PLANS by Thurrock Council to scrap free school buses for children in the East Tilbury area look dead in the water after they were savaged by a cross party selection of councillors last night – but it could yet be that the authority will try to get them passed through a process of 'legal gymnastics'.

Thurrock Nub News has reported extensively on the issue after breaking the story last year and most recently highlighted the objections of and fears from St Clere's School in Stanford-le-Hope where 376 children from the village and surrounding rural area are educated.

The driving force behind the scheme is making savings to the council's budget for next year. Director of children's services, Sheila Murphy, told the committee her department was already £800,000 over its budget of 'roundabout £1 million' on home to school transport this year - though she didn't have exact figures to hand.

Pressed by Cllr John Kent she confirmed that a saving of £150,000 had already been 'baked into' next year's budget by axing some home to school transport costs. That's a saving equivalent to Ms Murphy's annual salary!

The plan proposes scrapping the buses, meaning the children would either have to travel by train, walk, cycle or be taken to school by car. All those alternatives were mocked as impractical by councillors at (Tuesday, 9 February) last night's meeting of the council's children's overview and scrutiny committee where the key issue was pointed out by East Tilbury ward councillor Fraser Massey.

He told the meeting that government legislation dictates that any route to any school that does not have a safe walking route means the local authority must provide free transport.

Everyone at last night's meeting, even the architect of the report put to councillors, conceded that the walking route to St Clere's from East Tilbury is not safe.

However, report author Sarah Williams, strategic lead for the council's education support service, said that the council was still considering the route and its legal team were looking at ways round the legal definition of unsafe.

That was summarised by Cllr Massey as putting saving money before children's lives – a view shared by other committee members.

Ms Williams was given a rough ride by councillors who quizzed her over all aspects of the proposal. She carried the burden of responding to questions alone, with Ms Murphy silent.

Cllr Kent's questions prompted the concession that the driving force behind the scheme was saving money – being told 'pressures on the budget and the need for savings' were paramount. Ms Williams conceded that officers had not even visited or walked the planned route – nor checked out the congestion it would cause in Stanford if parents met the shortfall and drove children to school.

Nor could she give members figures about the environmental impact caused by the significant increase in traffic emissions if six buses were taken off the road and replaced by hundreds of cars.

Ms Williams conceded that she now believed the walking route was unsafe – but the council was now looking at 'other options'. But those options, including taking a train were discussed and found to have significant problems!

That led to fears, even though Ms Williams conceded several times that the route was unsafe, that the council might try to get it deemed safe to push the scrapping of buses through.

Cllr Graham Snell wondered by the council hadn't looked at the option of retaining the existing buses but coming up with a payment system for children, which would include an allowance for those who couldn't afford it. Ms Williams said 'everything is being considered' even though that idea has not appeared in her report!

Focus returned to the legal advice the council had taken which previously deemed the walking route to be safe, with committee chair Cllr Sara Muldowney pressing Ms Williams about it, saying: "It appears the legal advice was given without anyone actually going and walking the route. Is that right?"

Ms Williams conceded it was and that the legal advice was taken on 'looking at the law' and "it is something we are still investigating at the moment. We are looking at all of the options. We now need to look at everything we have gathered, we are further discussing things with legal, who might offer further advice".

Cllr Snell said he did not want to see the council engaging in 'legal gymnastics' to try and get round the unsafe road, saying: "It is very, very clear there is no safe walking route. What I really don't want to see is the council trying to wangle legal gymnastics. I don't want us to go down the legal route to make it look safe when it isn't. Let's not go down that route."

"Cllr Muldowney said: "It's very clear to the committee that we can't declare this route as safe and advised officers to watch the Nub News video showing the route."

Councillors voted unanimously not to recommend the proposal, which now goes to the cabinet for a decision.

Ms Williams, despite proposing the idea in her report, was forced to concede in summing up: "That walking route cannot be deemed safe, we wouldn't expect children to walk that route."

That was a message that councillors urged her to take to cabinet!

After the meeting Cllr Massey told Nub News: "I am thankful to the chair of the committee for allowing a voice to the East Tilbury ward in this. I am very pleased to see councillors from all political angles saw how bad this report and how bad it looks under scrutiny and I hope cabinet makes the right decision for the safety of the borough's children. We should never put our children's safety against budgetary decisions.

"There were some wise words from many councillors to state what was obvious to residents - that the route can never be safe with current traffic levels.

"I welcome new initiatives to get more walking and cycling in the area but stopping these school buses is not something I can support and will continue to fight it wherever possible."