Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. She informed the committee that due to the level of public interest the meeting was being live streamed, and that Item 8 (briefing on the Post Implementation Review of the Home to School Travel Policy) would now be heard at Item 6.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Nathan Hull and co-optee members Stephen Jennings and David Sharp. Councillor Derek Bastiman attended as substitute for Councillor Nathan Hull.

Resolved

That, the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 June 2025 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Councillors Brodigan, Bastiman, Duckett, Goodrick, Jeffels, Paraskos, Ritchie and Slater declared an interest as they are members of the Appeals (Home to School Transport) Committee. They were permitted to participate in Item 6 as it was a discussion on the proposed scope and timings of the Post Implementation Review, and not the development, implementation or application of the Home to School Transport Policy.  Councillor Peacock declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest on the basis that she was a private hire driver. She left the room when Item 6 was discussed.

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to (to include the text of the question/statement) to Alice Fox, Senior Scrutiny Officer (contact details below) by midday on Friday 12 September, three working days before the day of the meeting.  Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item.  Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:-

·         at this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes);

·         when the relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the Agenda for this meeting.

If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded, please inform the Chair who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.

Three public statements were received, and read as follows:

Statement 1: Jo Foster, S.T.A.G

Councillors,

Parents across North Yorkshire have lost faith in this council’s school transport appeals process. They are sick of being put through a system that feels more concerned with protecting policy than protecting children.

Here are two examples of what is going wrong:

First, restrictions on representatives:
Six weeks ago, parents attending Stage 2 hearings were entitled to take a representative — just as they are in every other council in the land. They could work as a team to present the case clearly and take part in the question-and-answer sessions.

But from the 11th of August, that changed. Parents arrived to be told, without notice, that new restrictions were in place — representatives could only make a short closing statement, and were barred from asking or answering questions directly. Families who had prepared for weeks walked in to find the rules rewritten and, five weeks on, this gagging order remains in place. The motivation behind this move is worrying. Appeals must be based on fairness. To pile extra pressure on parent in this way tilts the balance in the Council’s favour. One Conservative councillor has described the process as ‘rigged to give the Authority an easy ride’.

Second, the handling of mistakes:
We know now that a catalogue of errors has been made in applying the policy. For example, school gates missing from maps, unviable routes used to calculate nearest schools and, the now accepted, plethora of communication failures. These same issues are cropping up time after time in appeals. Yet too many parents are still being denied transport, not through any fault of their own but on the back of mistakes like these made by the Council. I’m talking here about mistakes that have been acknowledged — not ones that are contested. Richard Flinton has at last confirmed such errors are valid grounds for appeal. Yet families still face a lottery — one week transport is granted on the back of accepted communication failures, the next week a case is rejected on the same grounds. No wonder parents are furious.

Families now attend Stage 2 hearings simply to “go through the motions.” Many feel their only real hope for a fair trial lies with the Ombudsman. They describe the process as humiliating, upsetting, and pointless. 

They are wondering what tricks are going to be played next. Just last week parents who requested minutes from their meeting were refused and told they must submit an FOI request. Why? The week before others had just been sent them. Goal posts shifting - again.

Attempts to stifling debate, failing to act on errors and changing the rules from one week to the next are signs of a broken process — and your help is needed to fix it.

Remember these people are not the enemy – they are just Mums and Dads trying to get their kids to school. And they are not asking for any favours.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

Any correspondence, communication or other business brought forward by the direction of the Chair of the Committee. 

Due to today’s full agenda, the Chair was unable to verbally provide her remarks under this item.  However, the key points around performance monitoring are provided under Item 9.

Report of the Senior Scrutiny Officer, upating the Committee on progress made against matters arising at the previous meeting.

Considered

A report by Alice Fox, Senior Scrutiny Officer.

Resolved

1)    That, the report is noted.

2)    That, the Neurodiverse Member Champion report to be discussed at the next Mid Cycle Briefing.

Considered

A report by Amanda Fielding, Assistant Director Inclusion.

Councillor Yvonne Peacock left the room for this item.

Amanda gave a summary of the report and asked for comments on the outline structure and content of the post implementation review (PIR) of the home to school travel policy. The committee had the following questions and comments:

·       To what extent will colleagues in other council services referenced in the report be involved in the review and how will they work together?

Finance colleagues have full sight of the financial implications and will obtain information from the Integrated Passenger Transport Team who will provide financial data to them on a monthly basis. Current data on individual pupils is limited and the Admissions Team and the Transport Team will work together to provide data around those who are and are not eligible for transport. The Inclusion Team will provide SEND transport data and Transformation colleagues will work on the digital tool and calculator. Legal and Democratic Services will oversee the appeals.

·       Why will it take so long to complete the review?

Data will be obtained at different times of the year and from different databases and datasets. Payments to transport providers are paid in arrears, so September/October payments are paid in November. It takes time to be able to gain a firm idea of the cost of the policy change. The May Census is the most comprehensive data.

·       Will the May 2027 Elections impact the review, given that Purdah will start in March 2027?

Recommendations resulting from the PIR will be brought to the Executive in October/November 2026. If the Executive would like to make changes to the recommendations, this will be completed after November 2026 and before Spring 2027. Consultation will be carried out before Purdah. The report will come to Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Audit Committee in September 2026. 

·       Please ensure that schools are notified of the policy well before parents start to apply to secondary schools.

