Agenda item

A combined paper and electronic petition has been received by North Yorkshire Council containing above 2130 signatures of people who live, work or study in the county. As the petition contains 500 or more signatures (but less than 30,130 signatories), it has been scheduled for debate at this meeting of the Area Committee.

The process for debating and responding to the petition is set out in the report  detailed at Appendix A.

 

The petition was originally discussed at a meeting of the Area Committee held on 27 January 2025 but was deferred for consideration at a subsequent meeting to allow further information to be provided.

Details of the petition and its aims were set out in the published report, together with a response from representatives of Children and Young Peoples Services.

 

The key features of the Council’s arrangements for receiving and debating petitions, as published on the Council’s website, are as follows:

 

Receipt of the petition is published on the Council’s website (which has been done in the case of this petition).

 

If a petition contains 500 or more signatures (but less than 30,130 signatories), it will be scheduled for debate at a meeting of the appropriate Area Committee which is the case for this petition.

 

The petition organiser is offered the opportunity to speak for five minutes at the Area Committee meeting to present their petition.  Subsequently, at the meeting, the petition will be discussed by Councillors for a maximum of 15 minutes and a decision will be made on how to respond to the petition. 

 

The possible responses by the Council to petitions, as shown on the website, are:

 

a)    to take the action requested by the petition

b)    not to take the action requested for reasons put forward in the debate

c)     to commission further investigation into the matter, for example by a relevant committee; or

d)    where the issue is one on which the council Executive is required to make the final decision, the council will decide whether to make recommendations to inform that decision.

 

The petition organiser will receive written confirmation of this decision.  This confirmation will also be published on the website.

 

In accordance with the arrangements described above, the petition organiser was invited to join the meeting to present their petition.

 

Statement by the petitioner, Ian Dawson

 

The following statement was read on behalf of the petitioner:

 

Good morning.

 

Before I start reading, I want to ask you to remember why it is that you are sitting here today, the reasons why you wanted to become a councillor. To make a real difference? To represent the views of your constituents? To do what is right? I know that it must sometimes be a hard job but also rewarding.

 

We are just a group, made up of concerned parents and residents who just want the best outcome for our children and communities of North Yorkshire. I hope everyone in this room has that same goal.

 

Back in November we handed you the petition asking for a rethink of the policy, to bring back catchment. That has brought us here today. Back then we were just a small group from Richmondshire, now we’re a determined team with a support in all corners of the county. We have 360 active supporters and many more cheering us on. We’ve come this far, and we won’t stop until we get this fixed. Too much is riding on this, for too many people for us to give up now.

 

Since we were last sitting round this table, two notable things have happened. Neither one could be described as North Yorkshire Council’s finest moment.

 

The first, at the Full Council meeting on 26 February. The Admissions Arrangement document presented to Council contained grave errors and had to be corrected at the eleventh hour. Even then, there remains a serious contradiction in advice given to parents on whether to include their catchment school on the application if it is not in the list of your five nearest schools.

 

The consequences of this for families in Stapleton, Barton, Croft, Keld, Aldbrough St John, Whitby, Tockwith and elsewhere in North Yorkshire is real where these children have 5 nearest above their catchment.

 

North Yorkshire now has in place two conflicting school policies - an admissions policy based on catchment and a school transport policy based solely on distance. This makes no sense, and it exposes you to hundreds of costly appeals. In fact, we now question whether these contradictions make them legal.

 

The second key date was what happened on 3 March - National Offer Day. Families across the county with children starting secondary school in September, discovered which school they had received a place at. It was the biggest test yet for the new Home to School Transport Policy and it’s fair to say it failed spectacularly. Our inbox and phone lines have never been busier with distressed parents seeking help, from us, just a group of other parents.

 

The fallout is still happening, we know the number of appeals are mounting fast and all the while, this council’s reputation is being damaged. And it’s going to get worse. Parents are now in limbo, waiting until the end of May to be told whether their child qualifies for free transport. If they do qualify, they are told NYC will be in touch, if they don’t hear from you, they’ve been warned that’s how they’ll know they have been left in the lurch. That’s appalling. Are you going to do the same to parents with primary school children when those school places are announced in April?

 

It’s clear now, that many parents were not aware of the changes when they filled out their application forms. Your communication to parents has been both sparse and inconsistent, despite the fact the transport policy change happened just two weeks before the admission process opened.

