Accessibility Skip to main content

Engagement on Post-16 Personal Transport Budgets Policy

An online engagement was carried out from Monday 15 June 2026 to midnight on Sunday 13 July 2026 for Torbay Council’s new Post-16 Personal Transport Budgets (PTB) Policy. 

Executive Summary 

The policy to be implemented in September 2026 is for young people aged 16-plus people who are eligible for home to school transport. PTBs provide financial support directly to families to enable them to make their own transport arrangements, where appropriate, as an alternative to council-arranged transport.

Introduction 

A page was created on our website with information about PTBs and links to the survey, the policy, and guides for parents/carers and young people. 

The engagement was carried out online using a form with an introduction, links to the policy document and links to the pages on our website including information and advice for parents/carers and children and young people. 

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the policy and there was a space to leave a comment.

The engagement was promoted on the Council’s social media platforms, in articles in email newsletters, and by direct emails to schools/colleges and other stakeholders.  

Summary of responses received 

22 responses were received to the survey. 13 respondents (59%) agreed with the policy, nine (41%) disagreed. 21 of the 22 respondents gave a comment.

Summary of comments 

There were 18 comments from residents and three from local organisations.

Most comments focused on flexibility, independence, parental choice, safety, and concerns about PTBs becoming a replacement for existing transport support. 

Residents were more divided, with support for flexibility and independence balanced by concerns about loss of specialist transport and PTBs becoming the default option.  

Organisations were unanimously supportive in principle, but sought safeguards and policy improvements rather than fundamental changes to the proposal.  

Across both groups, the strongest common message was that PTBs should operate as a genuine choice alongside existing transport arrangements, particularly for learners with additional needs. 

Back to top

Analysis of comments 

The following thematic analysis of the comments was carried out with the assistance of CoPilot AI. The results have been checked and verified by an Engagement and Communications Officer. 

Theme 1: Greater flexibility and personal choice 

This was the most common positive theme. 

Respondents felt PTBs could provide more flexibility for families and allow transport arrangements to be tailored to individual needs. Several comments highlighted that families could choose the most suitable way to support travel on different days. 

Key points included: 

  • Greater flexibility for learners and families. 
  • More control over transport arrangements. 
  • Easier for parents who already provide transport. 
  • Ability to combine different travel options according to circumstances.  

Example comments included: 

  • "Increase the options and flexibility for learners." 
  • "A more flexible approach to suit learners who need transport." 
  • "Makes it possibly easier if parents have to drive." 
  • "Flexibility." 

Theme 2: Promoting independence 

Many supportive respondents believed PTBs could help young people develop independence and prepare for adulthood. 

Comments suggested PTBs could: 

  • Encourage independent travel. 
  • Support transition into adulthood. 
  • Enable young people to build confidence. 
  • Provide more personalised travel arrangements.  

One parent described how a PTB could allow their child to travel independently when able, while still allowing family support when needed.  

Theme 3: Concerns about PTBs becoming the default option 

This was the most significant concern among those who disagreed. 

Several respondents accepted that PTBs might work for some families but worried that: 

  • PTBs would eventually become the standard offer. 
  • Families would feel pressured to accept them. 
  • Traditional transport provision, particularly taxis, would become harder to access. 
  • Cost savings would take priority over individual needs. 

Comments frequently requested reassurance that PTBs would remain genuinely optional and that existing transport support would still be available where required.  

Theme 4: Suitability and safety for learners with additional needs 

A number of responses focused on whether PTBs would be appropriate for all learners. 

Respondents raised concerns about: 

  • Learners who cannot travel independently. 
  • Young people with complex needs. 
  • Uncertainty around what constitutes "safe and appropriate" transport. 
  • Who would assess suitability.  

There was a strong message that transport arrangements should be based on individual need rather than cost.  

Theme 5: Continued access to education 

Several respondents linked transport support to the right to continue education after age 16. 

Comments suggested: 

  • Young people should be able to access education regardless of transport barriers. 
  • Support should continue for the duration of education rather than being linked solely to age. 
  • Transport difficulties can create barriers to participation in further education. 

Theme 6: Concerns about use of public funds 

Some respondents questioned whether direct payments would be spent on transport. 

Concerns included: 

  • Potential misuse of the money. 
  • Difficulty ensuring funds are used for transport purposes. 
  • Preference for alternatives such as bus passes or approved transport services.  

A small number of respondents suggested vouchers, bus passes or council-approved transport providers would provide greater accountability.  

Theme 7: Need for assurance on taxi provision 

A recurring point from both residents and organisations was the need to retain taxi transport for those who require it. 

Respondents stated that: 

  • Some learners will continue to need specialist transport. 
  • PTBs should complement, not replace, taxi provision. 
  • Families should retain a genuine choice between transport options.  

