LINDA HILSDON |
👍
Tue 14 Jan 2014, 12:16 (last edited on Fri 17 Jan 2014, 10:16)
|
Helen Wilkinson |
👍
Tue 17 Dec 2013, 08:43 The consultation period has been extended into January. The Council are beginning to get an idea of the strength of public opinion. Please complete it and add your voice. |
Helen Wilkinson |
👍
Wed 11 Dec 2013, 11:09 The consultation closes on 20th December; if you have not already done so, please complete it before the deadline. The number of responses is the only thing that the council officers must legally report back when the matter is discussed in council in January. |
Chris J |
👍
Thu 28 Nov 2013, 15:36 I noticed that one side of Sturt Close is Chipping Norton school catchment and the other side is Woodstock or Witney (as is Woodstock Rd) but I thought it was based on mileage by road not As the crow flies? I certainly would not want my children cycling those roads to any of the secondry schools everyday. |
Peter Kenrick |
👍
Thu 28 Nov 2013, 09:51 Please do engage with the consultation process and register your concerns and objections. The consultation ends on 20th December so ensure that you get your responses in by then. Details can be found at https://myconsultations.oxfordshire.gov.uk/consult.ti/transport2015/consultationHome as per Helen's original post on this thread. You may also like to consider copying your comments to our County Councillor Cllr Rodney Rose at rodney.rose@oxfordshire.gov.uk and/or the Leader of OCC Cllr Ian Hudspeth at ian.hudspeth@oxfordshire.gov.uk There are still a number of public consultation meetings planned on this issue including two "local" ones at Woodstock and Burford. We understand that Cllr Ian Hudspeth will be available at each meeting to answer questions alongside senior council officers Roy Leach (School Organisation & Planning Manager) and Neil Darlington (Admissions & Transport Services Manager). These meetings are an excellent opportunity to raise your concerns directly with them. The full list of public meetings still to be held (all starting at 7pm) is: Make your views known! |
Helen Wilkinson |
👍
Wed 27 Nov 2013, 10:12 The problem is that FOI requests can only provide information on what the Council knows - not what it does not know. As they have chosen not to ask the question 'will you pay to use the bus to your existing partner school?' they themselves do not know the answer - so cannot provide the information. The action group OSBAG are now taking legal action to get the consultation stopped due to errors in the process - but I would urge as many people as possible to respond before the deadline in case this fails. |
Richard Fairhurst
(site admin) |
👍
Wed 27 Nov 2013, 09:12 Agreed. www.theyworkforyou.com/ is a really easy way to make FoI requests. |
Harriet Baldwin |
👍
Wed 27 Nov 2013, 08:54 a situation that no amount of requests for information on costs has yielded results. If that is genuinely the case, and the people asking for the info have worded their requests correctly, that's illegal and you should make a complaint under the Freedom of Information Act. The council should either say they don't have the information (which leads to a whole ot of other problems) or, they should supply you with it, or give a valid reason why you can't have it. |
Helen Wilkinson |
👍
Wed 27 Nov 2013, 08:30 The whole scenario is very complicated - there are maps on the OCC website of which addresses are affected. The problem is that OCC have not asked parents in Year 5 and below whose addresses are affected whether they would pay to use an OCC bus to the current catchment school or whether they would opt to go to the nearest school. Their suggested savings are based on the assumption that all parents would pay to go the existing partner school. For many parents this is not affordable. OCC would then have to provide transport to two schools - a situation that no amount of requests for information on costs has yielded results. The only fair solution is to go for set transport areas, based on existing partnerships and to do a proper consultation on changing partnership arrangements, if there are surplus school places at one school and other schools are oversubscribed - but this is not an option on the consultation document. The second issue is around the cost of post 16 transport, just at the time when the school leaving age has been raised! |
Andrea Swinburne |
👍
Wed 27 Nov 2013, 06:39 I got the letter through a few days ago about all this. Bit confused as the last paragraph says: |
Harriet Baldwin |
👍
Tue 26 Nov 2013, 17:44 We have repeatedly asked the council to provide us with the financial modelling they have done around these scenarios, but they refuse to provide Have you done a FOI request? Local councils are required to give out information if asked. |
Helen Wilkinson |
👍
Tue 26 Nov 2013, 11:40 Information from OSBAG. - Primary: your parents may find that, although they are still in the catchment area for the same secondary school, they would be faced with a £600 bill for… |
Helen Wilkinson |
👍
Tue 26 Nov 2013, 11:27 (last edited on Tue 26 Nov 2013, 14:19) I would like to once again raise awareness of the proposals by Oxfordshire County Council to change their policies on home to school transport. These proposals were abandoned in the summer but have come up again - please take action. There are a number of public meetings arranged to address concerns directly with OCC. https://myconsultations.oxfordshire.gov.uk/consult.ti/transport2015/consultationHome This time, OCC have made it clear that Charlbury will be affected, please look at the map on the OCC website. Addresses marked with a black dot are closest to Chipping Norton School You might also like to look at the Facebook page of OSBAG,a campaigning group initially set up by Warriner School, Bloxham parents who are very badly affected. The OCC proposals are very badly thought through and are bad for education generally,it destroys the whole concept of partner Primary and Secondary schools which aid the vital transition at age 11. Please help kill off these proposals!
|
You must log in before you can post a reply.