How safe are Rhondda Cynon Taf Council School Walking Route Assessments

Has the penny finally dropped?

Rhondda Cynon Taf (RCT) Council has published its School Walking Route Assessment—a series of documents outlining the walking routes children are expected to use when they return to school in September. This change stems from a Welsh Government policy, endorsed by Labour councillors in RCT, which effectively ends free school transport for many pupils. The reason given? The Council claims it can no longer afford it.

But residents are rightly asking: if the Council can’t fund essential services like school transport, why is it spending millions elsewhere?

Rhondda Cynon Taf Council Cuts Basic Services While Funding Non-Essential Projects

Rather than focusing on its core responsibilities, RCT Council has diverted significant funds toward ventures that many feel fall outside the remit of a local authority. These include purchasing property, investing in solar farms, and even developing a tea garden in Pontypridd.

Then there’s the Cardiff Capital Region City Deal. Since 2015, RCT Council has contributed over £9 million towards this initiative, with £1 million budgeted each year. While economic development is important, these figures raise serious questions about priorities—especially when essential services are being cut.

Starting September 2025, many children in RCT will be required to walk up to three miles to school. This policy has sparked widespread concern about the impact on pupils’ health, safety, and education—particularly in a region known for unpredictable weather and a lack of guaranteed safe walking routes.

Children arriving at school soaked through and exhausted are unlikely to be in the right frame of mind to learn. While walking does promote physical activity and could help address childhood obesity, such benefits rely on safe, practical, and weather-appropriate conditions—which are far from guaranteed.

Councillor Graham Stacey voiced his concerns, calling the policy “really, really sad.” Parents, too, have raised serious objections, highlighting fears over their children’s safety and ability to focus in the classroom without the support of reliable school transport.

In short, while encouraging walking may sound progressive in theory, the reality in RCT is far more complex. Without safe routes, shelter from harsh weather, and a genuine consideration of children’s well-being, this policy risks doing more harm than good.

It’s time to ask whether the Council’s current spending priorities truly reflect the needs of the communities it serves.

---

ADDENDUM: Redstart Disclaimer and What It Really Means for Parents

The Walking Route Assessment report used by Rhondda Cynon Taf Council was prepared by Redstart (a Capita company), and it includes the following disclaimer:

GENERAL DISCLAIMER: This report has been prepared by Redstart in favour of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (“the Client”) and is for the sole use and benefit of the Client…

This disclaimer essentially limits Redstart’s liability for the content of the walking route report. It makes several key points:

1. The report was made for the Council—not for parents or the public.
2. Redstart relied on information from third parties and did not independently verify it.
3. They disclaim responsibility for any inaccuracies due to that third-party information.

While this might seem like a standard legal note, it has serious implications. It suggests that:

• The routes assessed may not have been thoroughly or independently vetted for safety.
• The Council is using a report that doesn’t explicitly label routes as “safe”—only “assessed.”
• Despite this, the Council is acting on the report to implement a significant policy shift.

Importantly, UK law does not allow either the Council or Redstart to completely escape responsibility—particularly if a child is injured due to negligence, or if known dangers were ignored. Using the term “Walking Route Assessment” instead of “Safe Routes to School” could be an intentional move to avoid implying any guarantee of safety.

If you’re concerned about a specific route’s safety, it’s strongly advised to raise the issue directly with the school or the Council. Local authorities still carry a statutory duty to ensure road safety, especially for schoolchildren—even if their language suggests otherwise.

https://www.rctcbc.gov.uk/EN/Resident/ParkingRoadsandTravel/Travel/SchoolandCollegeTransport/RelatedDocuments/Walkingroutesassessment/RoutestoStJohnBaptistChurchinWalesSchoolandAberdareCommunitySchool.pdf

Below is a letter from Tina, Laura and Kaleigh they along with others have campaigned to reverse RCT Labour councillor’s decision to cut school transport.

Dear Editor

We as parents have been running a campaign for the future generation and current minors attending both Welsh and English secondary schools.  Home to school transport has been decided to not continue in RCT for some living under the 3 mile threshold.  Welsh speaking schools will now suffer from this decision, who will now have no other option than to attend the closest school to their home. 

Not only this the safety around RCT has decreased with young girls and women as young as 11 years old has been tried to be snatched by men.  What has it got to take to get the attention before a child has gone missing, these are vunarable students starting their future. 

With no reliable transport, or nowhere to store wet clothes when arriving to school. The only option some parents have said they will not send their child to school, they would rather have a child safe at home rather them being at risk. 

