Appendix D3
|
Date |
From |
Message |
|
21/2/24 |
Kirk Hammerton |
Received from Kirk Hammerton Parish Council
|
|
28/2/24 |
Whixley Parish Council |
Received from Whixley Parish Council
|
|
29/4/24 |
Ingleton Parish Council |
The following was received from Ingleton Parish Council after the consultation period but has been included for consideration. On behalf of Ingleton Parish Council I would like to raise the following issues following our attendance at the extremely well attended public consultation meeting held at Ingleton Community Centre: 1. We live in an area which is extremely close to the NYC boundary with Lancashire and indeed Cumbria CC, therefore the cross County relationships with schools is of significant importance and indeed relevance as far as your new policy is concerned due to the fact that Queen Elizabeth School at Kirkby Lonsdale enters the equation for secondary education. Have adjoining education authorities been consulted? Are they now going to adopt this strategy? We believe, for our area, this is extremely relevant and important. 2. The option of educating secondary age children from our area in North Yorkshire appears to be under threat. How can that be justified in terms of the future viability of Settle College. It is ironic that, in the past, parents have been refused the option of of free transport to Queen Elizabeth School at Kirkby Lonsdale due to it being under the jurisdiction of a different education authority, If this new policy is implemented the only option, providing there are places available, is Queen Elizabeth School. This represents a total turnaround in our area. 3. Ingleton Primary School is, as we understand, almost up to capacity in terms of numbers. Could this new policy increase numbers? Have any plans to provide an extra classroom at Ingleton Primary to provide extra pupil accommodation? As an aside plans for additional housing in Ingleton could further exacerbate the situation. Kind Regards Ingleton Parish Council Clerk Email : ingletonclerk1@hotmail.com Redacted Information
|
|
22/3/24 |
Arkengarthdale Parish Council |
Received from Arkengarthdale Parish Council
[Redacted information] Dear Cllr Wilkinson and Cllr Carlton
Cllr Yvonne Peacock suggested that we, Arkengarthdale Parish Council, contact you with regards to the proposed changes in school transport policy, since we have found the online consultation to be impractical for a parish council. We object to the proposed changes and outline our concerns below. We would like this email to count as our submission to the consultation, which we have been unable to complete online as the survey has been designed for individual respondents (parents/pupils), rather than groups/committees who need to be able to view the entire survey (rather than one question at a time) in order to reach an agreed response in a time-efficient manner. Neither the technical format nor the question format of the survey makes it easy for a parish council to complete.
Our first concern is the timing of the public consultation meeting: Holding it on a lunchtime in the middle of a working week was not convenient for many people, and indeed several parents have indicated that it was impossible for them to attend this meeting owing to work commitments. Our second concern is the lack of clarity in the justification for awarding a contract to a national taxi firm (24x7 Ltd) apparently based in Essex, operating from Ripon. This firm will send buses and drivers from Ripon to transport pupils from Arkengarthdale and Swaledale to Wensleydale, although a local bus operator already exists in Reeth. With no local knowledge of the communities, outlying properties and the local road conditions under certain weather conditions, we are unconvinced that this proposed new arrangement can (a) make financial sense, (b) be environmentally sustainable and, most importantly, (c) be in the best interests of pupil safety.
Our third concern is the effect that the proposed changes could have on the interests and well-being of local school pupils. The populations of Arkengarthdale and Swaledale feed the primary school at Reeth, which is geographically and socially the ‘centre’ of a very close-knit, supportive community for children and adults. Both dales are several miles long. The changes to the policy would effectively segregate local children into three zones according to the geographic distances they live from the nearest school. We can only summise that someone with no local experience of the dynamic of the upper dales’ communities or the character of roads between upper Swaledale and Kirkby Stephen (Cumbria), or between upper Arkengarthdale and Barnard Castle (County Durham), or between lower Swaledale/lower Arkengarthdale and Leyburn has devised this plan. Not only are all these roads frequently impassible in bad weather, but the notion of pulling young children out of their core community by sending them to three different schools in three different counties based on journey differentials of just a few miles seems incommensurate with the amount of disruption and distress it could cause. Arkengarthdale Parish Council would like to emphasise the sentiment expressed by many in the local community which is that anyone living in these two dales would not consider this plan to be a sensible or practical proposition as it increases the risk levels in terms of road safety, school attendance and personal well-being. We strongly oppose the proposed changes, and request that the option to continue with existing arrangements is given serious consideration. We would be grateful for clarification on the justification for proposing these changes. If this is financially motivated, we would be grateful if you could share the calculations with us that relate to the options for the current and proposed school bus services specifically for Arkengarthdale, so that we can see for example, how the additional costs relating to increased winter maintenance on the proposed ‘Priority Two’ bus routes (The Stang and Leyburn moor road) and the increased cost of sending at least twice as many vehicles and drivers to Arkengarthdale make the proposed changes financially feasible.
