Parents urged to speak out as Bradford Council consults over free school transport

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Silsden councillor Chris Atkinson is urging parents to take part in the consultation Silsden councillor Chris Atkinson is urging parents to take part in the consultation

Parents have been urged to “make their voices heard” in a consultation that could see the number of pupils who receive free school transport slashed.

Earlier this month, Bradford Council revealed plans to reduce the number of children who qualify for assisted school transport in response to upcoming budget reductions of £89 million during the next two years.

A consultation to gain the views of parents, teachers, governors and other interested parties will run until February 13.

In the coming weeks there will be public meetings in Bradford, Keighley, Shipley and Ilkley to discuss the proposals.

The Council agreed to review its policy last April after an 11-week consultation which concluded that a number of discretionary free transport services should now face the chop.

Although pupils currently receiving free transport will not lose it, many previously eligible new starters will lose out.

The first public meeting is in Victoria Hall, Keighley, on Wednesday, February 5, between 6 and 8pm.

This will be followed by meetings in City Hall, Bradford, on February 6 (6-8pm), Kings Hall, Ilkley, on February 11 (6-8pm) and Kirkgate Centre, Shipley, on February 12 (6.30-8.30pm).

Silsden councillors have already warned the cuts could lead to pupils from the town missing out on the free transport that many older pupils have enjoyed.

Coun Chris Atkinson has advised as many parents as possible to take part in the consultations.

He said: “There are no secondary schools within walking distance for most of these communities and very often no direct public transport.

“The consultation is aimed at individual needs and residents’ points are required for Bradford to be forced to give a proper understanding of our unique needs.”

Bradford Diocese have yet to make an official comment on the cuts, but Ven David Lee, Archdeacon of Bradford, said: “We would encourage local representatives and parents to attend these meetings and make their voices heard.”

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:15am Tue 28 Jan 14

G_Firth says...

This just goes to show how callous and unimaginative the Labour lead Bradford council are.
When is comes to the safety of children a cut like this is a step to far in any ones book and I have absolutely no doubt that this has come about because of the action taken by a neighbouring council, of which the UKIP councillors whom voted against the cut, is leading section of that said council and attempting to call back that decision because of the public outcry it has caused not only locally but nationally.
Maybe its time the Labour lead BMDC should look at cutting their travel expenses first before contemplating such a heinous move, or even cutting the funding to the arts that can very easily find private sector funding.
I personally would as I'm sure others would feel the same see a slight increase in the council tax, to ensure child safety than a cut like this.
This just goes to show how callous and unimaginative the Labour lead Bradford council are. When is comes to the safety of children a cut like this is a step to far in any ones book and I have absolutely no doubt that this has come about because of the action taken by a neighbouring council, of which the UKIP councillors whom voted against the cut, is leading section of that said council and attempting to call back that decision because of the public outcry it has caused not only locally but nationally. Maybe its time the Labour lead BMDC should look at cutting their travel expenses first before contemplating such a heinous move, or even cutting the funding to the arts that can very easily find private sector funding. I personally would as I'm sure others would feel the same see a slight increase in the council tax, to ensure child safety than a cut like this. G_Firth
  • Score: 1

11:50am Tue 28 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Rubbish, a child should be placed at a school that is within walking distance from their house. Children should not need transport of any form, if too young to walk alone a parent should accompany, thereby reducing injuries due to traffic around schools and increasing health, reducing obesity.

Too many 'the world owes me a living types'
Rubbish, a child should be placed at a school that is within walking distance from their house. Children should not need transport of any form, if too young to walk alone a parent should accompany, thereby reducing injuries due to traffic around schools and increasing health, reducing obesity. Too many 'the world owes me a living types' Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 2

3:36pm Tue 28 Jan 14

G_Firth says...

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
Rubbish, a child should be placed at a school that is within walking distance from their house. Children should not need transport of any form, if too young to walk alone a parent should accompany, thereby reducing injuries due to traffic around schools and increasing health, reducing obesity.

Too many 'the world owes me a living types'
The problem with your statement is that our schools are already overflowing unless you want to have classrooms over 50+ students in them on top of which most of the areas are in the rural area, with narrow roads, High hedges and in parts no footpaths.
Winter also adds another risk of low light and if they have to walk 5 miles that would most mean walking in the dark for many, very safe that isn't it.
It would also increase traffic because unlike you I am aware of today's reality of the family car is a plenty
And as for the and I quote for a second time "the world owes me a living types" are you saying that children should work because the issue is about children not adults..
[quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: Rubbish, a child should be placed at a school that is within walking distance from their house. Children should not need transport of any form, if too young to walk alone a parent should accompany, thereby reducing injuries due to traffic around schools and increasing health, reducing obesity. Too many 'the world owes me a living types'[/p][/quote]The problem with your statement is that our schools are already overflowing unless you want to have classrooms over 50+ students in them on top of which most of the areas are in the rural area, with narrow roads, High hedges and in parts no footpaths. Winter also adds another risk of low light and if they have to walk 5 miles that would most mean walking in the dark for many, very safe that isn't it. It would also increase traffic because unlike you I am aware of today's reality of the family car is a plenty And as for the and I quote for a second time "the world owes me a living types" are you saying that children should work because the issue is about children not adults.. G_Firth
  • Score: 1

4:13pm Tue 28 Jan 14

allinittogether says...

G_Firth wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
Rubbish, a child should be placed at a school that is within walking distance from their house. Children should not need transport of any form, if too young to walk alone a parent should accompany, thereby reducing injuries due to traffic around schools and increasing health, reducing obesity.

Too many 'the world owes me a living types'
The problem with your statement is that our schools are already overflowing unless you want to have classrooms over 50+ students in them on top of which most of the areas are in the rural area, with narrow roads, High hedges and in parts no footpaths.
Winter also adds another risk of low light and if they have to walk 5 miles that would most mean walking in the dark for many, very safe that isn't it.
It would also increase traffic because unlike you I am aware of today's reality of the family car is a plenty
And as for the and I quote for a second time "the world owes me a living types" are you saying that children should work because the issue is about children not adults..
The issue is about cuts imposed on local authorities by central government.
[quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: Rubbish, a child should be placed at a school that is within walking distance from their house. Children should not need transport of any form, if too young to walk alone a parent should accompany, thereby reducing injuries due to traffic around schools and increasing health, reducing obesity. Too many 'the world owes me a living types'[/p][/quote]The problem with your statement is that our schools are already overflowing unless you want to have classrooms over 50+ students in them on top of which most of the areas are in the rural area, with narrow roads, High hedges and in parts no footpaths. Winter also adds another risk of low light and if they have to walk 5 miles that would most mean walking in the dark for many, very safe that isn't it. It would also increase traffic because unlike you I am aware of today's reality of the family car is a plenty And as for the and I quote for a second time "the world owes me a living types" are you saying that children should work because the issue is about children not adults..[/p][/quote]The issue is about cuts imposed on local authorities by central government. allinittogether
  • Score: -1

9:13pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Alhaurinrhino says...

If the parents choose to send their kids to a school that is not within walking distance then it should be their responsibility to get them there at their own expense.
If the parents choose to send their kids to a school that is not within walking distance then it should be their responsibility to get them there at their own expense. Alhaurinrhino
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree