Agenda item

At its meeting of 26 July 2018 the Executive considered a report relating to the School Crossing Patrol Service – Consultation Report 2018 and resolved that:

1)     WBC continue with its proposal to provide safe, permanent crossings at the seven locations that currently have a school crossing patroller, and, following their installation, remove the school crossing patrol service once the permanent crossings are complete as set out in Option 2, Appendix 1 of the report;

2)    all affected schools are reminded that they have access to the Council’s road safety and My Journey teams who can facilitate further road safety training for pupils if requested.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, five non-Executive Members of the Council submitted a formal notice “calling in” the Executive decision to remove the School Crossing Patrol service from seven sites across the Borough once permanent crossing facilities were installed.

The decision was called in on the following grounds:

1)     The decision has contravened Section 1.4.2 a) of the Council’s Constitution, in that the action being proposed is not proportionate to the desired outcome.

a)     A blanket decision has been made to replace all remaining School Crossing Patrols (SCP) with pedestrian crossings, despite the different characteristics and requirements of the locations.

b)     The desired outcome appears to be to save money yet the costs both of the crossings and the school crossing patrol have not been fully or correctly stated. None of the other options quoted had any costs provided.

c)      The decision was made on the basis of costs for crossings which have not yet been designed – as a redesign is taking place at four sites due to the first design not being suitable; it is therefore unclear whether a crossing is actually the right answer for those locations, as well as the costs being unknown.

2)     The decision has contravened Section 1.4.2 b) of the Council’s Constitution, in that due consultation and the taking of professional advice from Officers has not occurred.

a)     The consultation was not complete at the point at which the decisions to withdraw the service were made.

b)     The consultation was not carried out at an early stage, and was not meaningful, and contravened the Council’s own rules on consultation.

c)      There was no consultation with ward Members on the withdrawal of the service.

d)     The replacement crossings were designed without reference to ward Members and before the consultation was carried out – and ward Members were not even informed until mid-July that the crossings had been designed.

e)     Wokingham Town Council’s consultation response has not been taken into consideration.

f)       Letters putting the staff at risk of redundancy were issued before the consultation was concluded.

g)     The Council’s responses to the points made by respondents are inadequate.

h)     At least one crossing was scheduled to be installed before the decision on the outcome of the consultation took place.

i)       At least one safety audit was done during the school holidays.

j)       No Equality Impact Assessments accompanied the information in the report.

k)      It is not clear that all guidelines for the provision of safe crossings have been observed.

l)       It is not clear that all the evidence comparing the appropriateness of SCP versus crossings has been taken into account.

3)     The decision has contravened Section 1.4.2 d) of the Council’s Constitution, in that openness has not been observed.

a)     At least one of the crossings was designed in February but this was not communicated to ward Members.

b)     Some information was shared with individual members of the public but was not made available to all.

c)      No overall plan for the removal of SCP was made available following the removal of the funding in the 2015 Medium Term Financial Plan.

4)     The decision has contravened Section 1.4.2 e) of the Council’s Constitution, in that clarity of aims and desired outcomes has not been achieved.

a)     The recommendations refer to a proposal to provide safe, permanent crossings – yet four of the crossing proposals have been rejected in the period shortly before the Executive meeting that made the decision, and therefore the decision has been made before there is certainty that the recommendation can be delivered, or that the costs are as given in the report.

b)     Due to the failure to present all costs for all options it is not possible for the Executive to have come to a properly informed decision.

c)      Due to the failure to present the Equality Impact Assessments it is not possible for the Executive to have come to a properly informed decision.

5)     The decision has contravened Section 1.4.2 f) of the Council’s Constitution, in that the details of all the options and reasons for the decision have not been recorded.

a)     A set of options has been laid out but it excludes the most obvious option of replacing some but not all of the patrollers with crossings.

b)     There was a presumption that no funding was available for the service to continue, whereas a supplementary estimate could have been used to find the money, but was not considered.

The Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee met on 3 September 2018 to consider the call-in and following consideration of the evidence presented made the following resolution:

RESOLVED That:

1)        the Executive be requested to review their 26 July 2018 decision on the School Crossing Patrol Service in light of the evidence presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee;

2)        the request to the Executive for a review is based on the following reasons:

a)         the original 2015 decision to remove the School Crossing Patrol Service was taken prior to the consultation, and, with the substantive decision having been taken, subsequent consultation exercises were not seen as meaningful;

b)         the original 2015 decision was taken without an underpinning business case and the 26 July 2018 Executive report did not contain detailed information showing the current costs of the service and the full financial implications relating to the proposed implementation, maintenance and future replacement of the new permanent crossing facilities;

c)         the original 2015 decision was taken without an underpinning Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) and the subsequent April 2018 EIA did not contain detailed information about consultation with specific groups and did not reflect the individual circumstances relating to each of the proposed crossing sites.

The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will attend the meeting to present the Committee’s findings and recommendations.

The Executive considered recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee who met on 3 September 2018 to consider the ‘call-in’ of the Executive decision relating to the item entitled School Crossing Patrol Service – Consultation Report 2018 which was approved at the Executive meeting held on 26 July 2018 with the following recommendations:

“RESOLVED that:

1)        WBC continue with its proposal to provide safe, permanent crossings at the seven locations that currently have a school crossing patroller, and, following their installation, remove the school crossing patrol service once the permanent crossings are complete as set out in Option 2, Appendix 1 of the report;

2)        all affected schools be reminded that they have access to the Council’s road safety and My Journey teams who can facilitate further road safety training for pupils if requested.”

The Leader of Council thanked all the questioners, representatives from schools and the school crossing patrollers who had taken the time and effort to be part of the process and the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee for their consideration of the decision.  Councillor Haitham Taylor also thanked Councillor Pollock for the time he had spent on the matter, including visiting the different sites.

The Leader of Council invited the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee, Parry Batth, to present the findings and recommendations of the Committee.  The reasons for the ‘call-in’, as set out in the Agenda, were considered at the Management Committee meeting held on 3 September 2018.  A number of witnesses attended the meeting and gave evidence following which the Management Committee considered its findings and agreed the following resolution:

“RESOLVED That:

1)        the Executive be requested to review their 26 July 2018 decision on the School Crossing Patrol Service in light of the evidence presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee;

2)        the request to the Executive for a review is based on the following reasons:

a)      the original 2015 decision to remove the School Crossing Patrol Service was taken prior to the consultation, and, with the substantive decision having been taken, subsequent consultation exercises were not seen as meaningful;

b)      the original 2015 decision was taken without an underpinning business case and the 26 July 2018 Executive report did not contain detailed information showing the current costs of the service and the full financial implications relating to the proposed implementation, maintenance and future replacement of the new permanent crossing facilities;

c)      the original 2015 decision was taken without an underpinning Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) and the subsequent April 2018 EIA did not contain detailed information about consultation with specific groups and did not reflect the individual circumstances relating to each of the proposed crossing sites.”

In presenting the recommendations, Councillor Batth clarified that the purpose of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was not to challenge the decision made by the Executive but was to scrutinise the procedures and processes used by the Executive to make the decision. 

Councillor Batth highlighted that the Committee had felt that the Executive should review the following areas in relation to the decision it made and bear these in mind for future decisions: consultation; the business case and the Equality Impact Assessment all of which were related to the actions taken in 2015.  It was noted that consultation had taken place in 2018 and it was felt that more information would have been helpful in the form of a business case. The Leader of Council thanked Councillor Batth for presenting the recommendations of the Management Committee.

The Executive Member for Highways and Transport reminded the Executive of the process that had been followed in reaching this decision.  In 2015, due to the reduction in Government funding, the Council had decided to look at alternative sources of funding to pay for the school crossing patroller service but unfortunately this did not materialise.  Therefore in 2017 a decision was made, following consultation and an impact assessment, to remove a number of school crossing patrollers where fixed crossings existed.   In 2018 consideration was given to removing the school crossing patrol service and replacing the service with fixed crossings.  This was consulted upon including the design aspects relating to the equality impact assessments.  Councillor Pollock explained that the key dates were actually 2017 and 2018 when consultation took place and the Council’s procedures were followed. 

