Archived decisions

Contact: Andy Berncastle, ext 6921

1. Summary

1.1 Concerns have been raised about the safety of the walking route between Abbotts Ann and John Hanson Community School in Andover. Members will inspect the route on the morning of 19 December 2002 and then consider the appeal.

2. Background

2.1 Abbotts Ann lies some three miles south-west of Andover town centre. The designated secondary school for the village is John Hanson Community School in Andover, although some parents in the village choose to send their children to Test Valley School in Stockbridge. Twelve children from Abbotts Ann currently attend John Hanson Community School.

2.2 In September 2002, the school moved to a new site off Floral Way, Andover. This is some 600 metres closer to Abbotts Ann than the previous site, off Alexandra Road.

2.3 Previously, most of the village lay beyond three miles from the school, by the nearest available walking route, and accordingly free transport was provided for most children. The relocation of the school means that all of the village lies within three miles of the school, so no children qualify for free transport on grounds of distance. The Education Department has agreed that free transport can continue for existing children at the school, but not for new children who started at the school in September 2002. However, in view of parents' concerns about the safety of the walking route, free transport has been provided for the autumn term 2002, to give time to examine alternative options.

3. The Appeal

3.1 The route has to be considered against the normal criteria (Appendix 1). Appendix 2 shows the route which is considered to be available. This does not follow the most direct route, via Salisbury Road, as this is considered to be unsafe for pedestrians, but runs via Anna Valley and Balksbury Hill. This route has been measured by Trumeter wheel at 4,759 metres (2.96 miles) from the school gate to the junction of Criswick Close, at the furthest extremity of Abbotts Ann.

3.2 Correspondence from one appellant and from the Parish Council is attached as Appendix 3 (confidential). The lack of appeals from other parents may be due to the Parish Council's involvement.

3.3 The route was last inspected in September 2002. It may be considered as follows:

(i) A pavement exists on the west side of the road through Abbotts Ann, from south of Criswick Close to the centre of the village. From the Eagle public house a surfaced and lit footpath runs eastwards past the church to join the road towards Little Ann. This road has no pavement west of the junction of Abbotts Close, but the very light traffic reduces the danger to pedestrians. The pavement from opposite Abbotts Close continues to the A343 and runs along the west side of the A343 to the roundabout.

(ii) In order to follow the suggested walking route through Anna Valley, it is necessary to cross the A343 at some point. A refuge is available at the roundabout, but this would increase the distance and in practice is unlikely to be used. It is possible to cross the A343 in two stages just south of the Foundry Road junction, taking advantage of the white hatching in the centre of the road. Construction of a refuge at this point has been suggested but this has low priority due to the relatively light pedestrian usage at present.

(iii) Pavements exist through Anna Valley on one or both sides of the road, but the southern end of Balksbury Hill has no pavement. However, it is suggested that the relatively light traffic and good visibility make it acceptable for pedestrians to walk in the road. Most of Balksbury Hill has a pavement and this continues on Salisbury Road, where adequate crossing facilities exist to the Hexagon shops. From here, a major footpath runs through to Floral Way and the school site.

4. Conclusion

4.1 Members will have had the opportunity to inspect the walking route, particularly the A343 crossing. The County Council's position is that, under the criteria, the walking route is available.

4.2 It is for Committee Members to consider, following the guidance set out in paragraph 2.13 of Appendix 1:

(i) whether the nature of the route, or an alternative route, means that it is available for children if unaccompanied; and

(ii) if the answer to (i) is no, whether the route is available if accompanied.

7645/AB

APPENDIX 1

SCHOOL TRANSPORT APPEALS PANEL

SCHOOL TRANSPORT - AVAILABILITY OF WALKING ROUTES

STANDARD BRIEFING NOTE

1. Introduction

1.1 This paper provides a brief background to the County Council's policies and practices for the provision of free school transport by Local Education Authorities. A summary of the facts concerning the individual route under consideration by the Panel is circulated separately.

2. The Legal Requirements Applying to School Transport

2.1 The duty imposed upon a Local Education Authority (LEA) is to facilitate the attendance of children at schools and to ensure no parent can have a defence to a prosecution for non-attendance simply because the LEA has not made suitable arrangements either for transport to and from the school or for enabling a child to become registered at a school nearer to the parental home.