 

Councillors this whole thing is broken. Your own approved budget is evidence that there are no savings from any of this. Other councils have made better choices. Only 3 out of our 13 neighbouring local authorities have imposed ‘nearest school only’ on their residents in the same way as you have. Those three are in urban areas with public transport and where most pupils are within walking distance. So, the impact is nowhere near as harmful as it is for the 73% of families here in our county who are rural.

 

We remind you once again that all of this mess, and all the angst being inflicted on families and schools, can go away with one small change to the Home to School Transport policy – bring back catchment.

 

Sometimes you just have to be big enough to admit you’ve got it wrong. Cllr Thompson has been brave enough to say publicly, “If I knew then, what I know now I would not have voted for this”. We thank him for his honesty and ask you to listen to what he has to say.

Unlike some, he has understood that there are no real savings to be had and that the cost to North Yorkshire children and schools is just too high.

 

It’s not for me to tell you how to vote today. Do whatever guarantees that this policy gets back to Full Council as fast as possible then back the amendment to bring catchment back.

 

Please do not waste this chance. Do not look for excuses to delay. Because every day you do, more damage is being done. Our children are depending on you. Please don’t let them down

 

Finally, I’d like to end with an invitation.

 

We are serious about wanting to work this out. We have seen close up how decisions are made in this council, and we are worried. We believe this council would be stronger if the public had a proper voice. With that in mind -

 

Annabel and Carl, please will you and Stuart Carlton meet with three of our team to have a proper conversation about the policy and listen to why we are so concerned. We know you are sick of hearing from us but we too are sick of the deflected answers. We believe there is a better way. The consequences of the implementation of this fall out from this policy is too severe to ignore. And the urgency is real. You cannot put an entire year of 5-year-olds and 10-year-olds through this. They need your help now. Please show North Yorkshire that you are listening, that you really do understand and that you care.

 

Response

 

Amanda Newbold– Assistant Director, Inclusion responded to the issues raised in public statements and by the petitioner, at this and the previous meeting as follows:

 

I would first like to offer a response to the statements made at the previous meeting as I was not given the opportunity to do so at the time.

 

As a reminder, the speakers talked about making difficult choices and asked the council to support parents to choose catchment schools for their children and access travel assistance.

 

They spoke about the cost of purchasing seats on home to school transport and some families needing to choose a school that is different to other children in their community due to transport costs. The issue of term dates was raised in reference to children attending schools outside of the county area.

 

They also spoke about concerns to the cohort attending Richmond school and the impact on the school’s curriculum offer, teacher specialisms and sixth form offer.

 

Wider transport availability in Swaledale was raised.

 

Written questions were submitted that questioned inconsistencies in the distance calculations, the expected savings, and differences between council areas as well as the safety of routes that might be used.

 

I would like to start by reading an extract from the DfE’s blog, ‘Free school transport explained: From who’s eligible to how it works’ (Nov 2023).

When choosing which schools to apply for, it is important to consider how your child will get there. Some children are eligible for free travel, but this isn’t the case for everyone.

 

Most parents should expect to be responsible for making arrangements for their child to get to and from school. [The Government] set the national eligibility criteria for free travel to school and your local authority is responsible for deciding whether your child meets these criteria.

 

Your child is eligible if they are of compulsory school age, go to their nearest suitable school and one of the following applies:

 

·       they are under 8 and the school is more than 2 miles away

·       they are 8 or over and the school is more than 3 miles away

·       they wouldn’t be able to walk there safely, even if accompanied by a parent or guardian

·       they wouldn’t be able walk there because of their special educational needs, disability, or a mobility problem, even if accompanied by a parent or guardian.

 

A child will not normally be eligible for free travel solely because of their parent’s work commitments or caring responsibilities.

 

Your child may also be entitled to free transport if you have a low family income and they are entitled to free school meals or you get the maximum Working Tax Credit.

 

If your child doesn't meet the criteria above, you are responsible for arranging their travel to and from school. Some local authorities arrange travel for children who don’t meet the eligibility criteria, although they are not required to. Where they choose to do so, the [local authority] may charge you for the cost of it.

 

It is right that the council has a statutory duty to provide home to school travel for eligible children of compulsory school age in accordance with Statutory Guidance issued by the Department for Education (DfE).

 

Parents have the right to preference any school of their choice when applying for a school place, they do not however have a right to free-of-charge travel arrangements to that school.

 

Increases in the cost of fuel, transport and insurance resulted in full council voting, by a majority, to adopt a revised H2ST policy that is both in line with the Department for Education guidance, and targets resources at those who need it most and who are entitled to travel assistance in line with legislation. We are aware that schools, including Richmond, arrange transport for pupils who do not meet the council’s eligibility for free transport and that the charge to parents is often much greater than the council’s current fee for a paid for permit.

