Suffolk county councillors have made recommendations to revisit its school transport policy.

The recommendations were given during yesterday's Education and Children's Services Scrutiny Committee meeting following councillor concerns over the existing policy.

Cllr Penny Otton, of Thedwastre South, said: "There will be situations where there are children attending a specific primary school and then having to continue their education in another high school.

"It's really detrimental for them not to be able to continue their education with their peers."

Adrian Orr, Assistant director for education, skills and learning, disagreed, saying: "I would dispute it is actually a bad thing when children separate."

As it stands, children are entitled to SCC-funded school transport when they live more than two miles, if they are aged under eight, or more than three miles, if aged eight or over, from their nearest suitable school. This is determined by the walking distance between the school and their home address.

This means that if a parent applies for a specific school to make sure their child continues their education with their peer group, but it does not classify as their 'nearest suitable school', they are not entitled to SCC-funded transport.

Similar concerns were raised by Cllr Sandy Martin, the deputy leader of the Labour Group, concerning the separation of siblings.

He said: "Splitting siblings is deeply unhelpful and quite a few of the appeals we have have to do with that.

"I cannot possibly understand why it's impossible to have a sibling policy."

Mr Orr argued that if a sibling exception were to be introduced, it would not only considerably increase the council's spending, but also create a higher demand for other exceptions.

This comes as the latest data revealed the council's overspending in school travel to be £5.4m, with forecasts for 2023-24 indicating an £11.4m overspend despite an increase in budget.

The rising costs in providing the service have been particularly steep for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), with a predicted increase of around 200 per cent in pet pupil spending, from £6,565 in 2021-22 to £13,186 in 2025-26.

Although some of the expense is attributed to an increase in the cost of petrol and a decrease in the amount of transport available, councillors are also exploring ways to provide the service more efficiently. For instance, councillors want to look at how to better structure the service so that certain children do not need to be transported by taxi or minibus.

However, members of the committee have assured their commitment to parents and carers of children with SEND.

Cllr Martin said: "The problem of transport for SEND pupils is the biggest problem we have financially. We ought to have better recognition of SEND needs when we are allocating free school transport."

Cllr Joanna Spicer also reiterated the importance of taking into account the specifics of each family who applies.

She said: "We need common sense over how exceptional policies are applied. It's about practical common sense and compassion in recognising personal circumstances."

Officers will now consider the recommendations provided by the committee and discussion will resume at their next meeting on December 14.