Agenda item

To consider an appeal lodged in connection with the provision of assistance for home to school transport. (This item contains personal information regarding the appellant, which is exempt from publication by virtue of Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972).

(Councillor Boughton having a declared prejudicial interest in this matter, left the meeting before consideration of this matter and took no part in the discussion or decision making)

Councillor S Brookes as Vice-Chairman took the Chair at this point.

The Committee considered a request to review the decision of the Council to not provide assistance with home to school transport in respect of R.E.

Ms D Goodall (Legal Advisor) was in attendance to advise the Committee on procedure and policy only and had taken no part in the original decision. Also in attendance was Mr L Beattie, Clerk to the Committee

The relevant Head of Service presented the case on behalf of the Authority and advised the Committee of the reasons why the child did not qualify for home to school transport. The Head of Service explained that the distance from the home to school was under the defined distance and the SEN assessment had concluded that R.E. could reasonably be expected to walk or travel to school accompanied by a parent. The Head of Service emphasised that there were a number of areas within the appellant’s case such as family circumstances and employment that could not be taken into consideration.

Two family members presented the case on behalf of the appellant. The family members highlighted the family’s difficult circumstances meant that an exception should be made to policy. The family members also emphasised their view that walking R.E to school would be incredibly difficult and time consuming. One family member outlined their view that the shortest route could not be walked by R.E. due to their sensory needs and that therefore the distance to school would be more than 2 miles. The family member also outlined the difficulties with having two children in two different schools.

The Committee considered carefully the situation but considered that the Home to School Transport Policy had been followed and the decision of the Panel had been reasonable. The Committee did not consider that there were exceptional circumstances either to grant assistance.

The Committee noted the discrepancy between the safest walking route mapped by the authority and that identified by the appellant. It recommended that the route be remeasured taking into account R.E’s sensory needs and that the application be reconsidered if evidence was received that the route was unsuitable and a suitable route was more than 2 miles.

Resolved:

That the appeal is dismissed as the Committee was satisfied that the Council’s relevant policies and procedures had been correctly followed and the decision was reasonable and correct.