We look forward to hearing from you, Best wishes Arkengarthdale Parish Council
Redacted Information
|
|
21/2/24 |
Reeth Parish Council Clerk
|
Is this for sharing on social media, or are you corresponding with parents etc separately? Sorry to play devil's advocate, but is one of the reasons that the percentages are so low for council school bus services is the bus route doesn't go to the right places? I find it strange that parents would miss out on a freebie when it would make it easier for them to get to work. Sorry just curious not criticising. Thanks |
|
20/2/24 |
Clerk to Hellifield Parish Council |
This consultation is directed at Parish and Town Councils. Is there any intention to include the public in any such consultation? Or to provide any information that can be cascaded to the public for input to their Council? |
|
20/2/24
|
Clerk to Sinnington Parish Council
|
Hi This consultation could go on the agenda or councillors could respond as individuals if they wish.
|
|
28/2/24 |
Clerk to Kirk Hammerton Parish Council |
I have a written response from Kirk Hammerton PC regarding the above consultation. I can't answer your on line survey as I am trying to just submit the response.
Please can you forward to the correct department as a pdf document?
|
|
28/2/24 |
Clerk to Whixley Parish Council |
Morning - me again. Can I submit Whixley PC's responses in pdf form regarding the above consultations as per KHPC?
Thanks
NYC CONSULTATION ON FREE SCHOOL TRANSPORT ENTITLEMENT – WPC RESPONSE This is Whixley Parish Council’s (WPC) response to North Yorkshire Council’s consultaon document proposing a revised policy for Home to School Transport. Our response focuses on the main proposed policy change, as described in Part 2C of the explanatory document –“Amendment to the main eligibility criterion to be “nearest school (with places available)” Background We are responding to the consultaon not only with regard to how it will affect current secondary school age pupils who live in our Parish, but also having in mind the “Maltkiln” new housing development which NYC proposes to deliver on land close to our village, some of which is within our parish boundary. NYC’s Planning Department has recently published a Development Plan Document for Maltkiln. There is to be no secondary school in the new selement. Pupils will be expected to travel each day to Boroughbridge High School (BHS), which is to be upgraded using contribuons from the Maltkiln developer. We assume this means that BHS will be the sole “catchment” school for pupils living in Maltkiln, just as it is for pupils at present who live in Whixley. In the case of Maltkiln and Whixley, the nearest school geographically in North Yorkshire is King James, Knaresborough. That school is also the easiest for pupils to travel to using public transport, because of the train service linking Knaresborough with Caal staons. King James is not, however, a catchment school. Pupils living in Whixley (and presumably also Maltkiln) can apply for a place at King James, but pupils who live in the King James catchment area are given priority. There are somemes places available at that school, but availability tends to be limited. Depending on demographic changes, whether the school is full, or whether some places are available, can vary from one year to the next. The vast majority of our children go to BHS, because it’s their catchment school. All children aending the catchment school should be given free transport. Is the proposal to ditch the longstanding pracse of having catchment schools for which free travel is provided if jusfied and replace it with free transport only to the closest school. If this is the case a child in Whixley going to their catchment school of BHS either because they wanted to or couldn’t get a place at King James wouldn’t then get free transport. That’s simply not fair and we would strongly urge NYC to drop this policy. The effect of the new policy will therefore be that more parents just drive their children to BHS, rather than pay for the bus, which is contrary to many of NYC’s other policies. Given that all the secondary school age children from Maltkiln will be expected to aend BHS, this situaon will affect large numbers of children. The need for a new secondary school in Maltkiln has been highlighted on many occasions. This makes more sense than requiring large numbers of pupils to travel to BHS. If NYC is worried about the costs of free school transport, why don’t you just ensure schools are located where the majority of the children live? Please can the Educaon and Planning Departments speak to each other? We would urge NYC to consider this policy in the context of all its other priories and if the outcome will be to remove the right to free transport to an areas designated catchment school to drop it all together. |
|
6/3/24 |
Town Clerk, Settle Town Council |
Good morning,
At the Council meeting held on the 4th March the Council resolved that there were unable to respond to the questionnaire at this moment in time – however they look forward to receiving details on the outcome of the consultation.
