
Any review before this time would not provide a comprehensive view of the implementation of the policy.
Regarding your comments about potential policy changes arising from the review. I can confirm that any recommendations taken forward to councillors for consideration would need to be agreed in time for a revised Home to School Travel Policy to be adopted in line with legislation. A policy must be agreed by the end of July for adoption in September of the same year. The review published in autumn 2026 could therefore impact on the September 2027 policy (27-28 admission round) which would predominantly impact on ‘new starters’ in September 2028. Though it would impact in-year admissions from Sept 27
Oscar - Thank you for taking time to attend today and bring the voice of a young person to councillors.
You have talked about your worries about what might happen if you move house during your final years at school. Councillors will understand that it is a parental decision when and where they move house and when thinking about moving, parents would take account of the impact this may have on schooling. Sometimes parents decide to keep their child/children at the current school, even if this means they need to make different travel arrangements, and sometimes they decide to move schools. This is a personal decision for families to make.
However, for the council, all address changes must be considered as ‘material changes’ and as such they would require re-assessment of eligibility for travel assistance. This aspect of policy implementation did not change when the policy was updated.
So, after a house move, it is parents' responsibility to inform the Council of any changes in their circumstances which may affect their eligibility for travel assistance. Eligibility is then assessed and considered under all criteria, including low income /extended entitlement.
Any exceptional circumstances can be considered at appeal.
Ms Livingstone - Thank you for your statement that asks councillors to consider what they knew at the time of the policy decision. For ease I have referenced earlier reports containing relevant information as part of the consultation and the decision-making process in 2024 – this is intended to support councillors in their reflections to your questions.
The answer to your first questions can be found in the wording from section 5.26 of the report to Exec 16th July 2024:
Each year, the October school census information is used for the determination of school budget in the following financial year, for example, the October 2024 census information will be used for the determination of school budgets in 2025/26. Schools are funded for the pupils on roll at the school on the census day – not the pupils that live in the county. Whilst some school rolls will only include pupils who are resident in North Yorkshire, a number of schools – typically located near the county border – will include pupils who are resident in North Yorkshire and some pupils who are resident in other local authority areas. To clarify further, this means that North Yorkshire Council does not fund schools or academies located outside of North Yorkshire to educate North Yorkshire pupils. Funding from DfE is allocated according to census day pupils on roll, not pupils who are resident in the county.
Your second point suggests that ‘1 in 4 small primary school could lose pupils’. If by this claim you are referring to the modelled data shared during the consultation, we said early estimations indicated 37 of 142 primary schools with fewer than 100 children on roll could see decreased eligibility for travel assistance, (we also stated that in most cases this change in eligibility could be to the tune of less than 5% of pupil roll in a school and could be over the seven-year implementation period). I would like to remind councillors that decreased eligibility for transport does not automatically mean decreased children on roll at the school. Data after the recent secondary national offer day (NOD) supports this view. We have not seen significant changes in secondary admissions numbers this round, and I can confirm that Richmond School is oversubscribed with a waiting list for the first time in the last few years.
As we are not yet at primary national offer day, it is too early to comment further about primary schools. However, we can confirm that no school will close because of this policy alone.
You also made a suggestion that some councillors were not aware of the policy implication relating to selective schools. I refer councillors to section 5.25 of the report to Exec 16th July 2024 where it stated:
‘It is correct if the proposed policy is adopted, then children would not be eligible for assistance to selective schools unless they are their nearest suitable school. This would be equitable with all children attending non-selective schools as it [was] under the [previous] policy. The selective school would only be a suitable school for transport assistance where a child had achieved the entry requirements.’
You have suggested that councillors have forced working mums to consider giving up their careers.
Decisions about school choice are made by families across the county every year. Councillors will have noted in section 5.24 of the report to Exec 16th July 2024 that there was a response to practical issues for families which were raised in the consultation process. Furthermore, parents are encouraged during the annual admissions process to take account of transport needs and the council’s policy when choosing to apply for school places. Families with existing eligibility under the previous remain unaffected, unless there is a material change, and for those families where their home address is over the statutory walking distance, the council will provide travel to the nearest suitable school with places. The council has also provided additional extended entitlement for low-income families within the current policy.
Another question you raised was about the level of appeals expected this summer.
