Agenda item

Considered

 

The report of the Corporate Director, Children and Young People’s Service, regarding implementation of the Home to School Travel Policy.

 

Daniel Harry provided an overview of the report, referring to the planned update to the committee on the PIR in September 2026 and inviting Members to consider their role and potential outcomes of any further scrutiny undertaken now.  Members were also reminded that changes to a council policy cannot be put forward again to Council within 12 months of agreement.

 

Members then considered the report and a number of points were made including the following.

 

·       Concerns were noted that parents had been provided with route maps which did not reflect actual school entrances.  Examples were also provided of parents being provided with maps which weren’t considered to be a safe walking route and that this raised safeguarding concerns.

·       Members observed that officers had recently contacted schools for entrance data, raising questions about historical data quality and whether children had been allocated to different schools because of inaccurate mapping.

·       Officers were questioned as to why the council had not verified entrance data across all schools before the policy went live and why errors identified in autumn 2025 had not prompted an immediate update or interim corrections.

·       Some Members of the Appeals (Home to School Transport) Committee noted that they had been trained to expect boundary-to-entrance measurements. It was concerning then that during the course of debate, map images were being presented that sometimes depicted internal building co-ordinates or end points which were not the school entrance.

• Members raised broader governance questions, including:
• whether officers had sufficient expertise in GIS or had sought appropriate external assurance on the system used.
• Why different co-ordinate sets (printed versus those used for calculation) were not clearly explained to parents.
• Whether this ambiguity contributed to a loss of public trust in council process.
• Several Members emphasised that parents need sight of the exact end points used in calculations, not only map images generated for appeals.
• A Member stressed that the policy, combined with mapping disputes, risked undermining rural school sustainability, with sudden shifts in pupil numbers and thereby linking to a decline in rural communities.

·       It was highlighted that legal advice is not present at Stage 2 appeals as is done at Planning and Licensing Committee meetings.

·       Some comments were conveyed that the PIR reporting timeline is too slow given the number of families affected and concerns regarding inaccuracies in distance calculations.  A Member also raised that a social impact assessment would enable the council to understand any detriment resulting form the policy.

·       A Member suggested that maps with the correct co-ordinates be made available to all parents lodging a Stage 1 or Stage 2 appeal.

·       Conversely, some Members conveyed that officers have been responsive to specific concerns raised about route safety and that ultimately it is the role of the Ombudsman to determine if the council’s processes have proven to be ineffective or if there had been some maladministration.

·       Some Members also felt that it was important to enable the PIR process to be fully developed so that the committee can review the full range of data and information available.  Similarly, raising concerns that changes made now to systems would not ensure a fair and consistent approach to all families over the course of this academic year. 

 

By way of response, officers raised a number of points of clarification and confirmation, including the following.

 

·       Officers reiterated confidence in the accuracy of the underlying calculations but acknowledged the potential for confusion caused by how data appears on the printed maps provided for appeals.

·       It was explained that the council’s mapping system is built up of mapping layers, the basis of which is Ordnance Survey data, and that the council rules out unsafe walked distances.

·       Distance measurements are taken from the home property to the nearest road or path then along the network in the mapping layer to the entrance of school. 

·       Officers confirmed that a full countywide refresh of school entrance data is underway and would be applied at the next annual mapping update in September. 

·       It was highlighted that the council will not look to make individual changes mid-year to the mapping system as while they may benefit some parents, others would be disadvantaged so changes need to be considered fully across all sites as part of the annual system update.   

·       It was acknowledged that communication would benefit from improvement in some areas, including refining the FAQs on the council website and providing an annual reminder to schools regarding the importance of accurate school entrance information.  It was advised that the PIR will assist with highlighting any changes needed.  The PIR will also include a section on mapping.

·       Members were advised that it would not be possible to bring forward the PIR as the service is relying on the availability of school census data, which schools submit in May, but the service is committed to providing updates through the PIR process, including a Members’ Seminar in March. 

·       It was clarified that the council is not legally exposed as a result of not having lawyers present at transport appeals hearings.  The role of the Appeals (Home to School Transport) Committee is to determine whether the policy has been correctly implemented and whether there are any exceptional individual circumstances that merit a departure from the policy.  The committee is also not a venue for debating legal matters.  It was further clarified that the data provided to Members on the Appeals (Home to School Transport) Committee on distances is correct.

·       It was highlighted that the number of Stage 1 and 2 appeals and Ombudsman cases proportionate to school applications is very small.  The information provided for Appeals Committee is correct.

·       There is no requirement for the council to provide maps.  The current council system does not automate this element of process which is done for families going to appeal.  The council must make sure that families can find out where their nearest schools are as part of the application process. 

 

Following debate, a number of proposals were put forward by the committee and voted via a show of hands as follows:

 

a) Proposal to set up a task and finish group from the committee to review the concerns raised about distance measurements and accuracy, prior to completion of the PIR, with the aim of bringing proposals to full Council in May 2026.

(Proposed Cllr John Mann, seconded Cllr Kirsty Poskitt).

 

Daniel Harry highlighted that the committee had agreed in September 2025 that it would not instigate a task and finish group once the PIR process had started in order to avoid diverting away officer resource and thereby not lengthening the time taken to complete the PIR.  As such, the Chair determined that this proposal would not be taken to a vote and was set aside by the committee.

 

b) Proposal for a social impact assessment to be undertaken on the impact of the policy on residents, particularly in rural communities.

(Proposed Cllr Barbara Brodigan, seconded Cllr Andrew Timothy).

 

Votes:-

8 against and 6 for.  Proposal failed.

 

c) Proposal to engage an outside expert to review the council’s system for calculating distance.

(Proposed Cllr Stuart Parsons, seconded Cllr Kirsty Poskitt)

 

Votes:-

9 against and 7 for.  Proposal failed.

 

d) Proposal for co-ordinates to be made available to families who want to see the route and the start and end points

(Proposed Cllr Cunliffe-Lister, seconded Cllr Timothy)

 

Votes:-

9 against and 8 for.  Proposal failed.

 

The Chair then invited the committee to consider the proposal Option 1 as outlined at 5.2 of the report, namely:

e) Proposal to engage in the PIR process and take no further action on the issues raised at this time.

(Proposed Cllr Goodrick, seconded Cllr Lunn)

 

Votes:-

10 for and 7 against. Proposal carried.

 

Resolved

 

That the committee engages in the PIR process and takes no further action on the issues raised at this time.