Best wishes
|
|
12/3/24 |
Clerk to Eppleby Parish Council |
Dear H2S,
The Parish Council have asked that I contact you as they would clarify regarding the meeting at Richmond Town Hall on Thursday 14th March, who is this meeting intended for? is it parents, Parish Councillors etc?
Kind regards
|
|
13/03/24 |
Clerk to Cononley Parish Council |
Good morning
Cononley Parish Council considered the review at their meeting on 12/03/24. The online form is aimed at individuals rather than a Parish Council however they wish to make the following comment.
The new proposals should apply to the nearest non-selective school rather than just the nearest school. This is due to some students living closer to a selective school but attending the nearest non-selective school.
|
|
14/03/24 |
Clerk to Buckden Parish Council |
Please find attached a letter from Richard Ingram, Chair of Buckden Parish Council regarding the current consultation on the changes to the Council’s Home to School Travel Policy.
(Redacted Information)
|
|
19/03/23 |
Clerk to Askrigg and Low Abbotside Parish Council
|
Please find attached letter which I have been asked to send regarding the above. I have also forwarded a copy to Cllr. A Wilkinson
Kind regards
ASKRIGG & LOW ABBOTSIDE PARISH COUNCIL
Redacted Information _____________________________________________________________________________________ 19th March 2024
Home to school travel policy - consultation
I have been asked to write to you regarding the above. This consultation was discussed at our last Parish Council meeting where those in attendance had concerns over the proposals.
We feel that this proposal has not been fully thought through in terms of the impact it will have on those living in deeply rural areas. Additionally, any plans for cost savings in these areas will probably not result in saving any money in our opinion.
On behalf of the Chairman, Askrigg & Low Abbotside Parish Council
c.c. Mr Stuart Carleton Cllr. Annabel Wilson
|
|
21/3/24
|
Clerk to Arkengarth Parish Council |
Cllr Yvonne Peacock suggested that we, Arkengarthdale Parish Council, contact you with regards to the proposed changes in school transport policy, since we have found the online consultation to be impractical for a parish council. We object to the proposed changes and outline our concerns below. We would like this email to count as our submission to the consultation, which we have been unable to complete online as the survey has been designed for individual respondents (parents/pupils), rather than groups/committees who need to be able to view the entire survey (rather than one question at a time) in order to reach an agreed response in a time-efficient manner. Neither the technical format nor the question format of the survey makes it easy for a parish council to complete. Our first concern is the timing of the public consultation meeting: Holding it on a lunchtime in the middle of a working week was not convenient for many people, and indeed several parents have indicated that it was impossible for them to attend this meeting owing to work commitments. Our second concern is the lack of clarity in the justification for awarding a contract to a national taxi firm (24x7 Ltd) apparently based in Essex, operating from Ripon. This firm will send buses and drivers from Ripon to transport pupils from Arkengarthdale and Swaledale to Wensleydale, although a local bus operator already exists in Reeth. With no local knowledge of the communities, outlying properties and the local road conditions under certain weather conditions, we are unconvinced that this proposed new arrangement can (a) make financial sense, (b) be environmentally sustainable and, most importantly, (c) be in the best interests of pupil safety. Our third concern is the effect that the proposed changes could have on the interests and well-being of local school pupils. The populations of Arkengarthdale and Swaledale feed the primary school at Reeth, which is geographically and socially the ‘centre’ of a very close-knit, supportive community for children and adults. Both dales are several miles long. The changes to the policy would effectively segregate local children into three zones according to the geographic distances they live from the nearest school. We can only summise that someone with no local experience of the dynamic of the upper dales’ communities or the character of roads between upper Swaledale and Kirkby Stephen (Cumbria), or between upper Arkengarthdale and Barnard Castle (County Durham), or between lower Swaledale/lower Arkengarthdale and Leyburn has devised this plan. Not only are all these roads frequently impassible in bad weather, but the notion of pulling young children out of their core community by sending them to three different schools in three different counties based on journey differentials of just a few miles seems incommensurate with the amount of disruption and distress it could cause. Arkengarthdale Parish Council would like to emphasise the sentiment expressed by many in the local community which is that anyone living in these two dales would not consider this plan to be a sensible or practical proposition as it increases the risk levels in terms of road safety, school attendance and personal well-being. We strongly oppose the proposed changes, and request that the option to continue with existing arrangements is given serious consideration. We would be grateful for clarification on the justification for proposing these changes. If this is financially motivated, we would be grateful if you could share the calculations with us that relate to the options for the current and proposed school bus services specifically for Arkengarthdale, so that we can see for example, how the additional costs relating to increased winter maintenance on the proposed ‘Priority Two’ bus routes (The Stang and Leyburn moor road) and the increased cost of sending at least twice as many vehicles and drivers to Arkengarthdale make the proposed changes financially feasible. We look forward to hearing from you, Best wishes Arkengarthdale Parish Council |
|
|
Clerk to Tockwith Parish Council |
Hi,
I would like the Councillors at Tockwith with Wilstrop to look at this survey as a group, however the questions can only be accessed when you’ve answered the previous question.