 

I would also like to respond briefly to the petition statement from the last meeting.

 

The petitioner spoke about the impact on families and communities, concerns about the level of achievable savings and a request to scrap ‘nearest only’ and return to a catchment-based policy.

 

You have heard already that the nearest school cannot be removed as it is in legislation.

 

However, catchments are geographical areas, from which children may be afforded priority for admission to a particular school. A catchment area is part of some schools’ admission arrangements.

 

Catchment areas do not prevent parents who live outside the catchment of a particular school from expressing a preference for the school. We know that around 1/3 of secondary children, and 45% of primary children, attend a school that is not their catchment school.

 

The previous eligibility for travel assistance under the ‘catchment’ criteria was a discretionary provision. The concept of ‘catchment’ does not appear in the DfE guidance for home to school travel - in today’s education system, some schools do not have catchments, some share catchments and some addresses have two or more catchments and so the change to the main criterion of ‘nearest suitable school’ reflects this national approach.

 

I would also like to respond to comments about the FOI that was referred to in the last meeting.

 

The information requested relates to some data that has already been exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 36(2)(b)(ii) and (c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

There has been some confusion about this (some requesters were asking for a ‘report’) however the information is held in a datasheet.

 

The Council received a Freedom of Information request, but withheld it, citing potential prejudice to public affairs. The data, linked to school admission numbers and financial stability, could impact individual schools if released, influencing parental choices in school admissions.

 

Created as an officer tool for early policy development, the data models the impact of proposed policy changes on pupil eligibility for school travel assistance. The outcome of the model showed the possible impact of pupil eligibility for travel to a school, if the proposed policy were to be introduced, and was a snapshot on a single day. It showed the net effect of which pupils would ‘retain’ assistance, could ‘lose’ assistance, or might ‘secure travel assistance’ but to a different school and, if so, which school. This data set was indicative only as it related to pupils already in the schools, already eligible for transport. The council has not removed eligibility for current pupils under the previous policy. Data modelling is a standard element that is taken into consideration when deciding to propose amendments to policies.

 

The Council believes officers need space to create data for policy proposals without public scrutiny. Disclosure could inhibit future free and frank exchanges and data collection.

 

The Council believes that it would be prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs as school’s potential admission numbers and their financial stability is linked to the numbers of pupils on roll which may be impacted if this information were in the public domain. The Council would argue that the release of this modelling data may adversely impact upon individual schools, as parents may be able to identify individual schools, and therefore use this data to form a view as to whether a school is financially viable, which would further influence the preferences for school placements in the school admissions process.

 

Schools who were captured in this initial data set have had the opportunity to access the data for their schools on request during the consultation process. Not all schools have taken up this offer.

 

I will now respond to the four public statements made in this meeting 17 March 2025.

 

Mr McDonald - Thank you for raising the matter of the post implementation review of the July 20204 Home to School Travel Policy

 

I note your concerns about the length of time before the review is undertaken and published.

 

I would like to clarify that the timing of the review does not relate to the length of time to undertake the review, rather it relates to the set of data required to inform the review. For a review of the new policy to be meaningful, it should include (but not be limited to) pupil data from the Sept 2025 admissions rounds, as well as 2025-26 financial year information which will take account of changes to transport contracts in the academic year Sept 25-July 26.

 

Any review before this time would not provide a comprehensive view of the implementation of the policy.

 

Regarding your comments about potential policy changes arising from the review. I can confirm that any recommendations taken forward to councillors for consideration would need to be agreed in time for a revised Home to School Travel Policy to be adopted in line with legislation. A policy must be agreed by the end of July for adoption in September of the same year. The review published in autumn 2026 could therefore impact on the September 2027 policy (27-28 admission round) which would predominantly impact on ‘new starters’ in September 2028. Though it would impact in-year admissions from Sept 27

 

Oscar - Thank you for taking time to attend today and bring the voice of a young person to councillors.

 

You have talked about your worries about what might happen if you move house during your final years at school. Councillors will understand that it is a parental decision when and where they move house and when thinking about moving, parents would take account of the impact this may have on schooling. Sometimes parents decide to keep their child/children at the current school, even if this means they need to make different travel arrangements, and sometimes they decide to move schools. This is a personal decision for families to make.

