Agenda item

(To receive a report form Mark Rainey, Commissioning Manager – Commercial, which enables the Committee to review and comment on progress made regarding the Sustainable Modes of Travel to School Strategy 2020-2023 against the action plan)

Consideration was given to a report by the Commissioning Manager – Commercial on the progress made regarding the Sustainable Modes of Travel to School Strategy 2020-2023. The following was reported:

·       It was a statutory duty of the Council to produce a Sustainable Modes of Travel to School Strategy (SMOTS).

·       The Council’s current strategy was adopted in July 2020.

·       Action 1, the creation of a Sustainable Travel Group to set standards for travel to school, was on target and was meeting quarterly with the attendance of the Executive Portfolio Holder.

·       Action 2, the development of a programme of Links to School routes, was delayed and ongoing due to two focused projects having been identified at Toynton All Saints School and between Reepham and Cherry Willingham.

·       Action 3, engagement with schools to develop travel plans, was delayed and improving due to the impacts of the pandemic on school resources.

·       Action 4, the continuation of the Independent Travel Trainer and Max Respect programmes, was delayed and improving due to face-to-face services being interrupted by pandemic public health measures.

·       Action 5, the reappraisal of unsuitable routes, was ongoing whilst further funding was being sought.

·       Action 6, working in partnership with LRSP to deliver safe travel to school, was delayed and improving due to recruitment difficulties.

·       Pre-pandemic levels of the Strategy’s delivery were resuming.

·       The Strategy was to move to the Place directorate within the Council’s organisation.

In response to questions raised by the Committee, the following points were confirmed:

·       It was possible to develop school safety zones around schools that presented a congestion issue at peak times in partnership with the Road Safety team.

·       Commissioned school transport was viewed to be sustainable for areas far away from schools.

·       The service was awaiting capital budgets for active travel before planning future projects.

·       It was crucial to ensure engagement with parents and carers to create sustainable transport schemes to reduce the level of car use. 

·       The Post 16 Transport policy requested a £570 contribution per annum for those that were eligible. Council expenditure on post 16 transport was £2 million net with £1 million raised from contributions.

·       Enforcement of school safety zones was led by the Highways team; however, many schemes were advisory and unenforceable, those that were mandatory had to be enforced by the police. Further information would be sought from Highways.

·       The impacts of the recent changes to the Highway Code had not been captured in the Council’s strategies, which had been finalised before the changes had been made. However, the changes would be picked up in future strategies and policies.

·       School crossing patrol sites were prescribed based upon assessments. Assessments were based on safety outcomes and finding the most economically viable solution. However, there were difficulties recruiting for these posts.

·       Transport for children in care was sometimes organised by social care in the short-trem. The most economical method was always sought, seats were sometimes left free to ensure special arrangements for care needs. Inefficient transport arrangements often became apparent at the beginning of the academic year as it was difficult to reconcile needs and entitlement for available seats before most applications had been processed.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee reviewed the report and was assured on the progress made so far against the action plan.