Agenda item

6.1

The Interim Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, submitted reports and commented upon 25 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) 17 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 nine of the pupils are requesting a pass for is not their catchment school/nearest suitable school (Case Nos. LYD1, NET1, STMA1, ALL1, CAR1, HGR1, HS1, KIED1 and SIL1), (ii) the distance from the home address of five  of the pupils to the schools for which they are requesting a pass for is less than the distance in the criteria (Case Nos. LOW1, POR1, NEW4, PAR1 AND PAR2) and (iii) three of the pupils do not attend one of their three nearest qualifying schools (Case Nos. HGR2, NEW2 and NEW3);

(b) three appeals be upheld on the grounds that there are either exceptional educational, financial, medical or family circumstances in the cases (Case Nos. CON, STO1 and STO2); and

(c)  consideration of the remaining five appeals be deferred to enable the Interim Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families to make further investigations into the cases, along the lines now requested, and authority be given to the Interim Executive Director, in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, to determine the appeals (Case Nos. MBR1, RIV1, CIT1, NEW1 and UTC1).

(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.UTC1) 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).