Subscribe to trusted local news
If you are accessing this story via Facebook but you are a subscriber then you will be unable to access the story. Facebook wants you to stay and read in the app and your login details are not shared with Facebook. If you experience problems with accessing the news but have subscribed, please contact subscriptions@thestrayferret.co.uk. In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever. By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.
- Subscription costs less than £1 a week with an annual plan.
Already a subscriber? Log in here.
17
Sept
Council urged to 'show me the money' and provide evidence of home-to-school policy change savings
North Yorkshire Council has been called on to show evidence of cost savings resulting from its controversial home-to-school transport changes as Reform say they will cancel the policy if they get chance.
The authority’s children and families overview and scrutiny committee heard doubts from opposition councillors and campaigners that the savings claimed by the council would be found.
The meeting at County Hall in Northallerton on Wednesday (September 16) was called to discuss the recently published post-implementation review (PIR) of the policy change, which means the council only offers free transport to a child’s nearest school rather than a system based on school catchment areas.
The change was made by the authority in a bid to reduce an annual school transport bill of more than £52m.
Cllr Felicity Cunliffe-Lister.
Liberal Democrat councillor Felicity Cunliffe-Lister told the meeting that the review was “not thorough enough for any conclusions to be drawn with any confidence”.
She added:
We learn that policy savings have amounted to 417 fewer journeys, seven fewer vehicles, and total vehicle capacity is reduced by sixty-two.
But the report gives no breakdown showing the value of these savings. Considering that the review was delayed while these savings were assessed, why is this vital information missing now?
We know that home-to-school transport costs are complex, so why are the predicted savings based on current average cost per child on the back of an envelope calculation making assumptions about numbers falling, and I quote, ‘based on trends that are promising but not conclusive’?
Councillor Peter Lacey, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, added:
I still have concerns that we’re basing a long-term decision on assumptions rather than real cashable savings.
Jo Foster, from the campaign group, the School Transport Action Group (STAG), claimed the policy was “badly broken”.
She added:
It’s lurching from crisis to crisis, creating absolute carnage as it goes on, hurting families, hurting children, and undermining schools across North Yorkshire.
The campaigner called on the council to “show me the money”, adding:
The original traction was £4.2m, but that has not materialised, and you admit that in your PIR. So why are you putting people through all this pain for zero gain?
Reform councillor Mike Jordan said the policy change had created a “mess” and also questioned the level of savings being made.
He added:
If in a position to do so, our group will, at the earliest opportunity, revert back to catchment, which is what we should be using.
The review foretasted that the changes would lead to savings of £3.7m by the end of the seven-year implementation period, although the savings could be as low as £2.2m and as high as £4.4m.
Howard Emmett, assistant director of strategic resources at the authority, told the meeting that the new policy had already led to savings in 2025/26 of around £343,000.
He added:
The savings assessment that you’ve got in the PIR report reflects the initial indications that numbers of vehicles are down, the average distances are down, the vehicle sizes are down, and the income for additional paid travel permits is up, which is an indicator of potential future savings.
We also know from the analysis that, for example, in one of our secondary schools, we’ve got two 73- seater buses being replaced by one 50-seater bus.
That is an example of how those savings are coming through.
Rachel Joyce, assistant chief executive for local engagement, defended the review which she led.
She said:
The PIR makes clear that there are improvements to be made to the implementation of the policy.
However, the finding of the report is that the objective of the original policy changes are broadly on track to be met based on the early data available.
The officer said a return to a system based on catchment would create “additional issues”.
She added:
Statutory guidance requires the nearest school to be used for calculating eligibility.
Including catchment would be an additional discretion, which would prevent the savings being made and would restore an inconsistent set of arrangements whereby some children would be eligible for transport to multiple schools, whilst other children would only be eligible for transport to one school.
The recommendations of the review will now be discussed by the council’s executive on Friday.
0