In response to a number of questions from Executive Members Councillor Pollock confirmed that there had actually been a reduction in the number of accidents on crossings where school crossing patrollers had been removed but pointed out that the number of accidents had been low in the first place.  In addition the crossings would be available 24/7 so would be available for children entering or leaving schools at other times of the day e.g. breakfast and after school clubs and other people accessing schools at all times of the day.

With regard to the fact that some people said that school crossing patrollers take responsibility for bad parking and bad driving Councillor Pollock confirmed that school crossing patrollers had authority from the Council, as the highways authority, to step out into the road and stop cars to allow children to cross the road on their way to school.  They did not, however, have any statutory duty or responsibility to undertake any other roles.

Councillor Haitham Taylor asked whether school crossing patrollers would be reintroduced if it was subsequently found that it was proved that school crossing patrollers were required for a safer operation of fixed crossings?  Councillor Pollock stated that serious consideration would be given to the reintroduction if it was found necessary however it was expected that if there were to be an issue this would have been highlighted in the design process.

The Executive Member for Highways and Transport responded to the recommendations of the Management Committee and in relation to the first recommendation reiterated the information he had provided earlier in the meeting in relation to the process that had been followed.  Councillor Pollock reminded the meeting that following the consultation in 2018 a number of safety enhancements were made to some of the sites eg changing a pelican to a puffing crossing.   In addition, with regard to the Murray Road site, a lot of work had been done to ensure that the issues and matters raised were addressed and he confirmed that he would continue to visit the site and talk to the Headteachers about the issues in that area.  With regard to the issues and concerns raised by Overview and Scrutiny in relation to the consultation process that had been followed, Councillor Pollock stated he would be mindful of these when undertaking any future consultation.

Councillor Lindsay Ferris disputed Councillor Pollock’s comments about the 2015 decision as on many occasions at the call-in meeting it was stated that the decision to cease the school crossing patrol service was made in 2015 and this was not challenged by anyone at that meeting and this was clearly stated in the minutes.  Councillor Batth, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee, stated that recommendation 2b) was more about the decision being taken without an underpinning business case and the report not containing sufficient information on the current costs of the service.

Councillor Pollock reiterated that the Executive report considered on 26July 2018 had contained information around the business case and the decision to cease the service was actually made at that meeting and not before.  The proposal may have been considered and consulted upon and other options may have been considered but the decision was not taken until 26 July.

In relation to the recommendation concerning the Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) Councillor Pollock felt that the Council had abided by the requirements of the Equality Impact Assessment Legislation as an EqIA was completed on the proposal to remove the service and each of the designs incorporated all the features relating to the EqIA of each individual site.

Councillor Ferris challenged the Executive Member for Highways and Transport’s assertion that pedestrian crossing were safer as he didn’t feel that that the statistical information that was available accorded with DfT standards.  Councillor Pollock confirmed that there were 61 crossings in the Borough and the evidence from those showed that these types of crossings were safe.

In conclusion the Leader of the Council stated that she welcomed the Overview and Scrutiny Management’s recommendations on consultation which showed that in future there was a need to ensure that consultations were more meaningful for all residents. The recommendation about business cases highlighted that these should be presented in a way that was clear and understandable to all residents and accessible EqIA statements should also be included.

To summarise, Councillor Pollock stated that he taken on board the concerns raised by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee but felt that the Executive had complied with the criticisms raised and would be happy to take away the comments made about consultation and EqIAs because they could always be improved.  He therefore asked the Executive to confirm their original decision. 

RESOLVED That:

1)        having considered and taken into account the findings and recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee the Executive confirmed its decision of 26 July 2018.  That:

a)        WBC continue with its proposal to provide safe, permanent crossings at the seven locations that currently have a school crossing patroller, and, following their installation, remove the school crossing patrol service once the permanent crossings are complete as set out in Option 2, Appendix 1 of the report;

b)        all affected schools be reminded that they have access to the Council’s road safety and My Journey teams who can facilitate further road safety training for pupils if requested.

2)        the comments made by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee be noted.