Time to invest in rural areas

New threat to county’s schools

EVEN THOUGH the controversial changes to the Government’s funding formula for schools was intended to reduce the imbalance between urban and rural areas, it already appears to be too late for some parts of North Yorkshire. Four small schools have closed in the county in the past six months; at least five others can’t be assured of their future while many more are struggling to come to terms with a growing financial deficit.

North Yorkshire – home to the highest number of schools in the country with less than 50 pupils – is not alone; LEAs across the country are in a similar predicament because extra funding made available by the Government has not kept pace with day-to-day costs and increase in schoolage children. Yet it’s not just the future of schools in countryside communities which is at stake. This issue alone has wider ramifications for the future sustainability of Yorkshire’s rural heartlands. It’s a slippery slope. Take the village school away and the community not only loses its vibrancy and identity but its future. No school lessens the likelihood of young families choosing to live in the area. And, without them, it’s even harder for other essential services to remain viable.

However, while councils are duty-bound to consider all options in these challenging financial times, there does need to be wider recognition, after a general election which paid scant regard to the future of the rural economy, that countryside areas are still not receiving a fair deal from Whitehall. The point is this. If villages become timepieces due to the erosion of services, they will slowly lose their aesthetic appeal. Visitors and tourists will ebb away. And it’s not just the communities concerned that will pay the price. So, too, will HM Treasury in lost income, all the more reason why Ministers should, in fact, be investing in areas like North Yorkshire.