 

However, for the council, all address changes must be considered as ‘material changes’ and as such they would require re-assessment of eligibility for travel assistance. This aspect of policy implementation did not change when the policy was updated.

 

So, after a house move, it is parents' responsibility to inform the Council of any changes in their circumstances which may affect their eligibility for travel assistance. Eligibility is then assessed and considered under all criteria, including low income /extended entitlement.

 

Any exceptional circumstances can be considered at appeal.

 

Ms Livingstone - Thank you for your statement that asks councillors to consider what they knew at the time of the policy decision. For ease I have referenced earlier reports containing relevant information as part of the consultation and the decision-making process in 2024 – this is intended to support councillors in their reflections to your questions.

 

The answer to your first questions can be found in the wording from section 5.26 of the report to Exec 16th July 2024:

 

Each year, the October school census information is used for the determination of school budget in the following financial year, for example, the October 2024 census information will be used for the determination of school budgets in 2025/26. Schools are funded for the pupils on roll at the school on the census day – not the pupils that live in the county. Whilst some school rolls will only include pupils who are resident in North Yorkshire, a number of schools – typically located near the county border – will include pupils who are resident in North Yorkshire and some pupils who are resident in other local authority areas. To clarify further, this means that North Yorkshire Council does not fund schools or academies located outside of North Yorkshire to educate North Yorkshire pupils. Funding from DfE is allocated according to census day pupils on roll, not pupils who are resident in the county.

 

Your second point suggests that ‘1 in 4 small primary school could lose pupils’.

If by this claim you are referring to the modelled data shared during the consultation, we said early estimations indicated 37 of 142 primary schools with fewer than 100 children on roll could see decreased eligibility for travel assistance, (we also stated that in most cases this change in eligibility could be to the tune of less than 5% of pupil roll in a school and could be over the seven-year implementation period). I would like to remind councillors that decreased eligibility for transport does not automatically mean decreased children on roll at the school. Data after the recent secondary national offer day (NOD) supports this view. We have not seen significant changes in secondary admissions numbers this round, and I can confirm that Richmond School is oversubscribed with a waiting list for the first time in the last few years.

 

As we are not yet at primary national offer day, it is too early to comment further about primary schools. However, we can confirm that no school will close because of this policy alone.

 

You also made a suggestion that some councillors were not aware of the policy implication relating to selective schools. I refer councillors to section 5.25 of the report to Exec 16th July 2024 where it stated:

 

‘It is correct if the proposed policy is adopted, then children would not be eligible for assistance to selective schools unless they are their nearest suitable school. This would be equitable with all children attending non-selective schools as it [was] under the [previous] policy. The selective school would only be a suitable school for transport assistance where a child had achieved the entry requirements.’

 

You have suggested that councillors have forced working mums to consider giving up their careers.

 

Decisions about school choice are made by families across the county every year. Councillors will have noted in section 5.24 of the report to Exec 16th July 2024 that there was a response to practical issues for families which were raised in the consultation process. Furthermore, parents are encouraged during the annual admissions process to take account of transport needs and the council’s policy when choosing to apply for school places. Families with existing eligibility under the previous remain unaffected, unless there is a material change, and for those families where their home address is over the statutory walking distance, the council will provide travel to the nearest suitable school with places. The council has also provided additional extended entitlement for low-income families within the current policy.

 

Another question you raised was about the level of appeals expected this summer.

 

Councillors will recognise that with a new policy change this is likely to bring more appeals in the first year or two. This is what happened at the last policy change, and so can be expected this time. We have taken steps to ensure effective communication about the policy, and we recognise and respect the right of appeal. We will ensure the appeals process is as smooth as possible for those families wishing to access the appeals procedure.

 

The following information is on the council’s website and explains the reasons when appeals may be appropriate.

 

Once the council has carried out the eligibility assessments, and from 2 June 2025, if you believe that under the policy your child is eligible, you can challenge the council's decision in relation to transport eligibility and you can appeal against:

 

·       your child’s eligibility to free travel

·       the transport arrangements made for an eligible child

·       the distance measurement of the walked route

·       the safety of the walked route that is under the statutory walking distance

 

Your last point suggests councillors were misled about the potential savings that could be achieved through the policy implementation.

 

Councillors are clear about the potential for up to £4.2m of savings in the proposal, and information was provided about the range of variables that could impact on the actual savings value. I refer councillors to sections 5.17, 5.18, 6.3 and section 7, of the report to the Executive on 16th July 2024.