Do you have the questions in word or pdf format that you can send to me so that I can circulate them?
|
|
28/03/24 |
Clerk to Reeth, Fremington and Healaugh Parish Council |
We, Reeth, Fremington and Healaugh Parish Council, are contacting you with regard to the proposed changes in school transport policy, since we have found the online consultation to be impractical for a parish council. We object to the proposed changes and outline our concerns below. We have also written to NYC to Cllr Wilkinson as we would like our concerns to count as our submission to the consultation. We have been unable to complete the online survey as it has been designed for individual respondents (parents/pupils), rather than groups/committees who need to be able to view the entire survey (rather than one question at a time) in order to reach an agreed response in a time-efficient manner. Neither the technical format nor the question format of the survey makes it easy for a parish council to complete. Our first concern is the timing of the public consultation meeting: Holding it on a lunchtime in the middle of a working week was not convenient for many people, and indeed several parents have indicated that it was impossible for them to attend this meeting owing to work commitments. Our second concern is the lack of clarity in the justification for awarding a contract to a national taxi firm (24x7 Ltd) apparently based in Essex, operating from Ripon. This firm will send buses and drivers from Ripon to transport pupils from Arkengarthdale and Swaledale to Wensleydale, although a local bus operator already exists in Reeth. With no local knowledge of the communities, outlying properties and the local road conditions under certain weather conditions, we are unconvinced that this proposed new arrangement can (a) make financial sense, (b) be environmentally sustainable and, most importantly, (c) be in the best interests of pupil safety. Our third concern is the effect that the proposed changes could have on the interests and well-being of local school pupils. The populations of Arkengarthdale and Swaledale feed the primary school at Reeth, which is geographically and socially the ‘centre’ of a very close-knit, supportive community for children and adults. Both dales are several miles long. The changes to the policy would effectively segregate local children into three zones according to the geographic distances they live from the nearest school. We can only surmise that someone with no local experience of the dynamic of the upper dales’ communities or the character of roads between upper Swaledale and Kirkby Stephen (Cumbria), or between upper Arkengarthdale and Barnard Castle (County Durham), or between lower Swaledale/lower Arkengarthdale and Leyburn has devised this plan. Not only are all these roads frequently impassible in bad weather, but the notion of pulling young children out of their core community by sending them to three different schools in three different counties based on journey differentials of just a few miles seems incommensurate with the amount of disruption and distress it could cause. Reeth, Fremington and Healaugh Parish Council would like to emphasize the sentiment expressed by many in the local community which is that anyone living in these two dales would not consider this plan to be a sensible or practical proposition as it increases the risk levels in terms of road safety, school attendance and personal well-being. We strongly oppose the proposed changes, and request that the option to continue with existing arrangements is given serious consideration. We would be grateful for clarification on the justification for proposing these changes. If this is financially motivated, we would be grateful if you could share the calculations with us that relate to the options for the current and proposed school bus services specifically for Reeth, so that we can see for example, how the additional costs relating to increased winter maintenance on the proposed ‘Priority Two’ bus routes (Leyburn moor road) and the increased cost of sending at least twice as many vehicles and drivers to Arkengarthdale make the proposed changes financially feasible. We look forward to hearing from you, Best wishes Reeth, Fremington and Healaugh Parish Council
|
|
2/04/24 |
Clerk to Tockwith with Wilstrop Parish Council |
Received from Tockwith with Wilstrop Parish Council
Tockwith with Wilstrop Parish Council Feedback from residents regarding the H2S Travel Consultation 2.04.24
Many thanks for sending this. We had a couple of concerned residents attend the March PC meeting on 25th March and they would like to seek clarification on the below:
1) Confirmation that there will no longer be a choice of schools if pupils want to receive H2S transport.
2) There will no longer be catchment schools as such. Everything will be based on the nearest suitable school.
