Decision details

As part of the Council’s Public Participation Scheme, Gordon Stainsby, Headteacher of Reeth and Gunnerside Schools addressed the Committee to read out his previously submitted statement and additional remarks which are replicated below:

“As previously stated, we have concerns regarding the application and impact of the new transport policy in our area. For many years, pupils from our schools in Reeth and Gunnerside have attended Richmond School – our catchment secondary school. This makes a lot of sense as the B6270 to Richmond is our only low-level route to a nearby town. Swaledale is surrounded by high altitude moorland. While some other secondary schools may well be closer, these upland routes are 420m, 468m and 515m above sea level. The digital tool that has been developed to identify the nearest school for each pupil uses the shortest route by road, irrespective of the nature or type of road, or its feasibility as a school transport route. For example, The Wensleydale School in Leyburn is identified as the nearest school for pupils living in Reeth. The calculation is based on travelling on a minor road through Grinton, and over the moor. Larger vehicles are not allowed by law to use the road, due to a weight restriction yet it has been used to identify the nearest school. Due to pupil numbers a full-size bus is required to transport pupils from Swaledale to Richmond School at the moment. If some or all of these pupils attended the Wensleydale School a large vehicle over the weight limit would be required, perhaps not in the first year but at some point, as the policy impacts more and more school cohorts.   The route from Reeth to Leyburn that is suitable for a larger bus is actually further than the distance to Richmond School.  Clearly this does not make sense. In upper Swaledale, the digital tool has identified Kirkby Stephen as closest although the route there is 515m above sea level and dangerous in winter. While the nearest school principle is easy to understand in most contexts, its application in our region requires further consideration.

Another issue with the digital tool has emerged since parents started using it. Two families living one mile apart and on a road that would be used to travel to all the nearby schools have received a different list of schools. For example, family one has received a Wensleydale school at 8.0320 miles, Richmond School at 9.892 miles and a third school at 10.139 miles.  Family 2 also received Wensleydale school as the closest one at 7.032 miles but the second school listed is the Risedale School at 9.633 miles and then the Richmond School at 9.716 miles – clearly there is a discrepancy between those lists despite the fact that the families live on the same road and the bus would have travelled past both houses.

The DoE statutory guidance tells us that councils have a duty to undertake risk assessments. I understand that the Council has not yet risk assessed the routes identified by the digital tool.  Telling people that this will be completed at some point in the future is not sufficient for pupils in Swaledale as the digital tool is identifying schools based on routes that are not suitable.

What the DoE guidance does do, is ask that information is easily accessible by parents so they can make a decision on which school to apply for.  For Swaledale, that information is not easily available and parents have been left second guessing which school their child will be able to attend with free transport because the Council has not yet done the risk assessment or decided which roads will be used.  The digital tool has not provided the clarity needed and raises questions about its accuracy and reliability.

A suggestion would be to identify the nearest school that can be accessed safely, legally and with consideration for the type of vehicle that will be needed for the minimum of pupils in the area. A solution like this is urgently needed to meet the DoE statutory guidance – the information must be easily available.

Parents of pupils in Y6 need to apply for a secondary place by 31^st October. I ask you to do all you can to help the Swaledale community to have the information it needs to be able to do so.  They need certainty about which school their child will be able to attend with free transport.

The Department for Education statutory guidance for local authorities travel to school for children of compulsory school age, states that health and safety law requires local authorities to complete risk assessments, identifying hazards and putting in place measures to eliminate or control risk.

However, the Council has not yet risk assessed the routes identified by the digital tool to calculate the nearest school or considered practical matters like the size of the vehicle needed.  Telling parents that this will be completed at some point in the future is not sufficient.  For pupils living in Swaledale, the digital tool in identifying schools based on routes that are not suitable. 

‘Parents should consider their children will get to school at the time they are choosing which schools to apply for. For some, the availability of free travel to school may be an important factor in their decision making.  Information about travel to school should, therefore, be easily available to parents during the normal admissions round. Department for Education.’

A suggestion would be to identify the nearest school that can be accessed safely, legally, and with consideration for the type of vehicle that will be needed given the number of pupils in the area. A solution like this is urgently required in order to meeting the DfE statutory guidance.  Parents of pupils in year 6 need to apply for a secondary school place by 31^st October. They need and deserve to know which school their child is able to attend with free transport.”

Members thanked Mr Stainsby for his representations and made the following comments:

·       The exceptional topography of Swaledale did not merit normal practice in any way, shape or form when assessing school transport provision.

·       Issues relating to parents having to choose a school without prior knowledge of the transport arrangements. The process should be paused and assess the routes before parents have to make their selections.

·       A Member pointed out the roads in Swaledale were not gritted properly. North Yorkshire, at the moment was not in the position to enable these young people to travel safely to school unless changes are made to the gritting/maintenance regime.

·       The digital tool did not appear to be fit for purpose.

Jon Holden, Strategic Planning Manager responded to the statement made by Gordon Stainsby and Members’ comments and highlighted the following:

·       The digital tool had been subject to extensive testing before it was released. However, the issues raised regarding the two families living less than a mile apart on the same road, who received different outcomes from the tool, would, if the results could be anonymised, be investigated.

·       In accordance with good practice, it was not possible to consider transport routes until the admissions process had been completed because until then, the number of children and their home location where they would be transported from were not known.

·       Once the offers have been made, transport colleagues will be able to start looking at numbers and routes and start commissioning arrangements with transport providers.

·       Transport providers were required to monitor routes daily and any routes deemed unsafe should not be used and where possible, alternative routes would be utilised.

·       Parents who think their children may be affected were being encouraged to visit all potential schools that came up on the digital tool and were also in the catchment area and any others and discuss transport options.

Councillor Annabell Wilkinson, Executive Member for Education, Learning and Skills stated that the new policy had been approved by Full Council and there was a statutory process that had to be followed. The area of Swaledale was very complex and it had the Moor Road that had to be addressed and dealt with.  The Executive Member understood the anxiety parents were feeling as it was difficult situation, however the routes that were arranged were not necessarily the shortest routes that are used to calculate to the nearest school and different options would be considered.  Additionally, in stating it was important to reassure parents and alleviate some of their fears, she committed to meet with relevant officers to see what could be done and report back to the Area Committee.

Resolved –

That the statement made by Gordon Stainsby, the response made by the Strategic Planning Manager and the issues raised during the debate are noted.