 

The council’s budget 2025-26 and medium-term financial strategy 2026-27 and 2027-28 includes figures relating to the potential estimated savings in the medium term, but we also recognise that savings will continue to be monitored throughout the full implementation period of the policy.

 

The network of home to school travel routes is updated each September and the overall budget assessment, including savings, is intended to reflect annual anticipated changes in provision. There are no ‘specific’ implementation costs identified as they are factored into the overall cost of provision. The statutory admissions process, transport eligibility assessments, and transport procurement arrangements continue to be delivered from existing resources.

 

Ms Rukin - Thank you for speaking today and for bringing the issue of communication to the meeting. I note that you have previously communicated with the council in March 2024, via your MP, in July 2024 and again, via councillors, in October 2024. Hopefully, those earlier responses and my response to your statement today will provide you with the assurances you are looking for.

 

Regarding the possible conflicts of policy. Officers were made aware of one or two incidences where a reference was made to the previous policy; we always ensure changes are made as soon as possible.

 

You have mentioned an invitation to Richmond School parents’ information evening on 19 September. This invitation was passed on just a few days before the meeting, making it difficult for officers to attend, particularly as both the admissions and transport manager and I were on leave on that date. The parents meeting in September followed on from the consultation and decision making that took place in the spring and summer of 2024, a period when there was a lot of information being shared about the policy change. And the council’s school bulletin – the Red bag - was issued 6th September so all schools had the information they needed to share with parents. Slides were provided to all schools so that they could refer any parents back to the council if there were queries, but the council is not always aware of when schools hold events and would not normally expect to attend over 350 open evenings. I know that Richmond School have sent information about the policy to their families, and these contained links to the council’s website as well as an email address for the council’s admissions and transport team.

 

You suggest that the council has failed on the regulations that require us to share information about our home to school travel policy. The council believes that all regulations have been adhered to.

 

I am confident that communications about the policy change have been widespread and have taken place over the course of a year. I do not believe that this is a last-minute policy change as you have suggested. I believe communication has been both proactive and responsive, and more details are provided in my next response.  

 

I finally like to respond to the petition statement.

 

The admissions and transport policies are linked, we understand that. However, the two policies are discrete. Each one is adopted under a different timeline, each is required to align to different legislation and the associated national guidance. And all Local Authorities make their own decisions about any flexibilities available within the policies.

 

The council is the admissions authority for only some of the schools in the county. Academy and VA schools are their own admissions authority. And our families choose to attend, and travel to schools, both in and out of the county, under their own arrangements or with assistance from the council. This is a complex area of work.

 

We have noted the feedback about notifying parents about the eligibility assessment. Eligibility assessments for home to school travel assistance have commenced and, as we are using a ‘new’ main criterion, we are undertaking work to ensure there is a robust assessment process. We will take on board the feedback about notifying families that do not meet the eligibility criteria, and we will give this due consideration.

 

Communication about the current home to school policy began with coverage in January 2024 and media interest continues today with media colleagues giving the council’s home to school travel policy a high profile. The policy proposal and changes have been referenced on many occasions since January 2024 in Richmondshire Today, the Darlington and Stockton Times, BBC Radio York, the Stray Ferret, the Gazette and Hearld, BBC Look North, Hambleton Today, This is the Coast, the Craven Herald, the Yorkshire Post, the Northern Echo, ITV, Your Harrogate, Greatest Hits, That’s TV, the Harrogate Advertiser, the Scarborough News.

 

As well as this we have had a wide social media presence since February 2024, the first article on 19 February when the consultation opened received almost 2000 clicks on Facebook and had a reach of almost 1500 on Instagram, almost 2000 each on LinkedIn and X. Proactive social media activity continued and in August 2024 when we announced the policy had been agreed, the Facebook post received over 3000 clicks. The council’s page has a reach (as at Jan 2025) of over 20,000 people.

 

Councillors have heard and discussed the policy at area committee meetings, scrutiny committee the executive committee, and at full council. Officers have responded to over 50 enquiries from all 7 MPs and around 100 enquiries from NYC councillors across the county.

 

This admissions cycle, we have had over 10,000 applications for school place in Sept 25.

 

Over 2500 users viewed the council’s admissions information web pages, on average spending about one minute on the site.

 

During the same period, only 50 accessed Appendix 1 of the 2025-26 admissions arrangements document online, and they spent a similar amount of time.

 

Officers are confident that communication about the home to school travel policy has been clear to councillors and to the public but would continue to advise anyone with new questions to look at the council’s website and FAQs section, and to contact the team if they have a specific query that remains unanswered after that.