3) “Nearest suitable school” will be regarded as the nearest school to a home address regardless of whether it is in a different Local Authority (this would be Wetherby for Cowthorpe/Tockwith)
4) Will free transport be provided to the nearest school even if it is not in the North Yorkshire LA and will this apply to existing pupils at that school (say, Wetherby).
5) Whether free transport will continue to be provided if a child is already attending the non-nearest secondary school
6) If a child is in the final year of primary and has already been allocated a place at a non-nearest secondary, will they still qualify for free transport
7) If a child already has a sibling at a non-nearest secondary school, will they also qualify for free transport to avoid children from having to attend two different schools
8) Will a bus still go from Tockwith/Cowthorpe to KJS if there are eligible students eg on an EHC plan? And if so, can the child still use the bus on a paid basis
9) If due to the changes, most children from each year at Tockwith decide to go to Wetherby High and there are not enough places for one year, will they then get free travel to KJS (or the 2nd school on the mileage list) for the duration of their time there?
The Parish Council is not due to meet now until 22nd April. We’d like to consider the survey at the 22nd April meeting once we’ve received clarification on the above. Could we be offered at extension until 23rd April to send our responses?
Can you confirm that if implemented, only the Knaresborough bus would be eligible for free school travel? If I am reading it correctly, it will effectively take away the choice of secondary schools for young people in Tockwith and Long Marston, as it states free school travel will only be available for the nearest school. Historically the villages have attended both Tadcaster and Knaresborough schools, with the second only 1.5 miles closer than the first. If free travel is removed for future pupils wishing to attend Tadcaster, a significant proportion of children moving up to secondary each year will not be able to attend their school of choice. Being able to choose a school where they feel comfortable, where the environment and approach meets their needs, is critical to young peoples' mental health and enabling them to achieve their academic potential. As the Tadcaster bus also serves villages which are closer to the school on its current route, it will still need to be paid for by NYCC under the new strategy, but the subsidy will be removed from our children. So the savings will be non-existent or minimal, compared to a huge impact on pupil mental health and pupil choice. Is my reading of the policy correct, that for Tockwith there would only be free places on the Knaresborough bus for future cohorts? Please will you represent the needs of children and young people in the village if so, and oppose it? Thanks in advance for any advice, reassurance or support you can offer on this proposal.
|
|
8/4/24 |
Clerk to Muker Parish Council |
Good
Afternoon.
NYC School Proposals: Executive Summary from Muker Parish Council (MPC)
Upper Swaledale has unique geography, topography and meteorology. The nearest school proposal compared to the current catchment area does not suit our uniqueness. MPC believes that NYC should retain its discretionary powers continuing with catchment area for Upper Swaledale.
The consultation has been poor not reaching parents of children. The inconvenient meetings to parents have all been held outside Upper Swaledale! MPC has not been informed. The on-line survey is too restrictive. MPC could have assisted with communication and consultation. The DofE guidance 2024, at paragraph125 has not been followed. Communication has been disjointed and ineffective in reaching parents.
The proposal to move children to Kirkby Stephen, Barnard Castle and Leyburn have one common dangerous feature. All involve transporting children over high moor, ungritted, ostensibly single-track roads. Diversion onto gritted roads in our case would involve a 60-mile detour impacting on education. The road to Kirkby Stephen is unsuitable and dangerous in Winter. It is not ideal at any time, poorly maintained with limited passing places. We consider the road a danger to childrens safety and well-being. Who will manage and monitor the extremes in weather deciding when children can and cannot travel to school or home? DofE paragraph 86 concerning Health and safety Law and risk assessment. MPC and parents wish to know how these risks will be permanently eliminated? Also relevant is NYC Draft for consultation February 2024, Section C ,Suitability of Travel arrangements. 13, Considering the child’s Needs. These MUST all be addressed individually.
The impact on families and children is unacceptable, causing anxiety having siblings attending different schools. And children from Reeth being moved to 3 different schools is damaging to their social interaction and well-being.
Financially we do not see how this is cost effective adding three new routes and continuing routes to Richmond transporting initially 12 children for four years will cost more than it does currently. From 2025 until 2035 a total of 27 children would be required to attend Kirkby Stephen. We have seen no costings to show this will save money in Upper Swaledale. These proposals are not considered environmentally friendly.
Richmond schools have been successfully used by Upper Swaledale children for over 70 years. The safest route to school for children.
