The Corporate Director – Communities submitted a report, the purpose of which, was to advise the Forum of the current School Crossing Patrol (SCP’s) Policy and Site Assessment Criteria.

By way of background information, the Head of Neighbourhood Services confirmed that there were around 24 permanent SCP’s employed by BCBC, with no relief SCP’s employed at the present time. Both the recruitment and retention of these employees had proven difficult, including those occupying relief positions, especially since the removal of a retention payment that had been previously given.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services explained that there were 39 SCP sites, though a few of these were historical sites and needed to be investigated further to determine their exact status and ascertain if they were still required or could be considered for disestablishment.

He then referred Members to Paragraph 3.4 of the report, which gave details of the pertinent pieces of legislation that were relevant in respect of School Crossing Patrols.

Paragraph 3.5 of the report confirmed that while local authorities could appoint School Crossing Patrol Officers at SCP’s, it was not a legal/statutory requirement to do so. These Officers however, if appointed, did have the power to stop traffic, with those drivers that failed to do so facing a fine, penalty points on their driving licence or a possible disqualification under the Road Traffic Act 1984. In terms of children crossing SCP’s the onus was on their parents or guardians to ensure they did safely.

As detailed in the Road Safety GB School Crossing Patrol Service Guidelines, consideration of the provision or disestablishment of SCP’s in any given location should be carefully thought through, and appraisals conducted of the different sites, should be carried out objectively and be capable of withstanding challenge or criticism. Guidance that should be followed represents best practice, but as confirmed above, is not statutory. Details of site assessment criteria etc, was detailed in Appendix 1 to the report.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services recognised that the removal of an SCP could cause some unrest in the community within which it is situate, however, if it did not meet the criterial laid down by the necessary guidelines then the funding for the continued provision of this could be met by the appropriate Town/Community Council or Community group, though the SCP would still require to be employed by BCBC but funded for by the community.

A Member referred to page 12 of the report and some additional factors that should be taken on board when considering Site Assessment Criteria for the provision or disestablishment of a SCP. He noted these factors, however, he added that inspections of sites should not only be carried out as a ‘one-off spot check’, but a few times ie at different times of the day, as traffic is busier at certain times of the day at certain locations as opposed to others. He added that the appropriate Town/Community Council should also be advised when a survey is undertaken, as a form of good practice.

The Group Manager Highway Services explained that careful consideration is given when considering Site Assessment Criteria for a SCP as was detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, including any variance in traffic conditions at different times of the day. This included SCP’s situate outside schools where traffic congestion was examined at school starting and finishing times. He added that the guidelines as showed in the report were followed in as thorough a manner as was possible.

He added that current resources would not necessarily allow for Town/Community Council’s to be advised when such a survey is to be undertaken, though the results of any survey on whether to provide a new SCP or disestablish an existing one could be conveyed to them.

A Member whilst welcoming the report, felt that it would be advantageous if the retention payment previously paid to SCP Officers could be re-introduced, as this may help with the recruitment/retention of these staff. He also asked if these Officers could also issue parking fines in the same way as Civil Parking Enforcement Officers could do.

The Group Manager Highway Services advised that the retention payment had been withdrawn due to budget cuts that had been required under the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS). In terms of SCP Officers issuing tickets for parking fines, he explained that this was not possible as they were not trained to do so and it fell outside the remit of their role.

He further added that he shared Members concerns with regard to members of the public parking their vehicles on the highway in the vicinity of schools, and both the Police and Civil Parking Enforcement Officers were monitoring this issue. However, it was proving a difficult job to control, as the number of schools outweighed the resources that were available to sufficiently monitor this potential problem in and around them.

A Member referred to Paragraph 3.6 of the report where reference was made to School Crossing Patrol Officers having the power to stop traffic on a SCP site. She asked if the vehicle did not stop, then could the School Crossing Patrol Officer take the vehicle registration number of the vehicle and report the driver to the Police.

The Group Manager Highway Services confirmed that this action could be pursued and the Police could issue an appropriate sanction. There may obviously be a difficulty if there were no witnesses to such an offence occurring.

A Member stated that a problem in relation to the recruitment and retention of School Crossing Patrol Officers, could be that the position is fairly low paid and does not offer enough hours of employment. He wondered if the position could be supplemented by further hours as part of a more generic role, such as being combined with a Classroom Assistant or School Janitor role.

The Group Manager Highway Services confirmed that this was something that could be explored further.

A Member closed debate on this item by suggesting that Members of both BCBC and Town/Community Councils, contact the Communities Directorate should they have any concerns about School Crossing Patrol Sites that currently exist, or whether Members felt that these should be added to in any problem areas of the County Borough, should such location meet the Site Assessment Criteria of the Road Safety GB Crossing Patrol Service Guidelines (2012).

RESOLVED:                           That the report be noted.