 

Gary Fielding, Corporate Director, Strategic Resources, provided details of the proposed savings for the Council the revised policy would generate. Savings of £2.95m had been identified over the next 2 years, with £1.44m attributed directly to the policy. The original estimate for savings of £4.2m over 7 years had been revised to £3m and those details were provided when Council agreed the policy.

 

Members of the public and the petitioner were invited to ask supplementary questions, and the following issues were discussed:

 

·       Oscar Kendall noted that his parents had been required to move house during the previous year and the new policy would require him to change schools during his exam year as there would be no transport available to his existing school. In response it was stated that, given his position, his parents could appeal for exceptional circumstances to be taken into account to determine whether he could remain at his existing school.

·       Rob Macdonald stated that the debate at Full Council had referred to savings in excess of £4m with no mention of this being ‘up to’ that figure. He noted that there were discrepancies in the figures provided which excluded the non-policy savings of around 40%. In response it was stated that the figures provided within the report related to 7 years of savings, not the 3 years indicated. Mr Macdonald considered the report to Full Council had not reflected this position nor had it given a breakdown of the non-policy/new policy savings and was, therefore, inaccurate.

 

Members undertook a 15 minute debate on the petition in line with the Council’s petition scheme highlighting the following issues:

 

·       It was considered that the Area Committee had no power to take action on the petition proposal and that the correct body to consider this matter would be Full Council.

·       It was suggested that the information on the Council’s website had created confusion as the Admissions Policy and Home to School Transport Policy contradicted each other. It was asked that clarity be provided for parents in respect of this matter ahead of an Extraordinary Meeting of the Council.

·       The Government settlement for North Yorkshire Council had seen a huge reduction in available funding leading to cost-saving measures having to be taken. The provision of free home to school transport with regards to parental choice for schools was not within national policies and was, therefore, discretionary. It was essential for the Council to make savings due to the decrease in funding and this was an area that could address that, with essential travel and those in most need still being provided with the service.

·       The national policy for the development of academies saw schools directly competing against each other for pupils with some in this area providing transport to their schools to the detriment of neighbouring schools. This was considered to be more detrimental to local schools than the change in the policy.

·       A Member emphasised that agreement was yet to be given to an Extraordinary Council meeting, therefore, the matter should be examined carefully to ensure that the interests of concerned residents were addressed. It was urged that the matter be diverted to Council to consider appropriately.

·       Information on the new policy had been shared with all stakeholders, including Councillors and all schools, therefore it was contested that the communication had been neglected. The new policy included a certain level of compromise and retained some discretion, more than what was required by national guidance and the right to appeal remained available to all parents.

·       In answer to the issue raised relating to the bus operated by the school for pupils from other areas, a Member emphasised that this factor ensured that the school remained viable. He considered that young people were now required to stay at school until 18, therefore, the means to get there should be provided. It was also suggested that when a pupil had started at a school, and if their wish was to do so,  they should be allowed to continue at that school for the remainder of their school years.

·       It was suggested that the details provided by the Assistant Director in response to the issues raised were lengthy and Members would benefit from a written version of those details. It was agreed to circulate these by email.

·       A Member considered that a lack of communication around the policy had led to the heightened levels of concern from parents. He also considered that there had been poor communication around the levels of savings to be generated by the new policy, with additional costs not taken account of, leading to further concerns.

·       Responding to issues raised a Member considered that the details on the website had caused confusion in respect of the policy, particularly in how it conflicted with the Admissions policy and better clarification was required.

 

Members were reminded of the choices they had in respect of responding to the petition.

 

Resolved

 

That the action requested by the petition be not taken as an Extraordinary Meeting of Full Council had been called, and agreed to by the Chair of Council, on a date and time to be determined, to further consider this issue.

 

The meeting was adjourned at this point.

 

When the meeting restarted Councillor Heather Moorhouse was in attendance.

 

Councillor Yvonne Peacock returned to the Chair.

 

The following also attended the afternoon session:

 

David Skaith – The Mayor of the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority

James Farrar – The CEO of the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority

Louise Wilson – Assistant Director, School Improvement

Amanda Newbold – Assistant Director, Inclusion

Howard Emmett – Assistant Director, Resources

Timothy Johns – Senior Policy Officer – Sustainability and Environment (remotely)

Hannah Nutsey – Climate Change Business Partner

Matt Robinson – Head of Resilience and Emergencies

Louisa Carolan – Principal Regeneration Officer

 

Four members of the public were in attendance.