Agenda and draft minutes

None.

Members who requested the decision be called-in were asked to speak first, outlining their reasons for doing so.

Councillor Dymock:

Councillor Dymock stated that the consultation on the proposed changes was poorly timed and did not adequately inform or engage affected families as it took place in the summer holidays, when families are not in their usual routines. This reduced significantly the likelihood that parents or guardians would have had the time to engage fully with the process, and many families might not have even been aware that the consultation was taking place.

She noted that the Cabinet Member discussed the timing at the last meeting of People Scrutiny and referred to the general election as the reason for delay, but Rhondda Cynon Taf ran its consultation from 27th November 2023 to 8th February 2024, and it was extended by 3 weeks to give more people the chance to participate – she asked why MCC did not do the same. She suggested that the outreach was limited, with only 411 responses and 11 emails received – a low response rate that raises serious concerns about the sufficiency of the Council’s outreach efforts, especially in regard to rural families. Many of these rely on school transport due to the lack of safe walking routes and limited public transport options; families therefore required detailed, localised information about how the proposed changes would affect specifically, but there was a lack of granular detail about the communities and individuals who would be affected, making it difficult for families to fully grasp the consequences of the policy changes’ implications – without this, many parents would not have been able to make informed contributions to the consultation or fully appreciate the potential impact on their children’s daily lives.

Councillor Dymock sought clarity as to whether the Equality Impact Assessment was published at the same time as the consultation; if not, she argued this would have limited the ability of respondents to fully assess the implications of the proposals and would undermine the transparency of the consultation.

Councillor Kear:

Councillor Kear supported Councillor Dymock’s comments. He asked if the Cabinet Member could advise who gave the legal advice regarding the timing of the consultation and whether that can be made available to members. ACTION – to be shared with members

Councillor Murphy:

Councillor Murphy highlighted safe walking routes as an example of the importance of proper consultation. He appreciated that the current numbers need consideration each year but fundamental routes, e.g. Caerwent-Caldicot, should have been identified. A resident whose children would be affected by the proposals informed Councillor Murphy that there is no safe walking route from Caerwent to Caldicot, with blind corners and a lack of pavement in some places – had the consultation been longer and at a more appropriate time, examples such as these, in which walking routes for children would be irresponsible, might have been put forward. This argument could surely be replicated in other parts of county.

Citing further examples of unsafe  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.