There has been incidents with toppled cars, vehicles mounting pavements while public members are walking towards them, parked cars on the full width of pavement, making no other way than to walk on the busy road.  with a report of an increased number of drivers caught speeding in 20mph zones.  

please find attached our report with statements from parents and grandparents, and our findings from our research. Youre more than welcome to use statements from the report, but please erase the name of parents. All students who will NO longer receive transport will have a letter delivered from friday april 11th.  The new approved ‘safe’ routes will be issued on the RCT website by MIDDAY.

regards 

Tina, Laura and Kaleigh 

Parents of RCT 

Sub Route – Penderyn Road to Ysgol Gyfun Rhydywaun via, Penderyn Road,
Rhigos Road, Brecon Road (joins the Main Route to Ysgol Gyfun Rhydywaun).

Routes to Ysgol Gyfun Rhydywaun: Where is the route from the south of Cynon Valley to Ysgol Gyfun Rhydywaun Rhondda Cynon Taf Council?

The Main Route – The Feel Good Factory to Mountain Ash Comprehensive School (rear
entrance) via, Abercynon Road, Main Road, Pentwyn Avenue (B4275), Abercynon
Road, Vaughan Terrace, Rheola Street, Penrhiwceiber Road, Miskin Road, Oxford
Street, Mountain Ash Town Bridge, Ffrwd Crescent, New Road, Dyffryn Road, footpath
behind Rugby Ground to the rear gates of Mountain Ash Comprehensive School.

• Sub Route 1 – Pentwyn Bridge to Mountain Ash Town Bridge via, Glamorgan Street,
  (leaves the Main Route) Hawthorn Terrace, Llanwonno Road, High Street, and Pryce
  Street, to rejoin the Main Route at Mountain Ash Town Bridge.
• Sub Route 2 – Glamorgan Street to Penrhiwceiber Road via, Penybryn Road, (leaves
  Sub Route 1) Harris View, Cross Street, to rejoin Main Route at Penrhiwceiber Road).

RCT School Walking Route Assessment

The disclaimer is essentially Redstart (part of the Capita group) limiting their legal liability for the safe routes to school guide they prepared for Rhondda Cynon Taf Council. Here’s what it means for parents:

1. The guide was created by Redstart specifically for the Council, not for parents directly.
2. Redstart is stating that they relied on information from third parties (not their own direct assessments) when creating the guide and haven’t independently verified all that information.
3. They’re disclaiming responsibility for any inaccuracies or incompleteness in the guide that might result from those third-party sources.

As for responsibility if a child gets hurt, this disclaimer doesn’t completely shield either Redstart or the Council from liability. The legal situation is more complex:

• The Council still has statutory duties regarding child safety that can’t be fully disclaimed.
• Parents maintain primary responsibility for their children’s safety to and from school.
• The disclaimer attempts to limit Redstart’s liability, but doesn’t eliminate it entirely, especially in cases of negligence.
• UK law limits how much liability can be disclaimed through such statements.

This disclaimer is primarily Redstart protecting themselves against potential legal claims by clarifying the limitations of their report – it doesn’t fully transfer responsibility to parents if a child is injured on a route identified as “safe.”

If you’re concerned about a specific route’s safety, I’d recommend discussing it directly with the school or Council rather than relying solely on the guide.

This document was created by a consultant working for the Rhondda Cynon Taf Council and it states RCT School Walking Route Assessment does not say safe routes to school does that mean some of the routes are not safe so is the council liable?

The terminology used—”RCT School Walking Route Assessment” versus “Safe Routes to School”—is an important distinction that could have legal implications.

By using “Walking Route Assessment” rather than explicitly calling them “Safe Routes,” the council appears to be carefully positioning the document as an evaluation of routes rather than a guarantee of safety. This nuanced wording suggests they’re documenting available walking routes without explicitly claiming all routes meet a particular safety standard.

Regarding liability, this naming choice could be part of a risk management strategy, but it doesn’t automatically shield the council from responsibility. UK law generally holds that local authorities have duties regarding road safety, particularly for children traveling to school. The council may still be liable if:

They’ve identified hazards but failed to address them reasonably

The assessment was conducted negligently

They’ve recommended routes with known significant dangers

Courts would likely examine whether the council exercised reasonable care in their assessment process, regardless of what they titled the document. The disclaimer we discussed earlier further attempts to limit liability, particularly for the consultant (Redstart), but doesn’t eliminate the council’s fundamental responsibilities.

If you’re concerned about a specific route that appears unsafe, you might want to raise this directly with the council, as they retain oversight responsibility for school travel safety in their jurisdiction, regardless of how the assessment document is labeled.