Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to (to include the text of the question/statement) to Alice Fox, Senior Scrutiny Officer (contact details below) by midday on Friday 12 September, 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.
Minutes:
Three public statements were received, and read as follows:
Statement 1: Jo Foster, S.T.A.G
Councillors,
Parents across North Yorkshire have lost faith in this council’s school transport appeals process. They are sick of being put through a system that feels more concerned with protecting policy than protecting children.
Here are two examples of what is going wrong:
First, restrictions on representatives:
Six weeks ago, parents attending Stage 2 hearings were entitled to take a
representative — just as they are in every other council in the land. They
could work as a team to present the case clearly and take part in the
question-and-answer sessions.
But from the 11th of August, that changed. Parents arrived to be told, without notice, that new restrictions were in place — representatives could only make a short closing statement, and were barred from asking or answering questions directly. Families who had prepared for weeks walked in to find the rules rewritten and, five weeks on, this gagging order remains in place. The motivation behind this move is worrying. Appeals must be based on fairness. To pile extra pressure on parent in this way tilts the balance in the Council’s favour. One Conservative councillor has described the process as ‘rigged to give the Authority an easy ride’.
Second, the handling of mistakes:
We know now that a catalogue of errors has been made in applying the policy.
For example, school gates missing from maps, unviable routes used to calculate
nearest schools and, the now accepted, plethora of communication failures.
These same issues are cropping up time after time in appeals. Yet too many
parents are still being denied transport, not through any fault of their own
but on the back of mistakes like these made by the Council. I’m talking here
about mistakes that have been acknowledged — not ones that are contested.
Richard Flinton has at last confirmed such errors are valid grounds for appeal.
Yet families still face a lottery — one week transport is granted on the back
of accepted communication failures, the next week a case is rejected on the
same grounds. No wonder parents are furious.
Families now attend Stage 2 hearings simply to “go through the motions.” Many feel their only real hope for a fair trial lies with the Ombudsman. They describe the process as humiliating, upsetting, and pointless.
They are wondering what tricks are going to be played next. Just last week parents who requested minutes from their meeting were refused and told they must submit an FOI request. Why? The week before others had just been sent them. Goal posts shifting - again.
Attempts to stifling debate, failing to act on errors and changing the rules from one week to the next are signs of a broken process — and your help is needed to fix it.
Remember these people are not the enemy – they are just Mums and Dads trying to get their kids to school. And they are not asking for any favours. They are asking for a process that is fair, transparent, and consistent.
This committee’s remit is to make sure the needs of children in our county are protected and that the Council is doing right by them. So, I ask you directly, today to call this out.
Demand an inquiry into the way these appeals are being run, before any more families are treated unjustly.
Please do not put your heads in the sand. North Yorkshire’s children need you to speak up.
Response to Statement 1: Daniel Harry, Head of Democratic
Services
The written guidance sent to appellants in advance of the Stage 2 appeals hearings explains that they can be accompanied to the hearing if they wish, for example by a support worker, friend or relative. Those people attending a Stage 2 appeal as a supporter can still make a statement at the meeting and supporters can then raise any points of clarification or questions through the appellant. There has been no ‘restriction’.
The role of the Appeals (Home to School Transport) Committee, when considering a Stage 2 appeal, is to assess whether the Home to School Travel Policy, that was adopted by Council in July 2024, has been correctly applied and then to assess whether there are any exceptional individual circumstances that are significant enough to depart from the policy. This is in-line with the DfE Guidance ‘Travel to school for children of compulsory school age’ (2024). It is and always has been acceptable for appellants to submit information regarding the measurement of the statutory walking distance to the nearest school, the safety of the walked route to the nearest school and the suitability of the transport travel arrangements for an eligible child. All appeals are considered on their merits. This has been consistent throughout.
The Policy Implementation Review will look at the administration of the Home to School Travel Policy including a summary of the enquiries, complaints, appeals and the Council’s responses to these.
Statement 2: Jo Foster, S.T.A.G
Home to School Transport Policy Review – a request.
