Members of the public may ask
questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice and
provided the text to Barry Khan, Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic
Services – email: barry.khan@northyorks.gov.uk
or in writing to Barry Khan, Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic
Services, County Hall, Northallerton DL7 8AD by midday on Friday, 19 July 2024. Each speaker should limit themselves to 3
minutes on any item.
If
you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be
recorded, please inform the Chairman who will instruct anyone who may be taking
a recording to cease while you speak.
Minutes:
There were two public questions, as follows:
1. The following public question was read out by Mr Simon
Peach:
Good morning, my name is
Simon Peach, I am the Chair of Governors for Settle College. I ask you to look
at the proposal to drop catchment, and ask yourself a simple question: given
there are no guaranteed savings, is it worth the price that will be paid by
schools and by families.
We understand the need
to balance the budget; at Settle College we have avoided going into deficit
because we understand the need to balance the budget. However, here is no
guarantee that dropping catchment will help to balance the budget.
It is guaranteed that
the proposal will impose costs on schools and families. Settle College could
lose £300,000 income every year.
Families who chose to
stick with Settle College will face hundreds and possibly thousands of pounds
in travel costs.
Let those costs be borne
by schools and families say the Executive. But in return, they cannot guarantee
savings.
All they say is that
savings are “expected” and that the changes have the potential to offer “up to”
a certain level. They set out seductively precise tables showing numbers down
to the exact pound for different assumptions.
But, they have no idea
how many families will choose the nearest school rather than their preferred
school and still be entitled to free transport. They have no idea whether
students travelling to Kirkby Lonsdale rather than Settle will mean more or
fewer buses are needed.
Our analysis does not
show there would definitely be fewer buses. And if a taxi is needed to pick up
students from a remote farm and take them to the bus stop, that cost will be
there whether they are heading to Settle or Kirkby.
We understand why the
proposal is at it is. Removing a non-statutory entitlement is obvious. Once the
idea is struck, officers and the Executive member naturally want to win the
argument. But the proposal is one that makes no real savings, instead it seeks
to move costs onto parents.
Real savings can be
found, and the proposal alludes to this, hinting at “exploring potential
opportunities for more efficient procurement processes”. Quite right. We have
students travelling from Skipton. The cost to parents is becoming prohibitive.
We are in negotiation
with transport providers and, with changes to schedules and a minor change to
when the school day starts, we can make savings well in excess of 50% and
possibly 70%.
This is work in
progress, but these are real savings that, when the time comes, we will
guarantee to parents. It can be done with effort, imagination and
collaboration. In conclusion, I cannot look my parents, teachers, headteacher
in the eye and admit that the price they are being asked to pay comes with no
guarantee of savings.
I would ask whether you
are willing to do so. Are you willing to look the member of my staff,
threatened with redundancy, in the eye and admit that it is costing just as
much to transport students to Kirby Lonsdale as it would for them to come to
Settle.
I ask you to send the
proposal back to officers, vote it down today and ask them to think again.
Thank you for listening.
Councillor Annabel
Wilkinson, Executive Member Education, Learning and Skills, provided the
following response:
I would like to
thank Mr Peach for the time that he has taken to attend today’s meeting and to
make his statement.
I should like to
reiterate that the implementation of this policy will – over time - simply
bring the council’s policy into line with the Department for Education’s
statutory guidance for the provision of home to school travel.
In doing so the
council will be addressing an anomaly in the current policy that allows some
parents to exercise choice about home to school transport that is not available
to all parents. Indeed parents in some areas of the Settle College catchment
can choose their nearest school which is outside of the catchment, and the
council is current transporting about 150 children to that school, other
families in the same location are being transported to Settle College so the
councils is providing travel to two school locations from the same starting
point. This is above and beyond the requirements of the council.
The modelling that
has been undertaken by the council has considered the potential savings that
could arise from the implementation of the policy. Mr Peach, you are right to
note, however, that the extent of the savings that will arise will be dependent
upon a broad range of factors, including the extent to which parents continue
to exercise choice over where their children are educated. You have already
stated that Settle College, a successful and popular school that it is,
attracts children from outside of its catchment area; currently these children
make up a good proportion of your pupil cohort, about 20%. Parents make choices
about where to send their children that does not always take account of
catchment or indeed distance and your school benefits from this.
You are also right
to note that the council will also be implementing other changes to improve the
efficiency of the procurement and management of home to school transport.
It is intended that we identify as many savings as possible whilst still meeting
the council’s duty to provide transport to eligible pupils. There are some
details about this is section 6 of the Executive report
I am pleased to
note that the College are reviewing such measures with the providers of
school-arranged transport between Skipton and Settle, and that this will
provide continued opportunity for children in Skipton – which is outside of the
college’s catchment area – to be supported to attend the college as their
preferred school.
I have spoken to
education and finance officers in Children and Young People’s Services and they
have reported that they will continue to work with your school in order to
ensure that the potential impact of any policy change can be managed over the
implementation period, monitoring, as they currently do, any fluctuations in
pupils numbers over time.
Thank
you Mr Peach.
2. The following public question was read out by Mr
Gordon Stainsby:
I am the headteacher for
Reeth and Gunnerside Schools. Thank you for the opportunity to share this
statement today, that represents the views of schools, parents, parish councils
and the community of Swaledale and Arkengarthdale.
We fully understand the
requirement to save money and recognise that much of the policy is fit for
purpose and in line with Department for Education guidance. We recognise the
diverse geography of North Yorkshire and appreciate that the challenge of providing
services to rural communities is significant. We do, however, have specific
concerns beyond those shared at the previous meeting of the executive on
Tuesday 16th July, primarily associated with safety.
For the benefit of
councillors that did not attend the executive meeting, Swaledale and
Arkengarthdale, the northernmost of the Yorkshire Dales, sit in a remote corner
of our county; to put this in perspective, our schools in Reeth and Gunnerside
serve a catchment of over 200 square miles. The B6270 to Richmond (our
catchment school) is the only low level route to a nearby town. The proposal
for children to attend their nearest school would result in secondary age
pupils travelling over high altitude moorland to schools beyond Swaledale.
These upland routes are 420m, 468m and 515m above sea level.
As detailed in the
report to the executive, the issue of safety has been raised by many
respondents to the council’s survey. We would expect the response to reassure
those with concerns, and it does not do that. We are concerned that the
response is inadequate and falls short of addressing the issues raised.
·
The response includes data on the number of
occasions when school transport has been unable to operate, but this is based
on existing routes, not those that are proposed. We know that the high level
routes become impassable sooner and more often than the low level route to
Richmond. Using this evidence, which is based on the current situation, in no
way captures the potential for school transport to be cancelled, or the impact
of that on school attendance. A more effective measure would be to analyse road
closure data for other high altitude passes such as Snake Pass, Derbyshire
(510m) and Kirkstone Pass, Cumbria (455m), while noting that these roads are
larger roads than those out of Swaledale.
·
The response informs that the council’s winter
maintenance policy is not derived from school bus routes. We hope that you can
appreciate that this is not reassuring, and only adds to concerns regarding
road safety in winter on high level routes. We also know that coordination on
gritting between counties is not effective on the routes required to transport
pupils to their nearest secondary school.
·
The response explains that the terms and conditions
of the council’s transport contract ‘require that providers risk assess the
routes that they are proposing to use.’ We presume that this means that the
council has not yet risk assessed the high level routes that will be needed to
reach secondary schools that are marginally closer than Richmond. The
Department for Education statutory guidance for local authorities Travel to
school for children of compulsory school age, paragraph 86 states: ‘Health
and safety law requires local authorities to put in place reasonably
practicable control measures to protect their employees and others (including
the children for whom they arrange travel) from harm. Under the Management
of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, they must:
-
identify hazards – things that could cause injury
or illness;
-
assess the risk – how likely it is that someone
could be harmed and how seriously;
-
put in place proportionate measures to eliminate
the hazard or control the risk;
-
record their findings; and
-
regularly review and update their risk assessments
·
The Department for Education guidance does not seem
to be met, in that the council’s approach, as detailed in its response,
delegates this responsibility to transport providers. What training do
transport providers have in risk assessment? What oversight of its duties does
the council retain? Has any risk assessment been completed for the routes
required to fulfil the new policy? What would happen if an accident happened as
a direct consequence of this policy change? We presume that the council retains
higher-level duty of care. That responsibility is dictated by national
guidance, and the council needs to comply.
·
The response details how the integrated passenger
transport team are advised of all road closures and that this information is
passed on to all contract providers. We know that road conditions can change
very quickly, particularly on the higher routes, well before any official road
closure is in place. Relying on high level routes will only add to the need for
bus drivers to make dynamic risk assessments that are not checked, validated or
fully informed.
Parents within our
community have questioned if the council will conclude, within the context of
the new policy, that the nearest suitable school for Swaledale residents is in
fact in Richmond. If this is the case, it would be very helpful to hear that (and
have it in writing). Paragraph 119 of the Department for Education guidance
explains that a school travel policy ‘should be clearly written so that parents
may easily understand it.’ While the nearest school principle is easy to
understand in most contexts, its application in our region is less obvious and
much more uncertain, leading to the concerns that we have shared with you.
As it stands, parents in
our area are faced with an unfair and unreasonable decision – to send their
child to the nearest school via a dangerous route, or pay for them to be
transported to their catchment school. This rural inequality is unfair.
The impact on pupil’s
education cannot be underestimated. Poor attendance caused by the proposed
policy is at odds with the Department for Education guidance Working
together to improve school attendance and that provided through articles 3
and 28 of The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Pupils that will start Year 6 in September are worried about where they will go
to school. Their parents are uncertain and that is having a detrimental impact
on children’s wellbeing.
We recognise that to
some extent the points raised are specific to our area. We are, however, part
of North Yorkshire, and pupils that live here deserve to be represented by you.
In stating that, we also represent other communities based in places with distinct
topography, that isolates them from services that other areas of the county can
benefit from more easily.
We realise the benefits
of a clear policy that can be applied across the whole county. However, further
information is required to meet the needs of families to bring this policy in
line with requirements and make it fit for purpose:
-
An exception for specific upland regions;
-
Details of the routes that the council proposes to
use;
-
Confirmation that high altitude roads will not be
used
We think that an
amendment (with further information, clarity and assurance) or deferral of the
decision is required today. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Councillor Annabel
Wilkinson, Executive Member Education, Learning and Skills, provided the
following response:
Thank you to Mr Stainsby for the time that he has
taken to attend the meeting today, for attending the Executive last week and
for providing his statement.
The Council should be aware that Home to School
transport is currently provided across North Yorkshire serving children from
many communities and utilising a broad range of routes, including isolated
routes and tracks. As has been noted these requirements are met using an
equally broad range of vehicle types, each identified according to its
suitability for the number of children and the route being travelled.
Within this context I consider that the statistics
that were provided in the report to the Executive were appropriate in providing
an indication of the extent to which home to school transport is affected by
weather conditions.
In the event that the proposed policy is adopted
then route assessments will be undertaken by the Council in respect of all new
routes that are likely to be utilised in the provision of Home to School
Transport. This will occur when the council has an indication – during the
admissions process – of where there is eligibility for travel. As you know, in
typical circumstances parents will make applications from the autumn term for a
school place the next autumn. Allocation of places in schools occurs in the spring/early
summer term and then transport requirements arise as a result of that process.
As we have noted previously route assessment, which
can include consultation with providers, will inform the detail of the
commissioning of the transport. This route assessment includes
information relating to the suitability of the vehicle to be utilised,
including the suitability of its size on each required route. Due to the
geography of the county not all routes require ‘buses’, smaller vehicles are
contracted where necessary, currently approximately 50% of the contracted
vehicles (used for mainstream schools) transport 8 or fewer children because
the route and/or the pupil numbers demand this.
As also noted previously the contracted providers,
once appointed, undertake both route-based risk assessments, and daily risks
assessments to identify and plan for hazards.
To reiterate and to reassure you and the community
you represent, as part of the council’s contracting arrangements now, and in
the future, providers are instructed not to attempt any journey that
they do not consider can be completed safely.
The particular concerns of residents from Swaledale
have been noted. Where issues arise with individual routes then the
council will undertake work to monitor the arrangements established for
contract delivery, including through the completion of additional risk
assessments, to ensure the safety of passengers.
The Council’s transport service has a compliance
team that undertake monitoring of, for example, the maintenance of vehicles
that are utilised in the provision of transport and other operational
arrangements (pick up points etc). In
the event that issues are raised by parents, schools, providers or other
stakeholders then the compliance team will undertake a review of the
arrangements associated with the delivery of an individual route and its
associated risk assessment.
The suggestion about the monitoring of road
conditions is noted. I would reiterate that the council monitors all
information about road closures and advises contract providers of any changes
as quickly as possible of any issues.
In the event that the policy is adopted then
the definition of the nearest suitable school (with places available) will be
applied consistently across North Yorkshire. This will ensure that the
council is consistent in its service delivery, and will achieve compliance with
the government’s statutory guidelines.
Thank you Mr Stainsby.