Decision details

Impact on Children and Young People

To remove all travel support would introduce barriers to accessing education for some of our most vulnerable young people, most of whom have been supported by the council in the earlier stages of their education. In addition to the legal issues set out below, it is likely that this would lead to a decrease in attendance levels, lower educational outcomes, and a significant increase in the level of students with SEN becoming ‘Not in Education, Employment or Training’ (NEET). This would directly oppose the city’s aspirations.

Legal implications

Although local authorities do not have to provide free or subsidised transport for sixth form learners there is an expectation that local authorities will act reasonably in the performance of their functions. Whilst it is for a local authority to decide whether and how to exercise its discretionary power, they should be prepared to consider exceptional cases where the parent says there are reasons why their child needs the provision of transport or other support necessary to facilitate their attendance at their place of education. Decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis with the availability of appeals to challenge decisions.

Financial implications

Future cost avoidance of £3.6m.

Impact on Children and Young People

Continuing to provide door to door transport would fail to support the council’s aspiration of encouraging young people to travel to their place of education as independently as possible – lacking active encouragement in developing this key life-skill, which is a crucial part of Preparation for Adulthood.

Legal implications

Statutory guidance is clear that ‘Where particular classes, year groups or pupils have a start or finish time that is different from most pupils at the school, it will not normally be possible for the local authority to make separate travel arrangements. Schools may need to make arrangements to accommodate these pupils.’ However, guidance goes on to say that there may be a small number of circumstances when a local authority considers it ‘appropriate to arrange transport at an alternative time of day, for example if a child has a medical condition which means they are not well enough to attend school for the whole day.’ The Council would need to act reasonably in the exercise of its discretion and recognise that it may be appropriate to accommodate an alternative time having regard to the circumstances of any given case.

Financial implications

A reduction of around £100k in college provision is anticipated. There would be no impact on costs of travel to Special Schools with sixth form provision as they already have fixed start/finish times.

Impact on Children and Young People

There are serious concerns about increasing the level of parental contributions due to the current cost of living crisis. Any significant increase could see families having to choose between food/heating and paying this contribution. There are risks of poor/non-attendance, and the unintended consequence of increasing the number of young people with SEN becoming NEETS, which would directly oppose the city’s aspirations

Legal implications

Statutory Guidance states that when a local authority exercises its discretion to ask leaners and their parents for a contribution to transport costs they should: • ensure that any contribution is affordable for learners and their parents; • ensure that there are arrangements in place to support those families on low income; and • take into account the likely duration of learning and ensure that transport policies do not adversely impact particular groups. For example, as young people with special educational needs and disabilities are more likely to remain in education or training longer than their peers, any contribution sought from these families would need to allow for the fact they may have to contribute for longer.

Financial implications

Income for Academic year 23-24 was £107k. Approx. 75% pay of families pay the full amount, with the remaining 25% paying a reduced amount due to attending less than 4 days/week. Additional income – based on same number of students for comparison: • If the contribution increased by 50% to £810, this could generate up to an additional £53k, assuming parent/carers were willing and able to pay this • If the contribution were increased to £1,000, this would generate an additional £90k, again, assuming parents can/will pay this amount

Impact on Children and Young People

This would constitute a failure to grasp the opportunity to enable a greater number of young people to travel independently as part of their Preparation for Adulthood. There would be a significant impact on individuals and their families in this missing opportunity, with long-term negative effects on young people’s ability to access education, employment, health appointment and social opportunities. Whilst it is difficult to measure, this option would miss the opportunity to impact positively on many aspects of life for a significant number of people, including their mental health, physical well-being, and being able to take a greater part in / contribute to their local communities and the local economy.

Legal implications

No legal implications.

Financial implications

The current forecast overspend for the whole organisation is £34m, of which around £6.5m is attributed to SEN Travel/Transport. The position in relation to one-off use of reserves is clear, and all efforts are being made to minimise this. In the current financial climate, a ‘do-nothing’ option for Post-16 is not financially viable.

Impact on Children and Young People

Personal Travel Budgets (PTBs) can provide eligible adults learners aged 19 to 25 with the flexibility to travel in the way and time that is best for them. PTBs can also help to support adult learners to develop their independence. Independent travel is widely recognised as a key life[1]skill, helping young people to prepare for adulthood. Adult learners can access Independent Travel Training alongside a PTB. The Council has recently increased the capacity of its in-house Travel Training Team so that more learners can be supported to travel independently. Travelling independently has long-term positive impacts including access to training, employment, health appointments, shopping, volunteering, and social opportunities. As well as reducing reliance and pressure on family members, independent travel skills help to improve the overall engagement with/contribution to local communities and our wider society.

Legal implications

Local authorities must make arrangements for the provision of transport that they consider is necessary to allow adult learners to attend education at certain types of education placements. Local authorities have the same duty to adults who have an EHC plan (up to the age of 25) for any education placement a council arranges for them. This is not a pure discretion. A blanket approach of providing a PTB for each adult learner without evidence that the Council had exercised their judgement judiciously and in good faith in concluding that a PTB is ‘necessary’ for that learner would not meet the legal test

Financial implications

Assuming 80% of eligible Post-19 SEN students would receive a PTB (based on the experience of other LAs), this could provide a full year cost avoidance of £630-£690k if introduced for September 2025. This would be approx. £360-£400k part year for the period September 2025 to March 2026. Growth beyond current numbers is ignored in the above calculation to ensure that relative costs are compared on a like-for-like basis There are two key variables to note: 1. The number of young people who will continue to be eligible for transport support due to their individual needs, 2. The average cost of a PTB.

Impact on Children and Young People

This would constitute a failure to grasp the opportunity to enable a greater number of young people to travel independently as part of their Preparation for Adulthood. There would be a significant impact on individuals and their families in this missing opportunity, with long-term negative effects on young people’s ability to access education, employment, health appointment and social opportunities. Whilst it is difficult to measure, this option would miss the opportunity to impact positively on many aspects of life for a significant number of people, including their mental health, physical well-being, and being able to take a greater part in / contribute to their local communities and the local economy

Legal implications

No legal implications.

Financial implications

The current forecast overspend for the whole organisation is £34m, of which around £6.5m is attributed to SEN Travel/Transport. The position in relation to one-off use of reserves is clear, and all efforts are being made to minimise this. In the current financial climate, a ‘do-nothing’ option for Post-19 is not financially viable.

Impact on Children and Young People

Removing this service would have a direct and negative impact on some of the most vulnerable children and families in the city. This small cohort have very complex needs which have been identified at an early stage, resulting in the provision of an Education, Health & Care Plan being issued at a very young age.

Legal implications

Section 508C of the Education Act 1996 Act gives local authorities a discretionary power to make arrangements for children who are not eligible for free school transport under the 1996 Act. Statutory Guidance states the following: ‘Local authorities have a discretionary power to provide travel to school for children resident in their area who are not eligible children. It is for each local authority to decide whether and how to exercise their discretionary power’ There is an expectation that local authorities will act reasonably in the performance of their functions. They should not have a blanket policy of never providing discretionary travel and should be prepared to consider cases where the parent says there are reasons why their child needs free travel to school and make decisions on a case-by-case basis

Financial implications

A reduction in expenditure of £66k.