Agenda item

7.1

Verbal Appeals- Case Nos. STCA1 and STCA2

7.1.1

In attendance were the appellants and Amanda Dale and Julie Pryor (Customer Services).

7.1.2

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked attendees to introduce themselves.  He then outlined the procedure which would be followed during the meeting.

7.1.3

The Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, submitted reports and commented upon two cases where parents had appealed against the administrative decisions made by the Executive Director with regard to the refusal to grant home to school travel bus passes (Case Nos. STCA1 and STCA2.

7.1.4

Amanda Dale explained the Stage 1 and Stage 2 appeals criteria regarding the City Council’s Home to School Transport Policy.  She informed the Sub-Committee of the reasons why the applications had been refused at Stage 1 and then the subsequent refusal of the appeals at Stage 2.

7.1.5

The appellants explained to the Committee the reasons for the requests for home to school travel passes for their two children.

7.1.6

In response to questions raised by Members, the appellants stated that they were still in a transitional stage regarding residency and that during several house moves, the family are trying to keep things consistent for the children and it would not be in their best interests to move schools at present.

7.1.7

At this stage in the proceedings, the appellants and the Customer Services officers left the meeting to enable the Sub-Committee to consider the evidence.

7.1.8

RESOLVED: That the appeals be upheld on the grounds that there are exceptional family and financial circumstances in the cases (Case Nos. STCA1 and STCA2).

7.2

Verbal Appeal – Case No.LF1

7.2.1

In attendance were the appellants and Amanda Dale and Julie Pryor (Customer Services).

7.2.2

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked attendees to introduce themselves.  He then outlined the procedure which would be followed during the meeting.

7.2.3

The Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, submitted a report and commented upon a case where parents had appealed against the administrative decisions made by the Executive Director with regard to the refusal to grant home to a school travel bus passe (Case No. LF1).

7.2.4

Amanda Dale explained the Stage 1 and Stage 2 appeals criteria regarding the City Council’s Home to School Transport Policy.  She informed the Sub-Committee of the reasons why the application had been refused at Stage 1 and then the subsequent refusal of the appeal at Stage 2.

7.2.5

The appellants explained to the Committee the reason for the request for a home to school travel pass.

7.2.6

In response to questions raised by Members, the appellants stated they had originally been refused a place for the child at their preferred school and had been allocated the school he now attended.  Members were informed that the child has a medical condition and does not like change in his life and he was happy at the school and it would be too disruptive to him to change to another school.

7.2.7

At this stage in the proceedings, the appellants and the Customer Services officers left the meeting to enable the Sub-Committee to consider the evidence.

7.2.8

RESOLVED: That the appeal be upheld on the grounds that there are exceptional educational circumstances in the case (Case No.LF1).

7.3

Written Appeals

7.3.1

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

7.3.2

The Committee gave consideration to all the supporting information and evidence provided by the pupils’ parents and, arising therefrom, it was:-

7.3.3

RESOLVED: That (a) two 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, the schools that the pupils are requesting passes for are not their catchment schools/nearest suitable schools (Case Nos. PWAC1 and STCA1def); and

 (b) one appeal be upheld on the grounds that there are exceptional educational circumstances in the case (Case No. FIPA1).

(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 Case No.STCA1def be considered as a matter of urgency in order for the request to be considered at the earliest possible opportunity although it had not been possible to give five clear days’ notice that the request was to be considered).