2.2 The obligation to provide transport only arises, however, where the child lives outside the walking distance between his or her home and the child's school. "Walking distance" is defined by the Education Act 1996 as meaning, in relation to a child who is under the age of 8 years, 2 miles (3.218688 km) and, in relation to a child who has attained the age of 8 years, 3 miles (4.828032 km), in each case measured by the nearest available route. The County Council has, however, introduced a slightly more favourable policy towards children in that the 3 mile distance will not be applied until the start of the academic year during which a child has his or her ninth birthday. (Education Committee 24 May 1995)

2.3 The meaning of the "nearest available route" has been considered in a number of recent cases.

2.4 In the case of Rogers v Essex County Council, the House of Lords stated that for a route to be available within the meaning of [Section 444 Education Act 1996] it must be a route along which a child accompanied as necessary can walk and walk with reasonable safety to school. It does not fail to qualify as "available" because of dangers that would arise if the child remained unaccompanied.

2.5 The legislation has recently been amended and the relevant provision is contained in Section 509 of the Education Act 1996 which now, as amended, reads:

(1) A local education authority shall make such arrangements for the provision of transport and otherwise as they consider necessary ... for the purpose of facilitating the attendance of persons receiving education at schools, ... at any institution within the further education sector ...

(2) Any transport provided in pursuance of arrangements under sub-section 1 shall be provided free of charge.

(3) ..........

(4) In considering whether or not they are required by subsection (1) above to make arrangements in relation to a particular person, the local education authority shall have regard (amongst other things)

(a) to the age of the person and the nature of the route, or alternative routes, which he could reasonably be expected to take, and

(b) to any wish of his parent for him to be provided with education at his school or institution in which the religious education provided is that of the religion or denomination to which his parent adheres."

2.6 In addition, the case of R v Hereford - Worcester County Council provided that the LEA is under a duty to make such arrangements as it considers necessary for a child to reach school without undue stress, strain or difficulty as would prevent him or her from benefiting from the education the school has to offer (non-stressful transport).

2.7 Consequently, Section 509 together with the various legal rulings, must now be considered by local education authorities in defining their policies on the provision of school transport and in considering the eligibility of the individual pupils for free transport.

2.8 The authority should therefore have regard to the age, health and maturity of the child and the availability of an adult companion where these are relevant.

2.9 The terms of reference of the School Transport Appeals Panel are:

"To consider any appeals against a decision of the County Education Officer as to whether a walking route is available accompanied as necessary and whether there are any circumstances which prevent a child from being accompanied."

2.10 Accordingly, the Panel's role is to consider the question whether, where a child lives within walking distance of his or her school, the route which is shorter than the relevant walking distance is the "nearest available route", i.e. whether that route is one along which a child (of the age, health and maturity of the child concerned) accompanied as necessary can walk and walk with reasonable safety to school.

2.11 On the basis of children being accompanied, a "significant risk to safety" may include a traffic hazard which may be assessed and taken into account; for example, the following circumstances:

(a) where there is no defined footway or where the footway is so narrow that there is no adequate clearance between pedestrians and vehicles on the carriageway, allied with one or more of:

- a narrow carriageway;

- poor sight lines;

- no space for the pedestrian to step off the carriageway;

(b) where crossing facilities are justified, using the criteria laid down by the Department of Transport, and none is provided; or

(c) where there is a proven history of pedestrian accidents associated with one or more of the factors set out above.

2.12 The Authority must assess the safety of the route by the standard of a reasonably prudent parent.

2.13 In another case involving Devon County Council, the High Court took the view that:

"For an ordinary child whose home is within walking distance, but who applies under [Section 509(1) and (2)], a local education authority should consider:

(i) the age of the child and the nature of the route which he could reasonably be expected to take;

(ii) the question should the child be accompanied on the route or alternative routes? If the answer is "no", then normally there would be no case for free transport. If the answer is "yes", then:

(iii) the question whether the nature of the route or alternative routes is dangerous for the child if accompanied. If the answer is "yes", then normally there would be a case for free transport. If the answer is "no", then:

(iv) the question whether it is reasonably practicable for the child to be accompanied. If the answer is "no", then normally there would be a case for free transport.

This is a proper sequential approach for a Local Education Authority to adopt when considering an application under [Section 509(1)] from a child whose home is within walking distance of his school".

2.14 The House of Lords confirmed the position and determined that the Authority had been entitled to conclude that it was reasonably practicable for the boy to be accompanied and to take that into account in reaching its decision.