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.