The DofE Travel to School Guidance January 2024, Is guidance, it is not mandatory. We implore NYC to retain its discretionary power for Upper Swaledale and retain catchment area, recognising that Upper Swaledale is unique and should be treated as an exception to ensure the safety and well being of all of the children.
Clerk Muker Parish Council
NYC proposal for school placements.
North Yorkshire is the largest County in England and one of the most diverse when considering geography, topography and meteorology, particularly in Upper Swaledale. The North Yorkshire Council’s (NYC) proposal to change where senior children attend school from Upper Swaledale based on the nearest school, instead of the current catchment area. Is unacceptable. The concept of moving children to their nearest school is understandable in urban areas where there is a greater choice of easily accessible schools. Muker Parish Council(MPC) recognises that policy change proposals concern removing the discretionary power to move from catchment to the nearest school. It does not agree with this proposal considering it unreasonable. There are a number of areas which cause concern. Please see below.
Consultation:
The process has been poor and has failed to serve the needs of children and their parents. The Parish Council has not been informed of this proposal.
Parents of current and future children have not received any correspondence from NYC. The Consultation Meetings have been held in the wrong locations at the wrong times.
The Parish Council is aware of one parent who was able to go to one meeting. Richmond, Northallerton and Leyburn are not in Upper Swaledale or convenient to parents of children in Muker Parish.
MPC is pleased to note that the closing date for comments has been extended to 26 April 2024, but is disappointed to see that no meetings are planned in Upper Swaledale. At least one of the meetings should have been held in Reeth which is a location central to all parents of Upper Swaledale and Arkengarthdale children. Reeth has a perfectly suitable Village Hall, as does Low Row, Gunnerside, Muker and Keld.
Department of Education(DoE) Travel to School Guidance January 2024. Policy changes- Paragraph 125, Local Authorities, ‘As a minimum this should include consulting parents whose children will or maybe affected by the proposed changes and those who may be affected in the future. Parent communication has been poor. The NYC, consultation FAQ page refers to Parish Councils being informed. We have not. MPC could have assisted considerably with consultation and communication.
The on-line survey is restrictive, it is for parents and carers. There are many people including MPC of Upper Swaledale who have connections to children and local knowledge who cannot comment.
Communication:
What precisely is the communication strategy for this proposal? So far, it has been poor, in reaching and enabling parents. The use of social media would have been beneficial via the ‘Upper Swaledale Community Forum’ for example.
It sems that some of the schools involved knew nothing of this proposal until they were informed by the parents!
There must be full engagement and consultation with the parents at a time and a place convenient to them. All impacted Parish Councils should be informed of the proposal. Then having listened to the concerns of parents, NYC should provide a written response to each one allowing a response back from the parents.
Common factors for the 3 proposed schools:
There are many logistical problems to overcome for the proposal to move children to Kirkby Stephen, Barnard Castle and Leyburn each one has a common dangerous feature. All involve transporting children over high moor, ungritted, ostensibly single-track roads.
The impacts of the winter months are clear and will lead to the disruption of childrens education. For 70 years children have travelled to Richmond for senior education without any issue. The reason is clear the journey to Richmond via the B6270 is the easiest, safest and most reliable route to school at all times of the year.
Travel to Kirkby Stephen from Upper Swaledale:
The road to Kirkby Stephen is a single track ungritted road over the moor, although a continuation of the B6270 it is equivalent to the unclassified routes to Barnard castle and Leyburn. The B6270 is in poor condition and has not been maintained to a suitable standard. The road is currently collapsing around its edges and shoulders, narrowing the road. This is caused by water erosion, vehicles passing each other and low maintenance.
Into Cumbria, Tail Brigg is a steep hill to negotiate. Cumbria Council do not grit this hill, due to a gritter leaving the road some years ago, they do not consider it safe!
In Winter the variation in weather can be extreme changing suddenly without warning, it can be fine in Kirkby Stephen, but snowing and blowing on the moor road making it dangerous, unsafe and possibly impassable. The same can be said of the routes to Leyburn and Barnard Castle.
It has been suggested that in poor weather, the school bus takes a route via gritted roads. This is likely to be down the B6270 to Richmond, then to Scotch Corner to the A66, if indeed that is open! A bizarre situation where the children could be travelling close to the school they should have gone to in order to get to Kirkby Stephen, a diversion of 60 miles each way, with a daily journey time of at least 3 hours plus. In excess of NYC 75 minutes per journey policy.
Who decides when children can or cannot travel to and from school? Will there be a system in place to monitor the weather on the top of the moor roads? Who can guarantee that children would be able to get home safely during a winter storm?