Councillors will recognise that with a new policy change this is likely to bring more appeals in the first year or two. This is what happened at the last policy change, and so can be expected this time. We have taken steps to ensure effective communication about the policy, and we recognise and respect the right of appeal. We will ensure the appeals process is as smooth as possible for those families wishing to access the appeals procedure.
The following information is on the council’s website and explains the reasons when appeals may be appropriate.
Once the council has carried out the eligibility assessments, and from 2 June 2025, if you believe that under the policy your child is eligible, you can challenge the council's decision in relation to transport eligibility and you can appeal against:
· your child’s eligibility to free travel · the transport arrangements made for an eligible child · the distance measurement of the walked route · the safety of the walked route that is under the statutory walking distance
Your last point suggests councillors were misled about the potential savings that could be achieved through the policy implementation.
Councillors are clear about the potential for up to £4.2m of savings in the proposal, and information was provided about the range of variables that could impact on the actual savings value. I refer councillors to sections 5.17, 5.18, 6.3 and section 7, of the report to the Executive on 16th July 2024.
The council’s budget 2025-26 and medium-term financial strategy 2026-27 and 2027-28 includes figures relating to the potential estimated savings in the medium term, but we also recognise that savings will continue to be monitored throughout the full implementation period of the policy.
The network of home to school travel routes is updated each September and the overall budget assessment, including savings, is intended to reflect annual anticipated changes in provision. There are no ‘specific’ implementation costs identified as they are factored into the overall cost of provision. The statutory admissions process, transport eligibility assessments, and transport procurement arrangements continue to be delivered from existing resources.
Ms Rukin - Thank you for speaking today and for bringing the issue of communication to the meeting. I note that you have previously communicated with the council in March 2024, via your MP, in July 2024 and again, via councillors, in October 2024. Hopefully, those earlier responses and my response to your statement today will provide you with the assurances you are looking for.
Regarding the possible conflicts of policy. Officers were made aware of one or two incidences where a reference was made to the previous policy; we always ensure changes are made as soon as possible.
You have mentioned an invitation to Richmond School parents’ information evening on 19 September. This invitation was passed on just a few days before the meeting, making it difficult for officers to attend, particularly as both the admissions and transport manager and I were on leave on that date. The parents meeting in September followed on from the consultation and decision making that took place in the spring and summer of 2024, a period when there was a lot of information being shared about the policy change. And the council’s school bulletin – the Red bag - was issued 6th September so all schools had the information they needed to share with parents. Slides were provided to all schools so that they could refer any parents back to the council if there were queries, but the council is not always aware of when schools hold events and would not normally expect to attend over 350 open evenings. I know that Richmond School have sent information about the policy to their families, and these contained links to the council’s website as well as an email address for the council’s admissions and transport team.
You suggest that the council has failed on the regulations that require us to share information about our home to school travel policy. The council believes that all regulations have been adhered to.
I am confident that communications about the policy change have been widespread and have taken place over the course of a year. I do not believe that this is a last-minute policy change as you have suggested. I believe communication has been both proactive and responsive, and more details are provided in my next response.
I finally like to respond to the petition statement.
The admissions and transport policies are linked, we understand that. However, the two policies are discrete. Each one is adopted under a different timeline, each is required to align to different legislation and the associated national guidance. And all Local Authorities make their own decisions about any flexibilities available within the policies.
The council is the admissions authority for only some of the schools in the county. Academy and VA schools are their own admissions authority. And our families choose to attend, and travel to schools, both in and out of the county, under their own arrangements or with assistance from the council. This is a complex area of work.
We have noted the feedback about notifying parents about the eligibility assessment. Eligibility assessments for home to school travel assistance have commenced and, as we are using a ‘new’ main criterion, we are undertaking work to ensure there is a robust assessment process. We will take on board the feedback about notifying families that do not meet the eligibility criteria, and we will give this due consideration.
Communication about the current home to school policy began with coverage in January 2024 and media interest continues today with media colleagues giving the council’s home to school travel policy a high profile. The policy proposal and changes have been referenced on many occasions since January 2024 in Richmondshire Today, the Darlington and Stockton Times, BBC Radio York, the Stray Ferret, the Gazette and Hearld, BBC Look North, Hambleton Today, This is the Coast, the Craven Herald, the Yorkshire Post, the Northern Echo, ITV, Your Harrogate, Greatest Hits, That’s TV, the Harrogate Advertiser, the Scarborough News.
