Agenda item

6.1

The Interim Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, submitted reports and commented upon 12 cases where parents had appealed against the administrative decisions made by the Interim Executive Director with regard to the refusal to grant home to school travel bus passes.

6.2

The Committee gave consideration to all the supporting information and evidence provided by the pupils’ parents including, in some cases, evidence and advice provided by voluntary or professional bodies and organisations and, arising therefrom, it was:-

6.3

RESOLVED: That (a) seven appeals be not upheld on the grounds that there are no exceptional circumstances demonstrated and, having regard to the Council’s Home to School Transport Policy, (i) the school that five of the pupils are requesting a pass for is not their catchment school/nearest suitable school (Case Nos. MAN2, ALLS1, ALLS3, SILV1 and TAP1) and (ii) the distance from the home address of two of the pupils to the schools for which they are requesting a pass for is less than the distance in the criteria (Case Nos.ALLS2 and AST1); 

(b) three appeals be upheld on the grounds that there are either exceptional educational, financial, medical or family circumstances in the cases (Case Nos. HIND1, STOC1 and CIT1); and

(c) consideration of the remaining two appeals be deferred (i) in Case No. MAN1, the family be requested to provide more proof of financial circumstances to enable the Interim Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, in consultation with the Chair,  to determine the appeal and (ii) in Case No. UTC1, the Committee requested that a clearer policy be determined by the Interim Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, with regard to this type of establishment and that such policy be brought back to the next meeting of the Committee.

(NOTE:  In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 26 of the Council’s Constitution and the provisions of Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the Chair decided that one of the above appeals (Case No.CIT1) be considered as a matter of urgency in order for the appeal to be considered at the earliest possible opportunity, although it had not been possible to give five clear days’ notice that the appeal was to be considered).