Information was sent out to all schools to pass onto Year 6 families last year. This year, a dedicated school bulletin was circulated, and schools have been asked to share it with families to ensure they are all aware of the current policy. The council has also circulated a set of slides for schools to show to families at open evenings. A tick box has been included on application forms for families to confirm that they understand the policy.

·       Can a rolling programme be introduced for the council to contact schools every year to check if any new gates or entrances to their premises have been installed. Schools are being contacted to request that they notify the council about any changes so that the mapping system can be updated if necessary.

·       Given the feedback that some councillors have received from parents about the policy, is an internal review credible? Could there also be an independent oversight?

The review is comprehensive, and an independent review would not be recommended as it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

Summary of the latest Children and Families performance report.

Considered

A report by Alice Fox, Senior Scrutiny Officer.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Are primary schools required to follow a council policy when it comes to permanent exclusions, or do they have their own procedures?

The head teacher will apply the school’s behaviour policy and then make the decision on whether to permanently exclude a pupil. The local authority is notified of the exclusion and a statement of care will be drawn up. The council is currently carrying out a consultation to address the number of primary school exclusions and how excluded children may be taught in the future.

·       Is data available to record the number of children coming back into mainstream schools after being home educated?

The council tracks the re-enrolments of pre-16-year-olds and this data will be

Incorporated into the next performance monitoring report. For post 16-year students, the council provides signposting to appropriate schools and

colleges.

·       Can the council manage the number of Education Health Care Plans (EHCPs) assessments?

The council has recruited more clinical psychologists to manage the backlog and continues to invest in officers to retain staffing levels.

·       Why is the number of children in care so high?

The increase reflects the rise in referrals due to issues such as child poverty.  North Yorkshire is still lower than regional and national figures.

·       Is there any reason why the rate of first time entrants (FTEs) into the Criminal Justice System for North Yorkshire is higher than the national rate?

The most recent data for FTEs has shown that the numbers have reduced and are lower compared to figures from 5 years ago. Some cases included in the report includes offenders from Out of Area, and the Youth Justice Board is amending the way it measures offending rates to improve the accuracy of recoded data.

Resolved

1)    That, the report is noted.

2)    That, the next performance monitoring report includes the number of children who have re-enrolled in schools after being home educated.

Considered

A report by Rosie Appleby, Head of Placement Support.

Rosie provided a summary of the report. The Mockingbird Family Model has proved to be very effective in supporting foster families and children, and the council has recently recruited to a fourth Mockingbird Hub Home in Selby.

Whilst it was welcomed that there are 52 post 18 year old foster young people who are still living with their foster families, it was acknowledged that this impacts the number of available foster carers. However, there continues to be a steady number of enquiries and recruitment of family and friend foster carers, and a high number of children are remaining in North Yorkshire. 

Rosie informed the committee that Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC) who are under 16 years are placed in foster care, whilst those aged 16-18 years move into supported accommodation.

It was noted that there are gaps in the data in Appendix 5 of the report (children looked after achieving 9-4 pass in English and Maths). The table will be updated and circulated to the committee.

Resolved

1)    That, the report is noted.

2)    That, further data for children in care achieving 9-4 pass in English and Maths from 2017 – 2024 is circulated to the committee.

3)    That, an update is provided next year.

Considered

A report by Rosie Appleby, Head of Placement Support.

Rosie provided a summary of the report. She highlighted that most children being placed for adoption remain in North Yorkshire and the Humber.  Adoptions for North Yorkshire remains low, which demonstrates that’s it is in line with the practice model. The figure of 11 children with Agency Decision Maker (ADM) approval for Q1 2025/26 is higher than previous quarters as this includes siblings within the same family. Over the last five years, there have been no pre-adoption disruption orders which demonstrates that the right adoption matches are in place.

Once an adoption order has been granted, the child falls under the same legislation as every other child, which is the Children Act, and there is not a separate policy on family breakdowns. Numbers of family breakdowns post-adoption order are very low, and support is provided, ensuring that statutory procedures are followed throughout.

The government funding for the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund (ASGSF) has changed the remit on the total amount of funding that can be claimed.  To mitigate the impact of this, the Regional Adoption Agency has advised that service providers are adjusting their pricing structures and so the impact on families has been minimal. North Yorkshire Council will be closely monitoring this.

Resolved

1)    That, the report is noted.

2)    That, an update is provided next year.

Considered

Workplan for 2025-2026.

It was pointed out that the independent trust which will be providing SEND support on the former Holy Family School in Carlton will not affect the council’s SEND school being built in Selby.

There was a request for the SEND update at December’s meeting to include some information of how many of the primary and secondary school exclusions were SEND pupils. 

There was also a request for an update on the special school being built on the former Woodfield School site in Harrogate.

Resolved

1)    That, the workplan is noted.

2)    That, updates on SEND primary and secondary school exclusions and the new special school to be brough to December’s committee meeting, if not before.

Any other items which the Chair agrees should be considered as a matter of urgency because of special circumstances

The Chair has received a letter from Settle College regarding the Home to School Transport Policy requesting for it to be circulated to members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  It was agreed to also circulate it to members of the Appeals (Home to School Transport) Committee and to the Director of Children and Young People’s Service.

The committee wished Sir Stuart Carlton all the best in his retirement as Corporate Director.

Resolved

1)    That, the letter from Settle College will be circulated to the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the Appeals (Home to School Transport) Committee and the Director of Children and Young People’s Service.

Wednesday 17 December 2025 at 10am

Wednesday 17 December 2025, County Hall, Northallerton, commencing at 10am.

AF