As well as this we have had a wide social media presence since February 2024, the first article on 19 February when the consultation opened received almost 2000 clicks on Facebook and had a reach of almost 1500 on Instagram, almost 2000 each on LinkedIn and X. Proactive social media activity continued and in August 2024 when we announced the policy had been agreed, the Facebook post received over 3000 clicks. The council’s page has a reach (as at Jan 2025) of over 20,000 people.
Councillors have heard and discussed the policy at area committee meetings, scrutiny committee the executive committee, and at full council. Officers have responded to over 50 enquiries from all 7 MPs and around 100 enquiries from NYC councillors across the county.
This admissions cycle, we have had over 10,000 applications for school place in Sept 25.
Over 2500 users viewed the council’s admissions information web pages, on average spending about one minute on the site.
During the same period, only 50 accessed Appendix 1 of the 2025-26 admissions arrangements document online, and they spent a similar amount of time.
Officers are confident that communication about the home to school travel policy has been clear to councillors and to the public but would continue to advise anyone with new questions to look at the council’s website and FAQs section, and to contact the team if they have a specific query that remains unanswered after that.
Gary Fielding, Corporate Director, Strategic Resources, provided details of the proposed savings for the Council the revised policy would generate. Savings of £2.95m had been identified over the next 2 years, with £1.44m attributed directly to the policy. The original estimate for savings of £4.2m over 7 years had been revised to £3m and those details were provided when Council agreed the policy.
Members of the public and the petitioner were invited to ask supplementary questions, and the following issues were discussed:
· Oscar Kendall noted that his parents had been required to move house during the previous year and the new policy would require him to change schools during his exam year as there would be no transport available to his existing school. In response it was stated that, given his position, his parents could appeal for exceptional circumstances to be taken into account to determine whether he could remain at his existing school. · Rob Macdonald stated that the debate at Full Council had referred to savings in excess of £4m with no mention of this being ‘up to’ that figure. He noted that there were discrepancies in the figures provided which excluded the non-policy savings of around 40%. In response it was stated that the figures provided within the report related to 7 years of savings, not the 3 years indicated. Mr Macdonald considered the report to Full Council had not reflected this position nor had it given a breakdown of the non-policy/new policy savings and was, therefore, inaccurate.
Members undertook a 15 minute debate on the petition in line with the Council’s petition scheme highlighting the following issues:
· It was considered that the Area Committee had no power to take action on the petition proposal and that the correct body to consider this matter would be Full Council. · It was suggested that the information on the Council’s website had created confusion as the Admissions Policy and Home to School Transport Policy contradicted each other. It was asked that clarity be provided for parents in respect of this matter ahead of an Extraordinary Meeting of the Council. · The Government settlement for North Yorkshire Council had seen a huge reduction in available funding leading to cost-saving measures having to be taken. The provision of free home to school transport with regards to parental choice for schools was not within national policies and was, therefore, discretionary. It was essential for the Council to make savings due to the decrease in funding and this was an area that could address that, with essential travel and those in most need still being provided with the service. · The national policy for the development of academies saw schools directly competing against each other for pupils with some in this area providing transport to their schools to the detriment of neighbouring schools. This was considered to be more detrimental to local schools than the change in the policy. · A Member emphasised that agreement was yet to be given to an Extraordinary Council meeting, therefore, the matter should be examined carefully to ensure that the interests of concerned residents were addressed. It was urged that the matter be diverted to Council to consider appropriately. · Information on the new policy had been shared with all stakeholders, including Councillors and all schools, therefore it was contested that the communication had been neglected. The new policy included a certain level of compromise and retained some discretion, more than what was required by national guidance and the right to appeal remained available to all parents. · In answer to the issue raised relating to the bus operated by the school for pupils from other areas, a Member emphasised that this factor ensured that the school remained viable. He considered that young people were now required to stay at school until 18, therefore, the means to get there should be provided. It was also suggested that when a pupil had started at a school, and if their wish was to do so, they should be allowed to continue at that school for the remainder of their school years. · It was suggested that the details provided by the Assistant Director in response to the issues raised were lengthy and Members would benefit from a written version of those details. It was agreed to circulate these by email. · A Member considered that a lack of communication around the policy had led to the heightened levels of concern from parents. He also considered that there had been poor communication around the levels of savings to be generated by the new policy, with additional costs not taken account of, leading to further concerns. · Responding to issues raised a Member considered that the details on the website had caused confusion in respect of the policy, particularly in how it conflicted with the Admissions policy and better clarification was required.
