Agenda item

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice and provided the text to Democratic Services Officer (details below) no later than midday on 23 September 2025, three working days before the day of the meeting. 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 Chair who will instruct those taking a recording to cease whilst you speak.

 

There were three public questions.

 

From Richard Crabtree

Good afternoon, Chair and Councillors.

 

I speak on behalf of parents from Sheriff Hutton and nearby villages about school transport to Outwood Academy Easingwold. We urgently need your help.

 

Children from our villages have had transport removed not once but twice, leaving those already settled into their new school without a way to get there.

 

This time last year, parents applied for secondary places. Most chose their catchment school, as they always had. We received no direct email or letter warning of any change, and your website continued to reference catchment schools in four places until March this year. Officers have acknowledged those errors, but parents made their choices in good faith, unaware the rules had changed.

 

On 3 March 2025, allocations were confirmed. Our children were accepted into their catchment school, preparations began, and families had every reason to assume transport would be provided.

 

Then, on 23 May, the bombshell landed. Parents received an email saying transport had been withdrawn under the new policy. No one in the village knew. Appeals followed, but two days before the end of term we were told that no paid-for passes would be available either, leaving children stranded.

 

At the eleventh hour, Outwood Academy arranged passes through Morse Coaches for this year only. But last Friday, parents were told that provision has been withdrawn. The costs are prohibitive, and North Yorkshire Council refuses to contribute. From October, our children will have no way to reach the school they have already started at and settled in to.

 

This pattern - poor communication, sudden policy bombshells, last-minute U-turns - has caused enormous stress and disrupted children’s education. Officers were warned this policy would harm rural families, and here is the evidence. Yet nothing will change until 2028. By then, I fear villages like Sheriff Hutton may have no young families left. This is the kind of example our MP Kevin Hollinrake was taking about when expressed his concerns.

 

With all this in mind I ask the council to:

1.     Recognise the exceptional circumstances here and work with the school and coach company to find an urgent solution so these children are not left stranded.

2.     Restore the policy review to its original timing, so it begins this year, not next, and avoids further harm to rural villages like ours.

 

These children cannot be left in the lurch. We need action now. And I’d be keen to hear your views as our councillors on how to solve this.

 

Response from Amanda Fielding, Assistant Director Inclusion

 

Thank you to Mr Crabtree for your statement and questions.

 

The Council’s Home to School Travel Policy was adopted at the meeting of the Full Council in July 2024 and was implemented with effect from 1 September 2024. The policy aligns the council’s arrangements with the Department for Education’s Statutory Guidance for home to school travel, including the main eligibility criteria which is that assistance is provided to the nearest suitable school with available places.

 

In adopting the policy, the Council determined that it should be implemented on a phased basis such that any pupil with existing eligibility for transport would not be affected.  Whilst the Council acknowledged that this would result in pupils in individual areas having eligibility to different schools this was considered preferable to the potential impact upon an individual pupil’s education by the potential requirement to change schools. It is not true to say, therefore, that the Council has withdrawn assistance with travel from any pupil. The Council remains committed to meeting its statutory obligation to providing assistance with travel to all pupils who have eligibility.

 

The Council’s consideration of the policy was preceded by an extensive consultation exercise about the policy proposals.  All primary schools in the county were notified about the consultation and were asked to notify parents. The exercise was also promoted on the council’s website, via its social media channels and via local media outlets.

 

Following the implementation of the policy, the council’s website was updated to ensure that information was available to parents about its implications. For example, an online tool was provided to assist parents in identifying their nearest suitable schools. This information was made available on the web pages providing information about school admissions, and those completing applications for school places after 1 September 2024 were asked to confirm that they had considered the implications of the revised policy when making their application.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that some pages on the council’s website did contain old information about the previous policy, analysis of the use of the website has indicated that those specific pages were accessed on only a relatively small number of occasions. The council does not believe, therefore, that parents were misled through the continued existence of that information.

 

All pupils who were allocated a new school place to start in September 2025 had their eligibility for assistance with home to school travel assessed in accordance with the 2024 policy, and eligibility was not provided to pupils who are not attending their nearest suitable school where places were available at the point that places were allocated. Where pupils attend a school other than their nearest suitable school with places available then it remains that parents are responsible for the arrangements for their children’s travel to school.

 

The council is not able to comment about any arrangements which have been established by schools but subsequently withdrawn.