Something has clearly gone wrong with Home to School Transport. The new policy is failing families, schools and communities across North Yorkshire.
Most of you already know this. You’ve seen it in your inboxes, in Stage 2 appeals, and in your local newspapers. For those who haven’t, parents have asked me to extend a genuine invitation: they would value the chance to speak to you directly and share their stories.
Fifteen months on, it’s clear that changing school transport eligibility has proved to be a lynchpin decision of this brand-new local authority — one that is set to define this council, and one that could shape the future of rural schools and communities for a generation. What looked manageable on paper has fallen flat in the real world, creating chaos, stress and hardship for families.
When this policy was passed in July 2024, members were promised safeguards:
None of these have been delivered. The evaluation was dropped. No working group was formed. And the review has been pushed back — with officers now suggesting Autumn 2026, meaning no change until September 2028 at the earliest.
Officers may argue the delay is to allow a full year of data. But the picture is already clear. We know how many children have chosen catchment versus nearest school, how many qualify for free transport, how many have slipped through the net, how many bus passes have been sold and on what routes, and what vehicles have been commissioned. That is more than enough to project forward and give a clear fiscal picture — exactly as intended when a 2025 review was promised to you ahead of last year’s vote.
Can this council really afford three more years of this mess? Families left in limbo, schools destabilised, resources wasted, and trust draining away. And does anyone here really want this broken policy to be the backdrop to the 2027 elections?
On behalf of 857 members of the School Transport Action Group, we are asking you to act now:
These are not radical asks. They are simply about delivering on commitments made when this policy was first passed.
An accident of timing meant this committee was side-stepped last July. You didn’t get the chance to scrutinise the policy then. This Policy Review is your chance to put that right.
Use the power you have. Please make sure this review happens this year and that it has proper teeth. Parents, schools — and above all, children — are depending on you.
Thank you.
Response to Statement 2: Amanda Fielding, Assistant
Director Inclusion
Thank you for your statement. Your views on the policy are noted. The reasons that the post implementation review was agreed to take place in July 2026 are as you have suggested - there are benefits to seeing data associated with the 2025-26 academic year and this has been noted in the report presented in this meeting. The report also sets out the extent of the proposed content of the PIR.
However, to further your understanding I can provide some additional details about the timing of the review.
Whilst you are right in that we know how many NY children were offered places in which schools on national offer days in March and April this year, we always see significant movement between the national offer days and the new term in September. This year has been the same across primary and secondary places. As councillors know, changes in admissions result in changes to eligibility for H2ST.
And whilst you are right that we know how many children were eligible for travel when we assessed all admissions applications this summer, and whilst most appeals have been completed, this process is still underway and so the learning from appeals cannot yet be comprehensively evaluated. Passes have been sold on several contracted routes, but requests are still coming in and payments have not yet been taken.
Consequently, the focus of the transport team in recent weeks has been on ensuring arrangements are in place for known eligible children for the start of this academic year.
For the reasons given above, each September and October we see a settling of the network, and that will be true this year too. Regardless of the policy in place, many children move schools at this time of year, eligibility can change, and this requires adjustments to services especially over the first half of the autumn term.
We know that the network usually settles after a couple of months and by November we can start to evaluate the precise operational costs of the new school year’s arrangements. This work alone is substantial as we look at the costs of supporting eligibility under the 2019 policy alongside eligibility under the new 2024 policy.
National school census information is collected in October, January and May each year. These are the data points that will provide accurate pupil cohort information allowing a more detailed analysis of pupil cohorts comparing this year to the same points in the two previous years. This will allow us to assess changes over time (both for admissions and transport) and understand what this means to NY schools. The second set of admissions data will allow us to identify any emerging patterns in admissions preferences and consider whether these could be connected to the home to school travel policy.
Finally, in November as part of our annual routine contract procurement exercise, roughly 30% of all mainstream home to school contracts are scheduled to be reviewed in time for April 2026. The completion of this exercise will allow accurate information to be fed into the PIR so that a robust evaluation of the cost of the policy change going forward can be considered.
