Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies and substitutes were received as follows:

·       Councillor Monika Slater – Substitute Councillor Felicity Cunliffe-Lister

·       Councillor Yvonne Peacock – Substitute Councillor Caroline Dickinson

·       Councillor Janet Jefferson – Substitute Councillor Stuart Parsons

·       Councillor Nathan Hull – Substitute Councillor Roberta Swiers

Apologies were also recorded for co-opted members Martin Macaulay, David Sharp and David Watson. 

It was noted that Councillor Janet Sanderson and Councillor Tom Seston were joining the meeting remotely.

The Chair declared an interest in Item 4 as a member of the Home to School Transport Appeals Committee, as did the following Members present:

·       Councillor John Ritchie

·       Councillor Tom Jones

·       Councillor Caroline Goodrick

·       Councillor Roberta Swiers

·       Councillor Andy Paraskos

·       Councillor David Jeffels

·       Councillor Steph Duckett

The Chair clarified that being a member of the Appeals (Home to School Transport) Committee is not a pecuniary interest and as such those Members can take part in the debate and are asked to keep an open mind.  Members of that committee cannot be involved in scrutiny of decisions that they themselves have made but it was noted that this was out of scope for this meeting as discussions would not explore the detail of individual appeal cases.

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Alice Fox of Democratic and Scrutiny Services and supplied the text (contact details below) by midday on Friday 6 February, 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.

Public questions had been pre-submitted and agreed through the Chair from five speakers.

1)    Peter Vetch (Buckden Parish Council Scrutiny Committee).

“Statutory guidance states that local authorities should “act reasonably” and in a manner that is ‘fair and rational’.  An appeals process that meets these standards is essential to maintaining public confidence. The statutory guidance does not prescribe an exhaustive list of matters that may be considered on appeal, aside from noting a small number of specific exclusions which do not directly relate to the policy itself.

By contrast, the North Yorkshire policy explicitly restricts appeals to four defined grounds at the beginning of section E.  This approach means that any other exceptional or unforeseen circumstances may be dismissed solely on the basis that they fall outside the prescribed scope of the appeals process.

By their nature, exceptional circumstances are difficult to anticipate. Excluding them from consideration simply because they do not fall within an approved list undermines the principles of rationality, fairness, and reasonableness required by the statutory guidance.

My question is whether the council’s decision to explicitly limit the grounds for appeal in the policy:

a)             was to ensure that most exceptional circumstances could be discounted

without debate; or

b)             reflected a deliberate intention to deprive remote rural areas of access to

reasonable home to school transport options; or

c)              resulted from an inadvertent oversight that limiting the appeals process in this

way would have the unintended consequence of excluding certain remote

communities from such reasonable transport options?”

Daniel Harry responded as follows:

“The council has a longstanding process via which Home to School Transport appeals have been considered.  This process remains compliant with the legislative requirements and the provisions of the Department for Education’s statutory guidance on home to school travel.

In accordance with this statutory guidance, the council’s appeals process considers factors associated with its decision making about an applicant’s eligibility, and the arrangements made, for home to school transport.

Whilst the council’s appeals process has defined criteria upon which an appeal could be based, it does not consider that this restricts any appeal that is submitted, including those for families in rural areas.  The appeals process provides that consideration is undertaken at both Stage 1 and Stage 2 as to whether eligibility for assistance has been determined in accordance with the council’s policy.

It should be noted that the council’s Home to School Transport appeals process is specifically established to consider the decisions made in implementing the policy rather than the merits of the policy itself.

In answer to the specific questions:

1.     The council does not accept that it has limited the grounds for appeals.

2.     Therefore this does not prevent children from accessing home to school transport for which they are eligible.

3.     Furthermore, as is set out in part 4.2 of today’s report, the council’s appeals process allows for families, in all areas of the county, to appeal against a decision relating to home to school travel eligibility, including where there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

Considered

The report of the Corporate Director, Children and Young People’s Service, regarding implementation of the Home to School Travel Policy.

Daniel Harry provided an overview of the report, referring to the planned update to the committee on the PIR in September 2026 and inviting Members to consider their role and potential outcomes of any further scrutiny undertaken now.  Members were also reminded that changes to a council policy cannot be put forward again to Council within 12 months of agreement.

Members then considered the report and a number of points were made including the following.

·       Concerns were noted that parents had been provided with route maps which did not reflect actual school entrances.  Examples were also provided of parents being provided with maps which weren’t considered to be a safe walking route and that this raised safeguarding concerns.

·       Members observed that officers had recently contacted schools for entrance data, raising questions about historical data quality and whether children had been allocated to different schools because of inaccurate mapping.

·       Officers were questioned as to why the council had not verified entrance data across all schools before the policy went live and why errors identified in autumn 2025 had not prompted an immediate update or interim corrections.

·       Some Members of the Appeals (Home to School Transport) Committee noted that they had been trained to expect boundary-to-entrance measurements. It was concerning then that during the course of debate, map images were being presented that sometimes depicted internal building co-ordinates or end points which were not the school entrance.

• Members raised broader governance questions, including:
  • whether officers had sufficient expertise in GIS or had sought appropriate external assurance on the system used.
  • Why different co-ordinate sets (printed versus those used for calculation) were not clearly explained to parents.
  • Whether this ambiguity contributed to a loss of public trust in council process.
• Several Members emphasised that parents need sight of the exact end points used in calculations, not only map images generated for appeals.
• A Member stressed that the policy, combined with mapping disputes, risked undermining rural school sustainability, with sudden shifts in pupil numbers and thereby linking to a decline in rural communities.

·       It was highlighted that legal advice is not present at Stage 2 appeals as is done at Planning and Licensing Committee meetings.

·       Some comments were conveyed that the PIR reporting timeline is too slow given the number of families affected and concerns regarding inaccuracies in distance calculations.  A Member also raised that a social impact assessment would enable the council to understand any detriment resulting form the policy.

·       A Member suggested that maps with the correct co-ordinates be made available to all parents lodging a Stage 1 or Stage 2 appeal.

·       Conversely, some Members conveyed that officers have been responsive to specific concerns raised about route safety and that ultimately it is the role of the Ombudsman to determine if the council’s processes have proven to be ineffective or if there had been some maladministration.

·       Some Members also felt that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

Wednesday 25 March 2026, 10am, County Hall

Wednesday 25 March 2026 at 10am at County Hall, Northallerton.