 

In response to the specific questions raised:

1.     The council’s policy provides only limited discretion for the provision of assistance to pupils who have been determined as being not eligible for assistance, e.g. including where paid permits are offered where there is spare capacity on existing NYC contracted transport. 

2.     The council remains committed to undertaking a Post Implementation Review of the implementation of the policy in accordance with the commitment provided at the meeting of the Full Council on 24 July 2024 and a report on this will be presented in autumn 2026.

 

Mr Crabtree then asked the following supplementary question.

 

At this point, I think the relevant point is that this is about taking responsibility for the acknowledged errors by the Council in, in which you've left. Children have already started.

 

Their new school stranded the Council's own failings, which have been acknowledged through the appeals process, have kind of have created this problem. I understand that you know that.

 

Hiding behind policy savings targets and the review being pushed to 2026 means nothing will change until 2028, with three more years of damage and whoever is here and in in in the seats here in this room will then be picking up.

 

There are 13 more families who are currently in the admissions window from Sheriff Hutton this year and they're left in the lurch. They have total uncertainty about what this means for the future of their children's education.

 

So, I would ask, and Sheriff Hutton residents would ask for two things, recognise and act on the exceptional circumstances this year for the families of Sheriff Hutton and start the post implementation review this year, as promised in the to the families in villages like I was. Otherwise, it's knowingly allowing harm to come to rural communities and families.

 

From Chris Wilson

 

Policy Review Delay

 

Chair, Members,

 

I am speaking today on behalf of parents in North Yorkshire who continue to be let down by the council’s handling of the Home to School Transport policy.

 

When this policy was voted through in July 2024, councillors were promised a post-implementation review in 2025, with a working group. These safeguards were written into the official papers and intended to mitigate the clear risks to rural families.

 

Officers themselves acknowledged in the Equality Impact Assessment that rural communities would be disproportionately affected.

 

Disgracefully, this promise has been broken. Officers have delayed the review to start in 2026 and report in 2027. That means no changes can be actioned until September 2028 at the earliest. In the meantime, the flaws in this policy will continue to damage families and schools for years.

 

At last week’s Scrutiny Committee, councillors in this room had the chance to challenge this but failed to act. The broken promise of a 2025 review went largely unchallenged, the mitigation of harm to rural families was effectively abandoned and attempts by opposition councillors to create a mechanism for input on the scope and independence were quashed. As was said on the day, the officers who have engineered this mess have been left to mark their own homework. Bizarrely, officers dismissed the idea of independent oversight as “dangerous.” For them, maybe - but not for the rural families relying on this review to correct injustices in appeals hearings week in, week out.

 

So I ask you, Members here today:

·       Do you find it acceptable that a written promise, which was the basis of the Full Council vote, has been reneged on without debate or consultation and understand that by refusing independent oversight and stakeholder involvement, this review has already lost all credibility with the very families it is supposed to reassure.

 

Chair, Members, this is not just about transport policy. It is about trust in this council. Trust that was already fragile - and which has now, frankly, been shattered. Unless councillors here begin to stand up, hold officers to account, and insist on keeping promises, that trust will not be rebuilt.

 

Response from Amanda Fielding, Assistant Director Inclusion

 

Thank you to Mr Wilson for his statement.

 

During the meeting of the Full Council on 24 July 2024 Councillor Wilkinson provided a commitment that she would commission a Post Implementation Review, to report in 2026. Given that that was the case, the council does not accept that there has been any delay to the proposed review.

 

The report relating to the Post Implementation Review will be presented to the Executive during the autumn of 2026. If recommendations are proposed, then these may be subject to a consultation process and timescales set out in the Department for Education’s Statutory Guidance for Home to School Travel. On this basis, a public consultation could be required during the spring of 2027, prior to the consideration of a revised policy by the Executive and Full Council before 31 July 2027. Should a revised policy be approved by the Council then it would be implemented with effect from 1 September 2027.

 

Mr Wilson then asked the following supplementary question.

 

I suppose my only comment on that would be that our understanding that was 2025, even if it is 2026 and 2027 when that comes through, you're still talking about another two years of uncertainty around this.

 

I still don't understand why it can’t be done this year. It could have been possibly done in 2025, so I don't understand why that's not the case.

 

Combined response to the supplementary questions above from Jon Holden, Strategic Planning Manager

 

Thank you to both Mr Crabtree and Mr Wilson for their further questions to the Committee, the detail of both of which are noted.

