Debate around North Yorkshire Council’s school transport policy is about the kind of rural North Yorkshire we want to build - Peter Lacey

Fairness is easy to promise on paper. Delivering it justly in the real world is much harder. When North Yorkshire Council changed its school transport policy in 2024, replacing catchment-based eligibility with a “nearest suitable school” model, the stated aim was greater consistency and fairness.

The council argued that the new approach would treat different types of schools equally, protect existing entitlements for younger children and extend support for families on low incomes. These examples, I would suggest, do indeed improve fairness.

However, a fourth claim to improved fairness, that every child now has only one nearest school is, in my view, flawed. On paper, this principle may sound reasonable. But the experience of families across North Yorkshire tells a more complicated story.

The fundamental problem is that treating every child according to the same rigid formula does not produce a fair outcome, particularly in a county as large and rural as North Yorkshire.

For many urban families, there may be several schools within a short and walkable distance. For rural families, the reality is very different. A child might live several miles from their nearest suitable school, with limited public transport and roads that are difficult or potentially unsafe to walk along.

The council’s own figures show that the impact has fallen disproportionately on some rural communities, with a significantly higher proportion of Year 7 pupils losing transport eligibility compared to children living in urban areas.

This is not just an administrative change. It has real consequences for family finances, children’s journeys to school, and the future of our rural communities and undermines fairness in a number of ways.

For example, working families just above the low-income threshold can find themselves caught in a “squeezed-middle” trap, with parents facing the prospect of reducing their working hours, taking on debt, or paying significant transport costs just to get their children to school.

Safety is another important concern. North Yorkshire council says walking routes are assessed using national guidance, and that families can request a safety assessment where they believe a route is unsafe. The current review proposes greater clarity around how routes and distances are assessed and some additional flexibility where routes are unreasonable.

But families living in rural communities know their roads. They know where the pavements disappear, where visibility is poor, where roads are unlit, and where a route that looks reasonable on a map can feel very different on the ground.

If parents disagree with an assessment, they might have to navigate an appeals process to challenge the decision. That can place an additional stress on families who are already trying to manage work, childcare, and the practicalities of getting their children to school.

There are also impacts on rural life as we know it. When children are required to attend schools outside their traditional catchment areas, small village schools can lose pupils from their own communities. Falling pupil numbers can put pressure on budgets, staffing and the long-term viability of these schools.

These are not just educational institutions. In villages, schools are often at the heart of community life.

That is why the debate about school transport is also a debate about the kind of rural North Yorkshire we want to build.

Peter Lacey is the Lib Dem leader of the opposition at North Yorkshire Council.