One organisation specifically requested assurance that taxi provision would remain available where needed.  

Theme 8: Wider transport and sustainability opportunities 

One organisational response supported the proposal but suggested broadening the policy further. 

Recommendations included: 

  • Considering walking, wheeling, cycling and adapted cycles. 
  • Supporting e-bikes where appropriate. 
  • Funding travel training and confidence-building activities. 
  • Recognising environmental, health and independence benefits.  

 

Back to top

Key messages 

The consultation shows broad support for PTBs in principle, particularly where they increase flexibility and independence. However, support is heavily qualified by concerns that PTBs could become the default option and reduce access to specialist transport. 

The strongest messages emerging from the comments are: 

  • PTBs must remain a genuine choice. 
  • Taxi and specialist transport provision should remain available where needed. 
  • Decisions should prioritise safety and individual need over cost. 
  • Clear assessment criteria and safeguards are required. 
  • PTBs should support independence while recognising that not all learners can travel independently. 
  • Consideration should be given to a wider range of transport solutions, including active and sustainable travel options.  

 

Back to top

Summary of partners/stakeholders responses 

Residents (18 responses) 

Residents expressed a mix of support and concern about the proposed PTBs.  

Main reasons for support:

  • Flexibility and choice. 
  • Many residents felt PTBs would give families more control over travel arrangements. 
  • Respondents welcomed the ability to choose transport options that best meet individual circumstances.  
  • Promoting independence. 
  • Several respondents believed PTBs would support young people to develop independence and prepare for adulthood. 
  • One parent highlighted that a PTB could support a flexible mix of independent travel and family support depending on the young person's needs on a particular day.  

Supporting access to education 

  • Some respondents felt PTBs could help address transport barriers faced by post-16 learners and support continued participation in education.  

Main concerns 

  • PTBs becoming the default option.
  • The most common concern was that PTBs would gradually replace existing transport provision. 
  • Several respondents questioned whether PTBs would remain genuinely optional in practice.  

Impact on learners with additional needs 

  • Respondents questioned whether PTBs would be suitable for all young people, particularly those with complex needs or those unable to travel independently. 
  • Concerns were raised about how "safe and appropriate" transport would be assessed.  

Cost versus need 

  • Some residents believed the proposal was driven primarily by financial considerations. 
  • There were concerns that cost-effectiveness could be prioritised over individual need and safety.  

Use of public funds 

  • A small number of respondents questioned whether direct payments would always be used for transport purposes. 
  • Alternative suggestions included bus passes or approved transport providers.  

Retention of taxi provision 

  • Several residents wanted assurances that specialist transport and taxi services would remain available where needed.  

Organisations (3 responses) 

All three organisations supported the proposal in principle, although each suggested amendments or safeguards.  

Education institution

Position: Supportive, subject to safeguards.  

Key themes 

  • Requested assurance that taxi transport would continue to be available for learners who need it. 
  • Sought confirmation that PTBs would remain optional and only be used by families who wish to take them up.  

Charity

Position: Supportive.  

Key themes 

  • Highlighted the importance of ensuring support continues until education is complete rather than ending due to age-related eligibility rules. 
  • Focused on maintaining access to education for young people with additional needs.  

Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO)

Position: Supportive, with recommendations to strengthen the policy.  

Key themes 

  • Supported the flexibility, choice and independence offered by PTBs. 
  • Recommended explicitly recognising walking, wheeling, cycling, adapted cycles and e-bikes as transport options where appropriate. 
  • Suggested PTBs should support travel training, confidence-building and independent travel skills. 
  • Highlighted potential public health, environmental and long-term financial benefits of active travel options.  

Back to top

Comparison between stakeholder groups

Theme: Flexibility and choice  

Residents: Strong support from many respondents

Organisations: Supported by all organisations  

Theme: Independence  

Residents: Frequently mentioned benefit  

Organisations: Supported, particularly through personalised travel arrangements 

Theme: PTBs becoming the default  

Residents: Major concern  

Organisations: Requests for assurances that choice remains genuine  

Theme: Taxi provision  

Residents: Significant concern  

Organisations: Specifically raised by one organisation 

Theme: Safety and suitability  

Residents: Frequently raised concern  

Organisations: Focus on ensuring individual needs remain central  

Theme: Access to education  

Residents: Raised by several respondents  

Organisations: Particularly emphasised by charity  

Theme: Wider transport options

Residents: Rarely mentioned  

Organisations: Strongly promoted by CIO  

Theme: Environmental benefits  

Residents: Not raised by residents  

Organisations: Raised by CIO  

 

Back to top

Responses to survey question  

Question: Do you agree or disagree with our policy on Personal Transport Budgets for eligible post-16 learners?  

Agree: 13 (59%)

Disagree: 9 (41%)

 

Back to top