Agenda item

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice and supplied the text to David Smith, Senior Democratic Services Officer, democraticservices.central@northyorks.gov.uk by midday on Tuesday, 22 April 2025. Each speaker must limit themselves to 3 minutes.

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.

One public statement was received before the deadline of midday on Tuesday 22April 2025.

Charlotte Poran made the following statement.

Good morning Councillors,

I’m here today because I need you to understand why the current Home to School Transport policy is not fit for purpose and so you can hear firsthand the distress it is causing hundreds of hard-working families here in your area.

My family and I live in Kirk Hammerton, one of the many A59 villages who have been caught in the crossfire of your decision to remove free transport to catchment school. My son is in year 8 at our local catchment secondary school, Boroughbridge High School. The assumption has always been that my daughter would join him there this September. Like many, we have made a concerted effort as a family over several years to forge links with the school to make that transition to secondary school as stress-free for her as possible.

Just two weeks before school admissions opened last September, the new policy landed out of the blue. That kickstarted months of anxiety and confusion for my whole family and for many others like us. Overnight, the local catchment school that we know and trust now comes with a caveat - no free transport. To find out that my daughter would not be able to join her brother on the bus that is already travelling to that school and which runs every day with empty seats, because of a decision made by this council to supposedly save money, was jaw-dropping. Surely this couldn’t be right. It made absolutely no sense.

I took to studying the NYC website so I could fully understand the options and put the right list of schools on the form. It was almost impossible. To highlight the dilemma:

·       The guidance on which schools to include on the preferred list was different on the 2025 admissions form vs what was written in the school transport policy.

·       The information on the website was confusing and contradictory. Even the support team were unsure and even now, having made a selection, I’m crossing my fingers in the hope I have done the right thing.

·       My nearest school listed (King James’ High School in Knaresborough) is well-known for being oversubscribed. As we are outside of its catchment, we were therefore unlikely to get a place. Of the next 3 nearest schools, all are out of county with no current transport option from my village and in totally the opposite direction from my son’s school so not practical for us as a family. Only if the 4 nearest schools to me are full would my daughter be offered a place at our catchment school and free home to school transport.

·       The only school that I knew we’d be guaranteed a place was Boroughbridge High School - our catchment and our first choice. But that option now meant having either to put my career on hold and drive my daughter there or find the money and hope for a space on the bus for the next five years (which is not guaranteed and which could be removed at any time with just one week’s notice). Not a great option, but with an increasingly upset daughter to consider, I felt I had no choice.

·       We won’t know until the end of May whether we have been allocated free transport. So, we face another five weeks of anxious wait. That’s seven months in turmoil in total.

·       If we are denied transport, it is not clear on what the decision-making process will be for appeals. I did ask Cllr Windass, who Chairs the Appeals Committee and he didn’t seem to know either.

·       How much council time is it going to take for them to assess each application one by one to decide whether a child would have got a space in one of the other nearer schools? How accurate will that process be? How much will it cost?

·       And now we all know that mistakes have been made in implementing the policy (see attached letter to the Appeals Committee dates 21st March 2025) including parents given incorrect information, how can councillors judge appeals and ensure their decisions are fair and equitable?

Choosing a secondary school is a huge decision, and not one where parents should be asked to take a gamble and where little girls should be left upset and worried for months on end. This hasn’t just hit my family, it’s impacted hundreds of others (many of whom are still unaware of the change) and it will continue to cause hurt and harm until it gets changed.

Please remember we are really not asking for the world here. All we want to do is get on a bus that is already travelling to our local catchment school.

My question is therefore this:

·       To all councillors – Given mistakes have been made in implementing the policy (see attached letter to the Appeals Committee dated 21st March 2025) how are you going to ensure your Appeals Committee judges every case in a fair and equitable way? 

Amanda Fielding provided the following response.

Thank you for your statement.

The Council approved its Home to School Transport Policy at the Full Council meeting in July last year. Prior to the policy change, a widespread and detailed consultation exercise was undertaken. As you know, the revised policy was considered to be necessary for two reasons.

1.    The updated guidance from Department for Education (DfE)

2.    The rising expenditure for the Council for the provision of home to school transport and how it has increased over recent years.

The policy aligns to the DfE statutory guidance for home to school travel, including in respect to the main eligibility criteria which is around transport provision to the nearest suitable school with places available.

The reports that were provided to the Executive and Full Council describe the analysis that was undertaken in respect of that expenditure and the potential savings that would likely arise. The savings, which have been subject to much debate, are expected to be achieved over a seven year implementation period. This is because the Council decided to phase the introduction of the policy, meaning that pupils with existing eligibility under the former policy would not be affected unless there was a change in circumstances. It is recognised that phased implementation may cause inconvenience for families such as those described by the speaker, but the Council’s view was that this was preferable to an immediate whole scale implementation which would have the potential to impact on many families where there was existing eligibility.

Councillors are aware that the policy relates to the provision of home to school travel, and not school admissions. Parents are continuing to express preferences for many schools when they’re applying for a school place. As the speaker noted, the offers for school places have been made for this year’s admission round and the council is now undertaking an eligibility assessment for all children, with the aim to inform parents of secondary school children of the outcome of this by 30 May.

Parents can be assured that there is a robust process to do this and we are looking at every child against all the criteria. The speaker discussed nearer schools potentially being full, well all of that will be taken into account when considering eligibility.

Finally, the Council has committed to undertaking a review of the policy during 2026 and that will include an assessment of the extent of savings and the potential for other recommendations to the policy to be made at that time.

The speaker referred to a letter, which has been shared with the committee and I can confirm that a detailed response has been provided to the sender of that letter.

David Smith read the following statement on behalf of Daniel Harry, Head of Democratic and Scrutiny Services.

The Appeals (Home to School Transport) Committee is well established and has a membership of 5 very experienced councillors (cross party).  They will apply the new Home to School Transport policy, as agreed at the meeting of Council in July 2024.  They have been trained on the new policy and will be supported in their deliberations by experienced officers who are well versed in the policy and the legal framework within which it is set.

In their supplementary statement, the speakers requested that clear cost savings are shown throughout the process.

The Chair announced that they had granted permission for the Division Member for Ouseburn to ask a question that related to the public statement. The question and following short discussion are summarised below.

·         It was queried whether saving calculations had taken into account any money lost by North Yorkshire schools if children leave the county for education because of the policy. The Officer informed Members that North Yorkshire brings in circa 5000 children from outside the county, with circa 2500 leaving the county for education. The Officer offered to provide a written response to the Committee that included information on this.

·         Some Members raised concerns regarding the communications surrounding the policy. Other Members suggested that

·         The need to make savings was highlighted.