Following on from a number of previous reports and decisions regarding the School Transport Service, emerging from the legacy Yellow Bus Service, the Committee, was asked to make a recommendation to full Council about its future.

Members were referred to previous debate and details as to how the full-service model would work and how the three options before them had been arrived at.

Members were advised that after the Council’s decision to proceed with a service in 2020, Officers worked on the implementation of an in-house service model, as part of an integrated offer within the Council’s Community Transport service.  This proved very challenging for a number of operational, financial and logistical reasons.  The model reached the point of procurement of vehicles.  However, the impact of the pandemic and supply chain issues in relation to build of ordered vehicles, resulted in successive delays to commencement of the service.

Therefore, Officers reviewed the options and viability of the service, bearing in mind the Council’s financial position post pandemic, together with the consequence of parents and children making alternative travel arrangements to school, some as a result of changes within homes and communities.

As a result, Full Council in July 2021, approved cancelling the procurement arrangements relating to the leasing of 7 x Community Transport vehicles, and resolved that delivery of any future service be delayed until September 2022, at the earliest, to allow Officers to consider service options and also other opportunities to support children and young people in the borough.  For example:

·       Provision of play area equipment

·       Provision of other recreational equipment

·       Access to sport and leisure activities either at a concessionary rate or free at the point of access

·       Provision of new/support for existing diversionary activities aimed at children and young people

·       Support to voluntary and community organisations in the development of activities and leisure opportunities for children and young people. 

The Committee was presented with three options:

1.    To discontinue the service and re-allocate some or all of the budget previously agreed to provide a school transport service to Community Services to develop leisure and recreation opportunities for children and young people in the borough in line with the Council’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy

2.    To provide a reduced targeted school transport service to children and young people as referred by local schools, and allocate any budgetary underspend to deliver some of the priorities in the Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

3.    To revert to the original decision and proceed as previously agreed by full Council in September 2020 to provide a full school transport service.

The Committee was advised that no school transport had been provided for two full academic years and with the likely lead in time being a further two years the relevance of the service was questioned.  Members generally agreed thatthose children and families who previously accessed the service appeared to have adapted to there being no service and like pupils new to secondary schools in Runnymede had made alternative arrangements.  This was also the case for children transferring to secondary schools in the 2022/2023 academic year.  Nevertheless it was acknowledged that had a service been available, potentially children and families may have chosen to access it.

Some Members were concerned that children most in need of the service and least able to afford other means of transport would be disadvantaged.  However, other Members reported receiving no feedback to this effect, noting the assistance available from the County Council in this regard.

In terms of financial viability, some Members recognised that the Council’s subsidy per pupil, which could be even higher in the future, was already excessive.  The section 106 monies had long since disappeared to fund the original ‘yellow bus scheme’, leaving a larger shortfall to make up. 

The majority of the Committee considered that the subsidy assisted fewer children and young people (250) than using the budget to develop the Council’s Health and Wellbeing strategy, which would be of wider community benefit.  It was noted that delivering the service was also likely to cost more, primarily fuel, and procuring vehicles.  There was also the cost of re-grading the Community Transport drivers to reflect the development of their role and aid recruitment.  Therefore provision of the future school transport service was very expensive in the current climate.

A number of Members also considered the detrimental effects on the environment of using diesel vehicles, about which there was currently no choice and in the context of climate change, the benefits of walking and cycling to school, supporting the Active Travel opportunities, for which funding could be available.  Other considerations were discussions about the wider Community Transport service across Runnymede and Surrey Heath, the role and feedback of the County Council with whom the Council was currently contracted to provide other bus services.  The latter were under review and would be discussed at the Health and Wellbeing Member Working Party in due course.  The County Council had also observed no significant demand for public transport at peak school times with the demise of the school transport scheme. 

Members were reminded that, when fully up and running, this service was estimated to cost in excess of £250,000 in a full year with plenty of risk surrounding that figure, all of which were set out in previous reports to committee.  In addition, there was significant risk to this figure with potential additional lease costs increasing this by £70,000+ before any other inflationary effects were taken into account.

Officers advised that, by the time the new vehicles were estimated to arrive this service would have been off the road for nearly 4 years in which time new parents would have found alternative transportation arrangements and a majority of old users would have left school.  If the scheme was to progress as originally agreed, a fresh data collection exercise would be needed to assess the likely take up to ensure that the proposals were still viable.  Some Members expressed concern that schools had not been consulted further prior to the report being submitted.

The Committee noted the legal implications set out in the report.  Principally, that the Council was under no legal duty to provide a school transport service.  The legal liability for such provision rested with the Local Education Authority and was subject to eligibility criteria. 

Members noted that Officers would, in due course, provide Corporate Management Committee with a report setting out how to utilise the budgeted sum of £215,000, with a view to improvements in parks and play areas to be discussed by the Health and Wellbeing Member Working Party

The Council’s Equalities Group had advised that a Full Impact Assessment would be required, to be considered by full Council.

Members were conscious that in making a recommendation, the Council still had an underlying budget deficit of approximately £2m a year to be addressed.

Recommend to Full Council that:

the previously agreed discretionary school transport service is not to proceed, and that from the budgeted sum of £215,000, as determined by Corporate Management Committee, an agreed sum is allocated to Community Services for the development of leisure and recreation opportunities for children and young people across the borough

A named vote was requested and the voting was as follows:

For: (8) Councillors A Balkan, T Burton, D Clarke, V Cunningham, S Dennett,

C Howorth, C Mann, J Wilson.

Against: (2) A King and S Jenkins.

This being the case, and in accordance with Standing Orders, the other options (two and three) ‘fell’ and did not need to be voted on.