Parents say children face perilous journey across remote roads after a move to restrict free home to school transport to those attending the nearest school was agreed.

Headteachers, governors, parents and community leaders lined up at County Hall in Northallerton on Tuesday to urge North Yorkshire Council’s executive to drop the proposal. It reduces provision to that which is legally required and could save the authority £3m.

The proposal follows school transport becoming the third largest item of expenditure for the authority at £51m a year, behind adult social care and waste management, more than doubling since 2018/19.

The executive unanimously approved the proposal for consideration by a full meeting of the authority later this month.

Reacting to the decision, Claire Calvert, 32, of Keld, told the D&S Times: “We thought we didn’t have to worry at first, but then we sat down and read it and it said that our nearest school could possibly be in a different county."

Her children are aged six and three, and she says under the new policy pupils in the area could end up travelling across the B6270 to Kirkby Stephen to school.

“We thought, 'oh my goodness, surely not,'" said Claire. "Surely we can’t be going over this top. In summer, the road is bad enough and in winter it is 100 times worse.

“Once we’d realised, we immediately decided that we wanted to do something about it.

“I think that there could be a serious accident on this road, we were all saying this and it seems like there’s a thought that cost comes before safety.

“I just don’t know how they think it is physically possible to come over this top – I really don’t.”

Alongside safety, Claire is concerned that the community aspect of the dale could be in jeopardy, with pupils split from friends due to travel costs and eligibility.

She added: “Knowing that these children could be taking this route, there are so many emotions. I feel both angry and sad that the council believe this is acceptable. The drivers would putting not only the children, but themselves at risk.”

In a highly unusual move, the Conservative-run authority’s leader, Councillor Carl Les, opened the meeting with a short speech to underline the council’s projected £48m annual shortfall over the next four years.

He said while the Labour government had won the election on a platform of change it remained unlikely that the council’s financial “context” would change significantly, and it was probable the schools’ Rural Support Grant would be removed.

Cllr Les said: “We will need to proceed as if major savings will still be needed until somebody in Government tells us differently.

“If our policies and procedures are out of step with Government guidance, or out of step with what most other councils are doing, and that is costing us more to deliver services, then we will need a very convincing argument indeed to continue with that extra expense.”

However, speaking on behalf of families in Swaledale and Arkengarthdale, Ian Dawson, a governor at Richmond School, said the proposals would mean children travelling over perilous high routes in winter and the loss of 20 students represented a £120,000 funding cut, equal to the salary of four teaching staff.

The meeting was told the school would see a substantial cut in the breadth of curriculum, end school-based post-16 education in the area, undermine the retention of teachers and be a further reason for families to leave Dales villages.

Jo Colledge, Ingleton Primary School’s headteacher, said families living in Craven villages were living in fear about the changes, which would be phased in over seven years.

Gareth Whitaker, headteacher of Settle College, said being forced to chose a school on transport costs rather than educational preference undermined the principle of educational freedom and that every child who travelled to their nearest school in Cumbria instead of Settle College would represent a financial blow.

He said the authority’s proposals had the potential to segregate education by income, rather than by choice or merit, and simply shifted the financial burden onto families.

Mr Whitaker said: “It’s not just about proximity, it’s about quality of education and how a community has flourished around this institution.

“However, the council’s proposals to require families to pay for school transport could impose a financial burden many cannot bear, amounting to £2,000 annually for two children.”

The meeting heard leading council members say they took comfort that it is using its discretionary powers to extend the eligibility for travel assistance for secondary age pupils from low income families to attend one of their three nearest suitable schools, provided it was more than two miles but not more than 12 miles from their home.

They emphasised alternative ways of saving money on the few non-statutory services the council runs would be “extremely unpalatable” for families and that the authority had a duty to have a balanced budget.

Responding to the safety concerns, the authority’s executive member for education, Councillor Annabel Wilkinson, said all routes used to take pupils to school would all be risk assessed.

Executive member Michael Harrison said while he recognised the litany of concerns that had been raised, the implications for the council losing control of its financial future would be enormous for any discretionary spend the authority had.

He said: “We are the ones that have to have a budget that stops this council going bust.”