Minutes:
(A) Mr
Bray asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“Could the Leader please update me on progress of the weed spraying
programme in across Hinckley and Bosworth? A number of
residents in my division have contacted me concerned about weeds in gutters,
concerned at the impact this will have on surface water drainage as the autumn
weather approaches, as well as being an eyesore. Can the Leader please assure
me this will be completed soon?”
Mr O’Shea
replied as follows:
“Early in the season the treatment programme
was put on hold whilst the use of alternative methods and treatments were
investigated in response to requests to halt the use of glyphosate. After
consideration it was decided that the most cost effective and efficient way to
treat weeds in a highway setting was to continue with the use of
glyphosate. Our first of two Countywide treatments would normally
have started in May, but due to the earlier suspension we were not able to
start until early July when the outcome of the review was known. At that
point, the contractor also had commitments with other authorities so could only
offer a reduced resource and their workforce has also been further affected by Covid Isolation rules.
The treatment has now been completed in
Charnwood, Melton, Harborough, Blaby, Oadby and Wigston, with Hinckley and
Bosworth the most recent Borough to be completed on 15th September.
The contractors have now moved into North West Leicestershire and this should
be completed by the end of September.”
Mr Bray asked the following supplementary
question:
“Could I just ask the Lead Member if he would
undertake to have a look at the job that's been done because, I have to say, in
my patch, there are still quite a lot of areas that are an eyesore?”
Mr O’Shea replied as follows:
“Currently, Hinckley and Bosworth Borough is in the process of being
done.”
(B)
Mrs Hack asked the following question
of the Leader or his nominee:
“In light of the recent article in the Leicester Mercury about a young
person being unable to access his specialist school due to delays in funding
for his transport, please could Members have an update on:
Mr O’Shea replied as follows:
“1. At the start of the term
1,703 Special Educational Needs (SEN) transport applications had been processed
with 125 approved, but not yet provided with transport. Of those 125 without transport, 112 were
received late (i.e. after the application deadline date), nine were as a result of Personal Travel Budget (PTB) appeals and four
were late being processed.
There were an
additional 92 applications for PTBs awaiting processing, 85 of which were
received late. Of the remaining, four
were delayed by the school/college placement and three required further
information.
As of 24th
September, 1,987 SEN transport applications had been processed with only 37
late applications outstanding. Overall, 574 applications were received late.
2. The average number of school
days lost is extremely difficult to calculate given that many schools have
varying start dates, some students have part-time timetables and further
transport arrangements have been put in place on a daily basis since the start
of term. The vast majority of the 1,828
students, whose applications were received by the Transport Service on time,
had their applications processed and transport arrangements confirmed prior to
the start of the school year. It should
also be noted that a proportion of the late applications were due to a delay in
school placements by Special Educational Needs Assessment and Commissioning
Service (SENA) and those parents were contacted and advised of the assistance
that was available.
3. The majority of the backlog
was a result of late applications, late parent appeals, late notice of college
timetabling, schools changing students site provision, parents changing from a
PTB to traditional transport or moving house after the date of their
application and after transport had been planned.
While it is very
difficult for the County Council to control and therefore prevent the above
scenarios, we do propose a further revision of communications around the
application deadline date for next year. We will endeavour to make application
deadlines as clear as possible for parents and carers. In addition, to help manage expectations, it
will be emphasised in our communications that for late applications or, where
the service does not have the necessary information to process transport such
as college timetables, it is unlikely transport will be in place for the start
of the school term and that it may take a number of weeks after that to put in
place depending on the volume being dealt with at that time.
Whilst much of
the above is outside the Council’s control, this year there was also some delay
due to late school placements. The SENA
service has undertaken significant work to understand the peak times of demand
and now have better planning mechanisms in place to ensure transition reviews
are undertaken in a timely manner avoiding similar delays in future years.”
Mrs Hack asked the following supplementary question:
“It is
identified in the response that overall 574 applications were
received late. I wonder whether or not those were foreseen delays? Secondly, it
identifies in point two, the vast majority of the 1,828 students. Could we just
get clarity on the number please?”
Mr O’Shea replied as follows:
“I will arrange for a full and comprehensive written reply.”
[Subsequent to the meeting the following response was received:
Regarding the 574 late applications, delays
can be caused by a number of factors such as:
·
Parents applying after
the advised date;
·
SENA late confirming
school placements which delayed parent’s applications;
·
Colleges confirming /
changing students timetables shortly before the college start date;
·
Parents late in
appealing their Post 16 PTB;
·
Schools with split
school sites moving students to different sites just before or after the start
of term;
·
Parents wanting to
change from a PTB to traditional transport;
·
Parents advising of a
change of address shortly before the start of term.
The majority of the above could not have been
foreseen as they are in the control of others outside the Transport Operations
service i.e. parents, schools and colleges.
In Point 2 of the previous response it was
stated “The vast majority of the 1,828 students, whose applications were
received by the Transport Service on time, had their applications processed and
transport arrangements confirmed prior to the start of the school year.”
The actual number with transport in place at the start of term was 1,703.]