Members were reminded of the choices they had in respect of responding to the petition.
Resolved
That the action requested by the petition be not taken as an Extraordinary Meeting of Full Council had been called, and agreed to by the Chair of Council, on a date and time to be determined, to further consider this issue.
The meeting was adjourned at this point.
When the meeting restarted Councillor Heather Moorhouse was in attendance.
Councillor Yvonne Peacock returned to the Chair.
The following also attended the afternoon session:
David Skaith – The Mayor of the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority James Farrar – The CEO of the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority Louise Wilson – Assistant Director, School Improvement Amanda Newbold – Assistant Director, Inclusion Howard Emmett – Assistant Director, Resources Timothy Johns – Senior Policy Officer – Sustainability and Environment (remotely) Hannah Nutsey – Climate Change Business Partner Matt Robinson – Head of Resilience and Emergencies Louisa Carolan – Principal Regeneration Officer
Four members of the public were in attendance.
|
|
139 |
Public participation - non-petition issues
The following questions/statements not related to Home to School Transport were submitted.
Barbara Gravenor, Chair, Richmond Climate Action Partnership
Does North Yorkshire Council have plans for on-street EV charging, which may involve installing public charging points or schemes specifically for residents without driveways. Can the council improve EV infrastructure using grants obtained from government schemes, such as the On-Street Residential Chargepoint Scheme. These schemes can involve charging points installed into lamp posts, free-standing or pillar units added to the kerb, telescopic charging points that retract into the pavement or the provision of charging directly from residents homes. Allowing residents without off-street parking to charge their electric vehicles in the street addresses a key challenge for widespread EV adoption. It will not only increase convenience but also significantly decrease the cost of charging, encouraging a greater take up of electric vehicles.
This matter would be addressed during the Climate Change Activity agenda item.
Lorraine Hodgson, Clerk to Scotton Parish Council
Please find attached a copy of a Sustainable Bus Route which was presented to the Richmondshire Branch Meeting of the Yorkshire Local Councils Associations on 24 October 2024 and was fully endorsed by all Members of the Branch who represent the parish and town councils across the former Richmondshire district.
In addition, along with endorsing the above to you as Mayor of North Yorkshire, after some discussion it was agreed to make representation that the James Cook Hospital being the Major Hospital for the region should be included in any Transport Reform and be included as a ‘destination point’ to enable Public Transport access for patients and visitors alike.
The Richmondshire Branch of the Yorkshire Local Councils Associations would welcome your comment on this sustainable bus route in due course.
The details had been forwarded to the Mayor’s office and a response would be provided outside of this meeting.
|
|
140 |
Annual update from David Skaith, Mayor of York and North Yorkshire
David Skaith, Mayor of York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority and James Farrar, CEO of the Combined Authority outlined the structure, purpose and initial work of the Combined Authority by way of introduction. Issues highlighted included:
· The powers and work of the Combined Authority. · The impact of further nationwide devolution · Economic growth · Police, Fire and Crime · Vision and investments · Meetings with Prime Minister, leading Government Ministers and Mayors of other Combined Authorities. · Various initiatives being pursued: - Homes England - Farming and agriculture - Impacts of flooding - Fire and rescue - Skilled workforce - Transport Strategy - Rural strategies – transport, housing, economic development - Energy and Net Zero.
A number of questions from the Committee were submitted to the Mayor’s Office in advance of the meeting as follows:
· Can the Mayor talk through the process for identifying opportunities for economic and environmental improvements, having a supply of potential projects in the pipeline, and bid writing, when funding becomes available from central government?
· What funding is available for businesses in the Richmond area and what is the Mayor looking for in proposals? Similarly, what projects does the Mayor think have the highest chance of coming to fruition in the Richmond? i.e. How do we link into what the Mayor wants? How does he deliver things for us here?
· Housing - the availability and affordability of housing, particularly in rural areas, is important for economic development – how can this be managed appropriately to ensure local communities remain viable and maintain a local presence?
· How are Important Network Roads designated, how do they work and how do they fit into the development strategy – Will they improve infrastructure and the movement of traffic?
· Green transport systems (cycleways, etc.) – Has the possibility of joining other neighbouring authority areas, in funding such schemes, been explored, to assist with prioritisation?
· Tourism in Hawes and the wider Yorkshire Dales – Is consideration being given to a holistic approach to developing tourism throughout the Dales, and Hawes in particular, with the possibility of Town Plans being developed to assist with that process?
· Will the development of Food Partnerships be utilised to deliver food priorities in the area?
· How will the Mayor assist with the development of integrated transport and access to public transport and will it lead to improvements in rural areas?
· Is there a strategy for the battery storage facilities required for renewable energy sources? A number of planning applications are coming forward in respect of these and a co-ordinated approach would be of benefit to avoid proliferation in particular areas.
· Is there a plan to provide access to Telehealth and how will that be developed?
· Flooding – There are major flooding concerns throughout the Richmond area, for example the impact of flooding at Morton Flatts. How will the Mayor approach these issues and work together with the Environment Agency to create a permanent, sustainable solutions?
The Mayor highlighted the following in response to the issues raised:
· The member authorities would have opportunities to explore funding opportunities available to the Combined Authority and continued liaison between officers and Members would assist in moving that forward. Different opportunities would arise from the various funding streams. · It was suggested that Area Committees could be utilised projects of local interest and a mechanism for developing projects identified in this manner would need to be established. · Housing was recognised as being a particular challenge and the partnership with Homes England would assist with that. · Important Network Roads designation related to roads of key importance to the region that could make use of forthcoming funding. The Combined Authority were determined to improve travel throughout the region including the road network, public transport and Active-Travel/cycleways. The intention was to be bold and adventurous with the development of the transport network with the involvement of neighbouring Combined Authorities to the forefront of this. · A local visitor plan for York and North Yorkshire through the ELBEC. Work on this would also involve the National Parks with a view to developing a sustainable strategy that took account of the special nature of the area. In terms of Hawes it was noted that the Combined Authority had been involved in the development of the Market Hall and would be assisting in other development projects, going forward. · The development of food partnerships was a key priority with work being undertaken by York University in relation to local access to food sources for use in the local area. This initiative was set to develop further. · The strategic transport plan would consider better transport links for rural areas. This would be a major challenge for the Combined Authority who would need to work closely with Central Government to develop an appropriate rural transport system. · The former LEF had been developing Local Area Energy Plans which would continue and would take account of the need for battery storage and a strategy for that, however, this issue would also be dealt with directly by York and North Yorkshire Councils through the planning process. · The Combined Authority provided a unique opportunity to move telehealth forward through the Integrated Health Board. Access to connectivity was still a major challenge in some areas and this had to addressed for an effective service to be provided. · Flooding is recognised as a major concern throughout the Richmond Constituency area and has a huge impact on local communities. The Combined Authority will look to work closely with various partners, including the Environment Agency, to address flooding issues and create flooding prevention schemes.
Members discussed the issues raised highlighting the following:
· It was asked whether the plans for the major towns in the Constituency being developed by the Combined Authority would be available for local Members to have an input. It was stated that there would be engagement with local stakeholders though North Yorkshire Council to ensure the plans were locally led. · The importance of the key roads network development for areas such as Catterick Garrison, which was experiencing huge growth, was emphasised. In response it was noted that the strategic transport team within the Combined Authority was working closely with the MoD in terms of development in that area and its impact. There was also co-ordinated work taking place in terms of other issues affecting Catterick Garrison such as re-skilling and the approach to mental health services, with close work taking place again with the MoD. A Member emphasised the need for support to be provided to former service personnel as, often, when they left the military there was little support provided by the MoD, which created difficulties and a better understanding from all involved was required. It was stated that consideration would be given to the overall picture in relation to these matters. · It was stated that the Committee currently had a project being developed through the £50k seed funding initiative in respect of an integrated transport feasibility study for access to education, skills and employment and it was asked whether the Combined Authority were aware of this. In response it was stated that they had been made aware of the project and were determining how this could relate to the overall strategy and how they could be involved. · Reference was made to the depletion of the number of trains that were now stopping at Northallerton and the need for this to be addressed as it was having a detrimental impact on the whole area. It was considered important that consideration was given to expanding these services. The Member also referred to work undertaken by Northallerton Town Council on an active transport scheme and the need for the Combined Authority to link into that. Finally he referred to the lack of connectivity between the area to medical services, particularly to James Cook Hospital in Middlesbrough. This was echoed in terms of connections from Stokesley to James Cook and the need for the matter to be addressed though the transport strategy. In response to the issues raised it was stated that close working with Transport for the North was being undertaken to consider the use of Northallerton train station. Northallerton Town Council can link into the work being undertaken by the Combined Authority. In terms of the connections to James Cook Hospital a great deal of cross-border work was being undertaken to look at the creation of more efficient and effective connectivity, not only to medical provision, but also throughout the transport network. It was emphasised that this development would be complex and would not be instant as any easy solutions would have been provided should they have already been available. · A Member highlighted projects that were taking place in his Division in relation to food partnerships aligned with work being undertaken with the NFU in respect of food production and usage on a local basis. It was hoped that the embryonic projects could be developed through the assistance of the Combined Authority and then rolled out nationally.
