Agenda and minutes

Councillor Latham was appointed as Chairman for this meeting only.

All Members who believe they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting must declare that interest and, having regard to the circumstances described in Part 3 Paragraph 1.5 of the County Council's Members' Code of Conduct, leave the meeting while the matter is discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with Paragraph 1.6 of the Code. Furthermore all Members with a Non-Pecuniary interest in a matter being considered at the meeting should consider whether such interest should be declared, and having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 2 of the Code, consider whether it is appropriate to leave the meeting while the matter is discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with the Code.

Members were mindful that where they believed they had a Disclosable

Pecuniary Interest in any matter considered at the meeting they must declare

that interest at the time of the relevant debate and, having regard to the

circumstances described in Part 3 Paragraph 1.5 of the County Councils

Members’ Code of Conduct, leave the meeting while the matter was discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with Paragraph 1.6 of the Code. Furthermore Members were mindful that where they believed they had a Non-Pecuniary Interest in a metter being considered at the meeting they considered whether such interest should be declared, and having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 2 of the code, considered whether it was appropriate to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with the Code.

The Regulatory Committee has agreed to amend Standing Order 12, for this committee only, to allow members to ask questions of deputees. Members are allowed to ask questions of clarification of facts to be put to all deputations on an agenda item. Questions from Committee Members will be asked through the Chairman who may seek the advice of the Committee’s legal and the other advisers as appropriate: the Chairman’s decision on a question will be final. Local Members who request to speak at Committee may also be asked questions.

There were no deputations.

To consider the report of the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment concerning the walking route from Pamber Heath to The Hurst Community College and to consider a confidential representation from parents as to its safety.

The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment regarding the assessment of the walking route to The Hurst Community College (The Hurst).

Members were informed that:

·         Following a review of the walking routes to The Hurst, home to school transport had been withdrawn from a number of pupils based on their routes to school being under the 3 mile distance required to qualify for Council funded transport.

·         Families had been fully informed in writing of the decision and reasons behind it and had been advised of their right to appeal. Two families, Appellant A and B, had selected to progress with an appeal.

·         The walking routes had been walked, measured for distance and assessed for safety, in accordance with the Road Safety GB Criteria, by the Road Safety Officer. Both routes measured less than 3 miles and both routes were determined as safe for pupils to walk. It was confirmed, following Members’ questions, that the on-site assessment had been made in January 2018 and Members were referred to the detailed appendices which contained the reports.

·         Both routes were measured using a Trumeter distance measurement wheel. It was confirmed, following Members’ questions, that this equipment was regularly sent to an independent, external organisation for audit and calibration purposes to ensure complete accuracy of measurements.

To resolve that the public be excluded from the meeting during the following

items of business, as it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be

transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during these items there would be disclosure to them of exempt

information within Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local

Government Act 1972, and further that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons set out in the reports.

That the public be excluded from the meeting during the following items of

business, as it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during these items there would be disclosure to them of exempt information within Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, and further that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest.

The Sub-Committee considered the presentation and documentation of appellant A outlining their reasons for appeal.

Members were informed that:

·         The appellant’s reasons for submitting their appeal were based primarily upon distance grounds. Appellant A considered the route had not been measured accurately by the Road Safety Officer and that it was over the 3 mile requirement.

·         The appellant did not consider the proposed crossing point at the A340 to be safe.

·         The appellant considered that there would be a negative impact upon their child’s education should the Council funded home to school transport not be reinstated due to the time taken to walk the route.

RESOLVED:

The Sub-Committee agreed that the walking route from Furze Cottage, Silchester Road, Pamber Heath to The Hurst was available to walk unaccompanied.

The Sub-Committee considered the presentation and documentation of Appellant B outlining their reasons for appeal.

Members were informed that:

• The appellant’s reasons for submitting their appeal were based primarily upon safety grounds. Appellant B considered the route was not safe for their child to walk and did not consider there to be adequate pedestrian step off points along the route.
• The appellant did not consider the proposed crossing point at the A340 to be safe.
• The appellant considered that there would be a negative impact upon their child’s education and emotional wellbeing should the Council funded home to school transport not be reinstated.

RESOLVED:

The Sub-Committee agreed that the initial section of the walking route, from The Orchard junction with West Street to the Bowmonts Road junction with West Street, is available to walk accompanied and that the remainder of the route to The Hurst was available to walk unaccompanied.