Supplementary Question
Jo referred to the equality impact assessment which stated that the review would begin in July 2025. Amanda explained that Full Council agreed in July 2024 to amend the review start date to July 2026. Jo asked if the transport network for this year will become more settled by October 2025, could the review begin in November 2025, rather than July 2026. Amanda responded by saying that data is collated at different points in the year and not all of it will be available for analysis until July 2026.
Statement 3: Ian Shepherd
Adoption Disruption Procedures.
My wife and I adopted two children in 2010. After gradually escalating violence and criminality from my son - to the point where we were living for years in an essentially abusive household, in 2023 we were obliged to disrupt our adoption of him aged 15.
Between the time that our adoption of him became fundamentally untenable and the time he was accommodated, my wife and I were badly treated by the very agents that should have been supporting us at that time but also for the preceding years. Our extended families were emotionally black-mailed and allusions were made to the consequences for my wife’s employment should child protection arrangements be deemed necessary. Threats were made that our other child may be removed.
Once our
son was accommodated – in the clumsiest, most traumatic way - I wondered why
all we should have been treated in this way.
Thus, I requested to see the council procedures or guidelines that cover adoptive family breakdown, so that I could determine whether I had been badly treated as a result of missteps by individual social workers, or because of institutional systems that were operating exactly as intended by their architects. Essentially, I wanted to know if there existed a council document that read “Step 1: threaten the parents with prosecution for child abandonment”.
My multiple requests were dismissed.
I conversed at length with my MP - his requests on my behalf were likewise dismissed - more than once.
These dismissals made me realise that either:
I conclude by requesting in person that this committee shares with me the written guidelines or procedures governing family breakdown according to which I was treated and others remain governed – or admits to their absence.
Thank you.
Response to Statement 3: Mel Hutchinson, Assistant Director
Children and Families
Thank you, Mr Shepherd for sharing your views and your difficult family circumstances with us.
Children’s
Services can confirm that all procedures are followed and in line with
Statutory Regulation, under the Children Act 1989 and Adoption and Children Act
2002.
The
Children Act 1989 sets out the framework for the support of children in need
and this is underpinned by a Children and Families Assessment. The Adoption and
Children Act is principal legislation that includes provisions and support for
the welfare of children who require adoption support post the Adoption Order,
granted by the court.
Children’s
Services practice model is strength based in relationships and looks to working
with families and their family network to support and offer assistance to
progress change, where able. For those families who are unable to care for
their children, either by ensuring safety or maintaining the child living at
home, those children are placed into the local authority care, under the
Children Act 1989, by Section 31, Care Order or Section 20, voluntary
agreement. Children can receive Section 17 support and accommodation when they
reach 16 years old. A homeless assessment is undertaken, and consideration
given to Section 17 services or Section 20, of the Children Act 1989.
North Yorkshire has clearly outlined these processes, and Regulation within previous communication. North Yorkshire like other Local Authorities within the Regional Adoption Agency does not have a separate policy on family breakdowns which occur after the making of an Adoption Order. All families regardless of whether the Young Person was adopted or not, fall under the same legislation of the Children Act 1989. As the child is legally adopted and part of their adoptive family the process followed is that of family breakdown which is overseen by Children’s Services, Family Assessment and Support Team and in consultation with the Adoption Support Service throughout any assessment process.
The Adoption and Children Act 2002, and Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005 state where a child who has been placed for adoption prior to the making of an Adoption Order, and this placement ends a disruption meeting is undertaken. This meeting is to understand the reasons for the disruption. Whilst this was not the policy/regulation required following your son not being able to remain in your care, we can confirm that the Assistant Director and Head of Service met with Mrs Shepherd and other parents to listen and understand individual circumstances.
We are confident that all policies and procedures were followed, and complaints received have been investigated fully.
Supplementary Question
Mr Shepherd asked if social workers are encouraged to threaten families with social abandonment. Mel replied that they are not. Instead, social workers work with families to explain the legislation, so everyone understands the process.