The Mayor and Chief Executive of the Combined Authority were thanked for their attendance at the Area Committee and for the details and updates provided.
Resolved
That the report and issues raised be noted.
|
|
141 |
Annual schools update report
The Committee considered the Annual Schools update report that highlighted the following:
· The local educational landscape · Summary of schools’ status – 31 August 2024 · School standards · OFSTED judgements · Attainment overall · Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) · Key Stage 2 · Key Stage 4 · Not in education, employment or training · Suspension Incidents · Permanent exclusions · Responding to increasing exclusion from schools · SEN Statistics for Committee Area · Increasing demand for Education, Health and Care plans (EHC plans) · SEND provision · Elective Home Education · 2023/2024 School Revenue Balances · School Budget Projections - Based on 2024/25 Revised budgets · School Finance and Funding Issues · Local Authority Support for Schools in Financial Difficulty · Schools Financial Position – Richmond · School sustainability · Pupil rolls – current and future
Amanda Newbold (Assistant Director – Inclusion), Howard Emmett (Assistant Director – Strategic Resources) and Louise Wilson (Assistant Director – Education and Skills) attended the meeting to assist Members with their discussions in respect of the report. Members highlighted the following:
· It was clarified that the decision to suspend a pupil was delegated to the headteacher and the Governing Body. It was noted that the report indicated that on a number of occasions there had been intervention to prevent the suspension taking place. In relation to this it was noted that there were specific occasions where a suspension would be queried and discussions with the head would be undertaken in respect of this position. · The performance in maths at KS4 was discussed with some concern raised that this was below national levels. · Clarification was provided as to the nature of Special Schools in the area with a mixture of Local Authority and multi-academy trust provision. Direct links to the various schools assisted with the monitoring of improvements within these schools, with direct involvement with the LA maintained schools. · The KS4 results were available on the DfE website and Members would be provided with a link to access these.
Resolved
That the report on educational factors in the Richmond committee area be noted.
|
|
142 |
Local Nature Recovery Strategy
Timothy Johns – Senior Policy Officer – Sustainability and Environment provided a brief presentation on the Local Nature Recovery Strategy highlighting the following:
· A summary of the engagement that had taken place to date · Strategy Stakeholders – including supporting authorities, core stakeholders and wider stakeholders. · Consultation events and engagement · Agreement to priorities and measures · Measures – actions · Shortlist of priorities · Benefits from nature · Development of local habitat map – Nature Network
Members highlighted the following:
· It was asked how near the strategy was to fruition. In response it was stated that it was hoped to be in place later this year or early next with plenty of lead in time provided to implement the proposals. · The need for the involvement of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority in the process was emphasised. · Further updates would be provided as to the development of the strategy following the conclusion of the consultation.
