To receive Report No. 156/2016 from the Director for Places

Report No. 156/2016 from the Director for Places was received.

The Portfolio Holder, Mr Mathias, introduced the report, the purpose of which was to allow Scrutiny to make comments or suggest amendments to the policy before it was presented to Cabinet.

The following points were raised during discussion:

The Transport Task and Finish Group report contained 20 recommendations which were categorised and some of which had been implemented before this report was prepared.  The work of the task and finish group included the people review and gave further recommendations including the transport review.   It was suggested that the members of the Task and Finish group meet with the Portfolio Holder and Officers outside of Scrutiny to get an understanding of how the group’s recommendations had been incorporated into the Transport Review

A £100,000 grant had been received from the Department of Transport and this grant enabled the review to start in earnest in early 2016, a full report on the review would be presented in due course.  Members were advised that significant transport savings had already been made without affecting the service provided.

The Home to School Transport Review being considered did not include Post 16 Transport and was a small part of the broader Transport Review.

Members were disappointed at the lack of consultation responses, the Portfolio Holder, Mr Mathias, advised that this would have been less if not for member comments, the consultation went through all relevant channels but very little response received.

Members supported the inclusion of a check sheet for routes as part of the safe route assessment process following issues with a route between the Ketton and Normanton wards.  The route had previously been deemed safe but on re-inspection by Mr Brown this was the case and the route had been deemed unsafe due to vegetation growth. 

It was felt that the amount of notice given should transport arrangements need to be changed may not always be sufficient, particularly where the child in question had special needs and may not be able to adjust to a last minute change to their regime.   The Transport Operations Manager, Mrs Odabas, advised members that any changes made to travel arrangements were done in conjunction with the relevant Case Officer and would need a manager’s authority before it could be implemented.  She also advised that changes could not be made without response from affected families and sometimes this response was not always forthcoming which could add to the time allowed and result in less time being available for notification of the change.

Members asked clarification on the use of seatbelts (where fitted) as paragraph 5.1 of the report (page 15) stated that seatbelts must be worn by those 14 or over but there was no legal requirement for 3-13 year olds to do so.  On page 22 of the report (Appendix C) states “Always wear the seatbelt provided and store it properly at the end of the journey”.  Mrs Odabas advised that the wording on page 15 was directly quoting seatbelt law and that on page 22 was the Council’s guidance.  On primary school routes the driver will ask children to use their belts and if they do not do so this would be reported to the school on arrival to be fed back to parents.  Members were advised that all contractors invited to tender for a contract have been asked to include a 10 minute stopover to allow for checks to be made to ensure seatbelts are being worn.

Policy states that where a child moves house for a reason that was not parental choice then Home to School transport would only be provided if that child was in the final year at secondary school.  Members felt that this could be detrimental to the child as it was, in fact, the last two years (GCSE years) that were important as a change in school may mean a different examination board and a different curriculum, having this change in the middle of a GCSE course could adversely affect students.

The appeals process detailed on page 17 of the report allows 20 days for parents to request an appeal and then 20 days for officers to review the decision and provide written notification to the parents at stage one and another 20 days at stage two.  This could mean a family would have a wait of 60 working days until resolution was found.  Members felt that this was too long and asked if, and how, it could be reduced.  Mrs Odabas advised that officer time was set to match time allowed for parents but that this could be shortened to 10 days each instead of 20, this would bring the process in line with council procedure on complaints.  A request to shorten the time taken to convene an Appeals Panel was also put forward, Mr Brown advised that he would need to consult the Corporate Support Team in this regard as they would be responsible for arranging this and would be able to advise accordingly.

Miss Waller asked if transport was provided for any year 10 or 11 students taking part in work experience, she felt that it may limit their choice of employer if they were restricted to those only accessible on foot.  Mr Mathias advised that this would need more research at which point Miss Waller asked if officers could check with schools to see if this had been an issue they had encountered before taking it forward.

Following further discussion members RECOMMENDED the following amendments to the document that would be presented to Cabinet:

a)            Inclusion of a check sheet for the walking route safety assessments;

b)            Amending the time allowed for Stage one appeals to 10 days for officers;

c)            Extending the time frame in paragraph 3.10 for “Pupils who move address permanently during their final year at school” to include the final two years at school.

d)            Reasonable notice to be given to parents of SEND children before changes are made to transport.