 

The Post Implementation Review of the implementation of the Home to School Travel Policy will be undertaken in accordance with the commitment that was provided at the meeting of the Full Council on 24 July 2024, and the timetable that has subsequently been reported.

 

Parents and carers who are making applications for a school place for their children should continue to consider the information that is available on the council’s website.

 

A briefing report about the Post Implementation Review was provided to the Council’s Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 17 September.  A copy of that report can be accessed utilising the following link: North Yorkshire Council

 

 

From Simon Thackray

The council report states:

 

“5.3 There are CCTV cameras at Malton and Norton (33), Pickering (12), Kirkbymoorside (1) owned by Ryedale Cameras in Action which are managed by the CCTV Control Room at Scarborough, and 12 cameras at Thirsk from 1 September 2025 managed by the 24-hour CCTV service at Harrogate.

 

5.4 CCTV Performance

In the period 01/04/2024 to 31/08/2025 (days), the Ryedale Cameras in Action cluster dealt with 223 incidents, undertook 87 evidential reviews and produced 63 pieces of evidence.”

 

Question:

There are CCTV cameras in Malton and Norton which could help Trading Standards enforce the 7.5-tonne weight restriction over Norton level crossing. This restriction is vital to protect public health from the damaging effects of air pollution.

Of the 63 pieces of evidence produced by Ryedale Cameras in Action between 1 April 2024 and 31 August 2025, how many resulted in enforcement, or prosecution of individuals, for breaches of the 7.5-tonne weight restriction over Norton level crossing?

 

Response from Julia Stack, Community Safety & CCTV Manager

The evidence produced during the period identified has not been used in relation to any enforcement, prosecution of the 7.5 tonne weight restriction over Norton crossing.

 

The camera at this location is a fixed cameras and looks in the direction of Norton over the crossing and can pick up registration and vehicle information.

 

We have an additional camera that faces away from the level crossing looking across the bridge facing in the Malton direction.  Visibility is not as good but can identify a vehicle if coming from Malton heading towards the crossing.

 

The CCTV service is currently working with colleagues within the Council to explore how the CCTV service can assist with the identification of vehicles that breach restrictions in specified areas, this work is ongoing.

 

Advise from colleagues within the NYC Bridges & Structures Team is that this is an environmental weight limit and would therefore likely come under the Area 4 Highways team. We do not have a structural weight limit on the adjacent bridge that would restrict vehicles below 44t gross weight, although we do generally limit abnormal load movements from crossing the structure.

 

Any surveillance undertaken has to be proportionate and in accordance with our policies and procedures.

 

Mr Thackray then asked the following supplementary question.

 

Highlighting the danger of noise pollution affecting the potential future occupants of the new houses subject to application reference 21/01115/MOUTE, for 645 houses at Norton Lodge, Norton, the NYC Environmental Health Officer wrote:

 

 “Developers will be expected to apply the highest standards outlined in the World Health Organisation, British Standards and wider international and national standards relating to noise. As the applicant proposes some units with windows being kept closed for noise mitigation, this is not in line with the Ryedale Policy SP20. As such I cannot support this proposal.”

 

As we can see from the EHO’s statement, North Yorkshire Council now cites World Health Organisation noise-pollution standards in planning reports and decisions. By contrast, the council dismisses the WHO Global Air Quality guidelines as purely ‘aspirational’, in direct conflict with the views of the Royal College of Physicians and other equally emanant health organisations and professionals.

 

Question:

 

Given the proven harm caused by both noise and air pollution, will the Council now acknowledge the dangers of air pollution — even at very low concentrations — and give the WHO Air Quality Guidelines for the concentration of Nitrogen Dioxide in Malton and Norton the same weight it applies to WHO noise standards? In doing so, will the Council also enforce the 7.5-tonne HGV weight restriction over Norton Level Crossing to protect the health of the public with equal concern?

 

Response from Dr Kevin Carr, Scientific Officer and R Marr, Manager Area 4

 

The noise standards referred to from the World Health Organisation are community guidelines and the British Standards, again, are guidance. These are used to construct a response in the absence of statutory community noise limits. This is not the case for air quality, where there are statutory national air quality objective limits for the protection of human health. These statutory limits have precedence over guidance. This will continue to be the case until the UK Government replace or update them.

 

The 7.5t weight restriction will be added to our planned enforcement schedule once National Highways have erected to necessary advance warning signs on the A64.