Resolved
That the presentation be noted and further updates be provided to subsequent meetings of the Committee.
|
|
143 |
Climate change activity
Hannah Nutsey, Climate Change Business Partner, presented her report, highlighting the following:
· Climate Change Strategy: Governance - Regional greenhouse gas emissions - Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority - North Yorkshire Council carbon footprint - Carbon Disclosure Project - Council Climate Scorecards - Community engagement
· Mitigation: reducing greenhouse gas emissions - Various placed-based decarbonisation and climate mitigation projects - UK Shared Prosperity Fund – capital and revenue grants - UK Shared Prosperity Fund – community decarbonisation audits - Photovoltaic (PV) panels - Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs)
· Housing - Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund (SHDF) - Warm Homes: Social Housing Fund – application - Home Upgrade Grant (HUG) 2 and Warm Homes Fund - The LEAD programme – Stokesley and surrounding villages, Great Ayton, Potto - Big Community Switch Scheme
· Local active travel improvements - Darlington Road, Richmond - Catterick Town Centre regeneration project - LCWIPs - Catterick and Catterick Garrison, Northallerton
· Schools climate change engagement · Preparing for the changing climate · Supporting nature.
Members highlighted the following:
· A number of inaccuracies that required amendment · The need for air monitoring in some locations · The urgent need to connect the EVCs provided in the various market towns. Assurances had been given that this would be implemented but was yet to happen. There was concern that Members had been reassured that this would happen on several occasions without materialising and there was now an urgent need for these to be connected. In response it was stated that this would be fed back accordingly. · Issues around heat pump heating were discussed and it was stated that there had been problems where these had been installed as repairs were an issue. It was stated that each property was considered on the merits of a specific provision and would not be forced into having a system that was inappropriate for their needs.
Resolved
That the report and issues raised be noted.
|
|
144 |
Resilience and emergencies annual report Richmond (Yorks) Area Committee - response to issues raised at meeting in September 2024
Matt Robinson – Head of Resilience and Emergencies presented a report to the meeting of the Committee held in September 2024 which resulted in a number of issues being raised by Members of the Committee in relation to the following:
- Discrepancies within the report relating to which Electoral Division certain features were located - Ensuring that local communities were fully aware of what was required of them during emergency situations - A serious incident that had occurred in a local community of which the local Councillor had not been made aware - Some Plans developed and under development were not detailed in the report, which provided information on Flood warning sign up and Emergency Plans - Provision to the local Member of the flood warning plan for Stokesley
The report addressed the issues raised and also provided links to track the local flood risk in wider North Yorkshire.
Members highlighted the following:
· The initial contact points for incidents coming to the attention of Members were discussed. It was emphasised that Silver Command was not expected to be an initial contact point, particularly in respect of flooding incidents, but the 0300 Council telephone contact number provided a single point of contact which then allowed information to be disseminated accordingly. Concern was raised that the contact point was not available all the time for those who had the relevant knowledge and the reporting of incidents could result in time delays in trying to identify the most appropriate contact. It was noted that a Community Resilience event was taking place shortly at Bedale Hall and various details would be outlined in more depth at that. An invite to that event was shared with Members of the Committee. · Issues relating to the role and contact with the Community Anchor were discussed. It was noted that the Anchors were a source of contact for specifically local events and had links to Silver Command. It was agreed that their contact details should be available to local Members and should be made available throughout the community. It was suggested that the Community Anchor role required further development to ensure it was appropriate for the local communities served.
Resolved
That the updates to the Annual Report be welcomed and the issues raised be noted.
|
|
145 |
£50k seed funding - development of projects
Louisa Carolan, Principal Regeneration Officer, provided an update on the development of projects, agreed by the Committee, to utilise the £50k seed funding and gave the following highlights.
· The boxes for taxi parking by the ‘White Shops’ at Catterick Garrison had now been completed · The provision of the flood responsive signage for Morton-on-Swale Flatts had been ordered and was expected to be installed shortly. · The integrated transport feasibility study for access to education, skills and employment project had commenced consultation but there was a request for an extension of a month to the end of April 2025 to take account of all the appropriate consultees.
Resolved
That the updates be noted and the extension of one month for the integrated transport feasibility study for access to education, skills and employment project be agreed.
|
|
146 |
Work programme
Members considered a report presenting the committee’s work programme for the current year and looking forward to the programme for 2025/26.
Members suggested the following items for the work programme:
· An update from Richmondshire Leisure Trust regarding Richmond Swimming Pool · An update on the current position regarding the A684, Morton Flatts, River Swale flooding · Information from Royal Mail regarding the delivery of post following a number of complaints regarding the frequency of deliveries
Resolved
That the work programme be noted, and the agreed additions be included in the work programme for future consideration.
|
|
147 |
Any other items
There were no urgent items of business.
|
The meeting concluded at 3.30 pm.