MPC has grave concerns for the safety of the children traversing this dangerous route in Winter.
DoE Travel to School Guidance January 2024. Para 86 states, 'Health and Safety law requires local authorities to put in place practicable control measures to protect their employees and others (including the children for whom they arrange travel) from harm’ it continues. ‘Identify hazards - things that could cause injury or illness; assess the risk – how likely is it that someone could be harmed and how seriously; put in place proportionate measures to eliminate the hazard or control the risk; record their findings; regularly review and update their risk assessments.’ MPC and Parents would wish to see a risk assessment to see how the dangers are eliminated and comment on the risk assessment.
Financial Considerations:
MPC is not convinced that these proposals have been correctly costed, NYC available data shows Richmondshire as a whole, but it would be useful to see what the current Upper Swaledale costs are compared with costs to Kirkby Stephen. For transparency what are the current transport costs compared to future costs? Of course, journeys to Richmond will continue for 4 years, plus we have 3 new additional routes. We consider that the first 4 years will cost more and are not convinced that any of the proposal is cost effective. Environmental impacts of 3 new routes should not be ignored.
Children and their safety.
In the NYC Draft for consultation February 2024, Section C, Suitability of Travel arrangements. 13, Considering the child’s Needs. ‘The Council will ensure that any travel arrangements will take account of the needs of the children concerned. Any travel arrangements should enable the child to travel in reasonable safety and comfort and without any stress, strain or difficulty, so that wherever possible they arrive at school ready to learn.
MPC is of the opinion that the well-being, mental health and safety of the children is paramount and should override any other considerations. The prospect of attending a different school is causing anxiety for some of the children, compounded by travel along a dangerous road.
MPC is aware of a family with 2 children already attending Richmond schools and their 2 younger ones would have to go to Kirkby Stephen, thus splitting the family. It is inconceivable that siblings should be separated.
School holidays, do North Yorkshire, County Durham and Cumbria have the same holiday periods? If not, this could cause additional problems.
Are the subjects and facilities at Kirkby Stephen equivalent to Richmond Schools?
The disruption and inevitable anxiety for children is unacceptable. The children of Upper Swaledale have known that for generations that their families have travelled to Richmond for their senior education, and are being treated differently to their forebears, separated from some of their friends. Social interaction will reduce as children are dispersed to different schools. Note: Gunnerside children attend Reeth school socialising and making friends unlikely to see them in school again a result of this proposal. Any confusion and apprehension to children must be avoided. MPC considers that this will be a major impact to children with potential to damage their well-being, mental health and education.
The danger caused by Winter weather facing driving sleet, snow, frost and ice on a dangerous exposed road is a major risk to their safety.
Within Muker Parish at present a total of 12 senior children are and will be attending Richmond Schools, which will continue for 4 years until they have all left. From September 2025 the number of children requiring senior education if required to school in Kirkby Stephen will begin with 3 this will increase each year and by 2035 a total of 27 children would have to attend Kirkby Stephen, this may change slightly up or down as circumstances change.
Family:
MPC recognises that in a rare case a family may by choice find the move acceptable, freedom of choice is important.
The vast majority of parents would not choose or even consider Kirkby Stephen School because of their knowledge of the dangers along the route in Winters.
Impacts for families will increase, they often have to manage work and other commitments around schooling. It is feasible that some may have to cease working or look for alternative employment to accommodate these proposals.
Conclusion:
There is no evidence of a cost benefit analysis to consider. The consultation process is poor and inadequate, it is not reaching the parents to allow open discussion to raise concerns and grievances.
The safety, welfare and well-being of the children appears to be overlooked. The children and their safety are paramount. This proposal is understandably causing children and to a degree parents anxiety about their children’s future education.
MPC rejects and opposes this proposal.
This NYC proposal does not suit the unique circumstances of Upper Swaledale and there has to be an exception by using the discretion in the previous policy, which may have been correctly applied because of the unique circumstances of Upper Swaledale.
Finally, the DofE Travel to School Guidance January 2024, Is guidance, it is not mandatory.
Clerk to Muker Parish Council
|
|
13/5/24 |
Clerk to Reeth Parish Council |
Hello All,
I have just been told of a large bus (50 seater ish) which was full of kids going to Leyburn via Grinton top. Councillor Frankland and another vehicle met it where the old bridge collapsed and had to move off the road to let him pass. Then, when he got to the sharp bend, he had to stop to give three cars coming the opposite direction time to get right off the road before he was able to pass. This happened on Friday at about 3pm and I have the details of the bus company, if someone would like them, to investigate further.
