Agenda item

6.1

Verbal Appeal – RA/FO1

6.1.1

In attendance were the appellant and Julie Pryor and Andy Tierney (Customer Services).

6.1.2

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.

6.1.3

The Executive Director, People Services, submitted a report and commented upon a case where the parent had appealed against the administrative decision made by the Executive Director with regard to the refusal to grant a home to school travel bus pass (Case No.RA/FO1).

6.1.4

Julie Pryor and Andy Tierney explained the Stage 1 review and Stage 2 appeals process regarding the City Council’s Home to School Transport Policy.  Ms. Pryor and Mr. Tierney informed the Committee of the reasons why the request for a home to school travel pass had been refused at Stage 1.

6.1.5

The appellant explained to the Committee the reasons for the request for a home to school travel pass for her child.

6.1.6

In response to questions from Members, the appellant stated that she had applied for schools closer to her home address which would be catchment schools for the local secondary school and that whilst her child remained on the waiting lists for these schools, her child had now settled at the school for which she was applying for the travel pass.

6.1.7

At this stage in the proceedings, the appellant left the meeting to enable the Committee to consider the evidence.

6.1.8

RESOLVED: That the appeal be upheld on the grounds that there are exceptional financial and educational circumstances in the case and that the route is considered to be an unsafe walking route (Case No.RA/FO1).

6.2

Verbal Appeal – Case No.AS/AC1

6.2.1

In attendance were the appellants and Julie Pryor and Andy Tierney (Customer Services).

6.2.2

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.

6.2.3

The Executive Director, People Services, submitted a report and commented upon a case where the parents had appealed against the administrative decision made by the Executive Director with regard to the refusal to grant a home to school travel bus pass (Case No.AS/AC1).

6.2.4

Julie Pryor and Andy Tierney explained the Stage 1 review and Stage 2 appeals process regarding the City Council’s Home to School Transport Policy.  Ms. Pryor and Mr. Tierney informed the Committee of the reasons why the request for a home to school travel pass had been refused at Stage 1.

6.2.5

The appellants explained to the Committee the reasons for the request for a home to school travel pass for their child.

6.2.6

In response to questions from Members, the appellants stated that their child had been bullied at primary school and although the same person was attending the secondary school of their choice, their child’s sibling also attended the school and would be able to offer support.  They added that their child was not confident enough to attend their catchment school without the support of his sibling.

6.2.7

At this stage in the proceedings, the appellants left the meeting to enable the Committee to consider the evidence.

6.2.8

RESOLVED: That the appeal 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 school that the pupil is requesting a pass for is not their catchment school/nearest suitable schools (Case No.AS/AC1).

6.3

Verbal Appeal – Case No.NOR1

6.3.1

In attendance were the appellant and Julie Pryor and Andy Tierney (Customer Services).

6.3.2

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.

6.3.3

The Executive Director, People Services, submitted a report and commented upon a case where the parent had appealed against the administrative decision made by the Executive Director with regard to the refusal to grant a home to school travel bus pass (Case No.NOR1).

6.3.4

Julie Pryor and Andy Tierney explained the Stage 1 review and Stage 2 appeals process regarding the City Council’s Home to School Transport Policy.  Ms. Pryor and Mr. Tierney informed the Committee of the reasons why the request for a home to school travel pass had been refused at Stage 1.

6.3.5

The appellant explained to the Committee the reasons for the request for a home to school travel pass for her child.

6.3.6

In response to questions raised by Members, the appellant stated that her child has learning difficulties and that she considers the route her child would have to take to walk to school was unsafe.

6.3.7

At this stage in the proceedings, the appellant left the meeting to enable the Committee to consider the evidence.

6.3.8

RESOLVED: That the appeal be upheld on the grounds that there are exceptional financial, educational and family circumstances in the case (Case No. NOR1).

6.4

Verbal Appeal – Case No.ECK1

6.4.1

In attendance were the appellant and Julie Pryor and Andy Tierney (Customer Services).

6.4.2

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.

6.4.3

The Executive Director, People Services, submitted a report and commented upon a case where the parent had appealed against the administrative decision made by the Executive Director with regard to the refusal to grant a home to school travel bus pass (Case No.ECK1).

6.4.4

Julie Pryor and Andy Tierney explained the Stage 1 review and Stage 2 appeals process regarding the City Council’s Home to School Transport Policy.  Ms. Pryor and Mr. Tierney informed the Committee of the reasons why the request for a home to school travel pass had been refused at Stage 1.

6.4.5

The appellant explained to the Committee the reasons for the request for a home to school travel pass for his child.

6.4.6

In response to questions raised by Members, the appellant stated that their family home is right on the city boundary and that the school his child attends is closer than the catchment school and that he considers the route to the catchment school to be a hazardous one.

6.4.7

At this point in the proceedings, the appellant left the meeting to enable the Committee to consider the evidence.

6.4.8

RESOLVED: That the appeal 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 school that the pupil is  requesting a pass for is not their catchment school/nearest suitable schools (Case No.ECK1).

6.5

Written Appeals

6.5.1

The Executive Director, People Services, submitted reports and commented upon four 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.

6.5.2

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

6.5.3

RESOLVED: That (a) three 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 school that the pupils are requesting passes for are not their catchment school/nearest suitable schools (Case Nos. TO/AS1, KI/EC1 and H/S1); and

(b) one case be upheld on the grounds that there are exceptional educational and safeguarding circumstances in the case (Case. No. HA/BR1).