Agenda, decisions and minutes

Members are asked to declare:

·        Any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests

·        Any prejudicial interests or

·        Any disclosable pecuniary interests

which they may have in respect of business on this agenda.

The Cabinet Member was asked to declare any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests, any prejudicial interests or any disclosable pecuniary interests she may have in the business on the agenda.  None were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the Decision Session held on 10 July 2013.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the Decision Session held on 10 July 2013 be confirmed and signed as a correct record subject to the end time of the meeting being amended to read 4.00pm.

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered to speak can do so.  The deadline for registering is 5.00pm on Tuesday 14 January 2014.  Members of the public can speak on agenda items or matters within the remit of the Cabinet Member.

To register to speak please contact the Democracy Officer for the meeting, on the details at the foot of the agenda.

There were thirteen registrations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme and two Members of Council had also requested to speak.  All of the registrations related to agenda item 5 (Review of Home to School Transport Policy – Denominational Schools) – minute 9 refers.

Councillor Gillies spoke of the implications for Manor CE Academy if changes to the policy were to be implemented.  He stated that his comments were also endorsed by Councillor Watt who served a ward which would also be affected by the proposals.  Councillor Gillies questioned the fairness of implementing changes when pupils were part way through their education at the school and suggested that some parents would not be able to afford the costs involved.  Councillor Gillies also stated that consultation should take place at an appropriate time but that it was wrong to impose this burden on parents who already had children attending the school. 

Councillor Brooks stated that she had been a member of the scrutiny committee that had considered the issue of home to school transport and that the committee had recommended that the changes be phased in.  She drew attention to the timing of the proposals and the difficulties that would arise for pupils who were part way through GCSE courses or who were making decisions regarding options.  She stated that some of the journeys to the school were very awkward.  Parents had been given an assurance that the arrangements that were in place for children already at the school were safe and the council had a duty to honour this.

Councillor Looker stated that she had also received written representation from Councillor Reid who had chaired the scrutiny committee which had considered this matter.

Ms Jennie Clark stated that she appreciated that the decision that was being made at the meeting was whether or not to instigate consultation but she was unclear as to the proposed length of the consultation.   She suggested that the consultation was likely to be time consuming and costly.  She gave examples of the impact that the proposals would have on pupils living in Woodthorpe or Hessay.  She explained how the proposals would lengthen the school day by 90 minutes and would increase the number of parents who transported their children to school by car. Ms Clark requested that the proposals not be implemented.

Ms Christine Vaughan stated that she had a daughter in Year 8 at Manor CE Academy and she explained the reasons why she had chosen to send her to the school.  She stated that her daughter was very worried about the proposals and was concerned about the journey and her safety.  The security risk was increased because the school was looking to provide iPads to all pupils.  Ms Vaughan stated that she would have to take her daughter to and from school as public transport was not available.  She was, however, aware of other parents who did not have transport and who were looking to move a child who was taking their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Cabinet Member is asked to consider consulting on changes to the Local Authority’s (LA) home to school/college post maintained transport policy from September 2014 in response to the introduction of the single Education, Health and Care plan (for ages 0-25) alongside the new 0 – 25 Special Educational Needs (SEN) Code of Practice and Children and Families Bill.

Resolved:  That the commencement of consultation to make changes from September 2014 to the home to school/college transport policy 16-25 post maintained be deferred until the new SEN Code of Practice and guidance had been received.  In the event that this had not been received by 1 April 2014, the consultation should commence at that stage.

Reason:     To achieve budget saving targets.

The Cabinet Member considered a report that detailed proposals to consult on changes to the Local Authority’s home to school/college post maintained transport policy from September 2014.  This was in response to the introduction of the single Education, Health and Care plan (for ages 0-25) alongside the new 0-25 Special Educational Needs Code of Practice and Children and Families Bill.

Officers advised that the reference to “high needs” should be removed from the report.  

It was noted that publication of the revised SEN Code of Practice and accompanying guidance were still awaited.  Although it was possible that they could be published in March 2014,  this could not be guaranteed.

The Cabinet Member considered the options set out in paragraph 8 of the report.  She stated that, in view of the possibility that the revised SEN Code of Practice and accompanying guidance could be published in the near future, she was minded to defer the start of the consultation.  However, if the revised SEN Code of Practice had not been published by 1 April 2014, it would be necessary to commence the consultation at that stage.

Resolved:  That the commencement of consultation to make changes from September 2014 to the home to school/college transport policy 16-25 post maintained be deferred until the new SEN Code of Practice and guidance had been received.  In the event that this had not been received by 1 April 2014, the consultation should commence at that stage.

Reason:     To achieve budget saving targets.

This report proposes undertaking consultation on proposals to make further changes to the provision of discretionary denominational transport, currently provided by the local authority without charge, from September 2014.

Resolved:  That this item be deferred.

Reason:     To enable time for further consideration of the issues raised.

The Cabinet Member considered a report that proposed undertaking consultation on proposals to make further changes to the provision of discretionary denominational transport, currently provided by the local authority without charge, from September 2014.

The Cabinet Member gave consideration to the options set out in paragraphs 4 to 8 of the report.

She stated that the decision had to be taken in the context of the financial pressures facing the council and that savings had to be found. 

The Cabinet Member stated that she was mindful of the issues that had been raised under the Public Participation item and the strength of feeling on this issue.  The concerns raised had included:

·        Perceived unfairness in accelerating the changes to home to school transport provision when it had initially been agreed that there would be a phased implementation.

·        Concerns that the proposals targeted faith schools and the impact that this would have on the schools concerned.

·        For some parents there would be no alternative provision for them to buy into.

·        The impact that the proposals would have on children, including increasing the length of the school day, the emotional and educational disruption that it would cause and concerns regarding safety.

The Cabinet Member also acknowledged concerns that had been raised by schools and parents regarding the lack of advance notice regarding the proposals.

The Cabinet Member stated that she would reflect on the issues that had been made and give further consideration as to how to move forward.

Resolved:  That a decision on this item be deferred.

Reason:     To enable time for further consideration of the issues

                   raised.