To think that someone is planning on sending school children this way on a regular basis seems terrifying.
I went to the tip on Sunday and had to pull over a couple of times due to cars, so I am really glad I didn't meet a bus.
|
|
22/4/24 |
|
Please find attached a response from Clapham cum Newby Parish council to the consultation.
Unfortunately, we found the online survey did not allow us to express our views and have thus had to write a response.
Regards
Parish Clerk Clapham cum Newby Parish Council
Redacted Information Amanda Newbold Assistant Director, Education & Skills North Yorkshire Council County Hall Racecourse Lane Northallerton DL7 8AD Dear Ms Newbold, Clapham-cum-Newby Parish Council oppose the proposal to withdraw catchment as an eligibility criterion in the school transport policy for next year’s admissions onwards. We do so on the following grounds • The proposal will deny some families to the north of Clapham their choice of school solely on the basis of transport costs should they opt to send their children to Settle College instead of across two county borders to Queen Elizabeth School (QES). Many families have a long history with Settle College and it has been the “in county” secondary school of choice for many. This is important. • The proposal will result in substantial costs for those families who have a family history at Settle College or feel Settle College’s smaller size and inclusive ethos makes it the right school for their child. This will be especially tough for low-income families who will pay the price for North Yorkshire’s alleged cost savings. • This argument is further compounded by a closer examination of the alleged savings to be made. The difference in distance to the two is schools, for many residents of our parish, is negligible. The transport provider has publicly stated that the journey to Kirkby Lonsdale is no quicker than that to Settle. Thus, it is hard to accept such minimal variation as a substantive argument. • Crucially, the effect on SettleCollege will be very significant. The proposed transport policy is likely to result in a net loss of pupils for Settle College. The resultant loss of income would be serious at a time when all school budgets are stretched. The policy would take money out of education spending in North Yorkshire and put it into Cumbria. The ongoing effect of this is that the future of SettleCollege could look much bleaker; loss of income tends to resultin larger class sizes, teacher redundancies and challenges in delivering an in-depth, diverse and fully-inclusive curriculum. Thus, the proposed transport policy would not only impact those children whose transport catchment means they have to go to QES, it would also negatively impact those students attending Settle College, both now and in the future. • Settle College is the traditional centre for secondary education in North Craven and, in particular, our own Parish. This policy will, in effect, divide our parish and we feel strongly that the proposed policy will serve our families and the education of their children poorly. We understand that finances are tight. The prosed transport policy change will not result in financial savings in many cases and, where it does, it is merely moving costs away from the council and onto families in North Yorkshire who can least afford it. In summary, we oppose the loss of catchment area as a criterion for eligibility for school transport for the reasons set out above and on the basis that Clapham-cum-Newby is affected by being in the Settle College catchment are. We ask that you withdraw the proposal and study other ways to make genuine efficiencies in transport provision rather than just pass the burden to families. We have no comment on the other proposals in the transport consultation. Yours sincerely Steven Culver Parish Clerk Clapham cum Newby Parish Council Cc: Cllr David Ireton Rt Hon. Julian Smith M |
|
28/4/24 |
Clerk to Ingleton Parish Council |
Good Morning
On behalf of Ingleton Parish Council I would like to raise the following issues following our attendance at the extremely well attended public consultation meeting held at Ingleton Community Centre:
Kind Regards
|
|
14/6/24
|
Hartlington Parish Council |
Hartlington Parish Meeting : Junction of B6265 and Hartlington Raikes To Whom It may Concern Following yet another serious accident on the junction of the B6265 and Hartlington Raikes between a motorcycle and a car, which follows two previous fatalities and several serious injuries, we would dearly like you to look again at the safety remedies surrounding this junction. The parish of Hartlington submitted proposal plans in 2019.
Thank you
|
|
28/6/24 |
Clerk to Pateley Bridge Town Council |
Hello,
Here is the statement that Pateley Bridge Town Council wishes to make.
“The proposed charge for the transport which allows pupils to attend compulsory education is outrageous. People will be forced to make difficult financial choices, particularly poorer families, who will have to make other sacrifices in their lives to afford the transport. A pupil who wishes to go on a particular educational establishment may not be able to do so because their family is not able to afford the transport. This will lead to second rate educational options for that child. The charge is discriminatory, as people with protected characteristics will be more disadvantaged.”
At our meeting on Tuesday, we will establish who wishes to attend the executive to make it.
|
|
|
|
|
