That with effect from September 2015, and
subject to the distance thresholds appropriate to the age of the
child being met, eligibility to free home to school transport for Surrey
children to attend their nearest geographical Surrey school
(measured by the shortest walking route) be extended, if their
nearest school is out of County and the distance or safety of route
to that school would mean that transport would still need to be
provided.
Reasons for
Decisions:
- It would enable parents who would
otherwise receive transport to their nearest out of County school,
to send their children to their nearest Surrey school and still
receive transport, thus potentially
increasing their ‘choice’ of schools
- It
would ensure that the cost of transport would not be a barrier for
children to attend their nearest Surrey school
- It is a policy change that could
be applied consistently across the County
- It would demonstrate support to
Surrey schools by offering families an incentive to apply for their
nearest Surrey school, even if they have an out of County school
which is nearer
- It would help to support the
financial viability of undersubscribed Surrey schools and in turn
may reduce the likelihood of County Council funding being needed to
support the recovery of an undersubscribed school
- In
some cases it may cost less to transport a child to a Surrey school
than to an out of County school
- It
would mean that families living in Dormansland and Lingfield would
not have their transport to Oxted withdrawn if their nearest school
is outside of Surrey
- It
would only apply if a parent applied for and was offered a place at
the child’s nearest geographical Surrey school
- It was supported by Children and
Education Select Committee
[The decisions on
this item can be called in by the Children and Education Select
Committee]
Member Motion
referred by Council
Mr Stephen Cooksey addressed the Cabinet on
his motion, relating to the Home to School Transport policy, which
was referred from the meeting of the Council on 10 December
2013.
The response to the motion was considered as
part of the discussion and is attached as Appendix
4.