What should be in Section F of an EHC plan?

AB v North Somerset Council (SEN) [2010] UKUT 8 (AAC): This case confirms that being educated out of chronological age group can be special educational provision. If such provision is reasonably required by a child or young person’s special educational needs, then the provision (being educated out of year group) can (and must) be specified in Section F of their EHC plan. 

BZP & BZG v Warwickshire County Council (2026) UKUT 113 (AAC): This case was about including a specific adult-to-pupil ratio in the classroom and psychotherapy sessions in an EHC plan. It shows the importance of having strong evidence in an appeal to show that the provision and level of support requested is necessary and confirms that where therapeutic provision is being sought, evidence from a qualified professional will most likely be needed. 

C v Special Educational Needs Tribunal and London Borough of Greenwich [1999] ELR 5: An LA must make decisions about provision when writing a Statement (now an EHC plan), and cannot delegate this responsibility to someone else, such as a school. (For example, the EHC plan should not say anything like “Support to be determined by the setting”.)

E v Rotherham MBC [2002] ELR 266, [2001] EWHC Admin 432: A Statement (now an EHC plan) cannot provide for provision to be amended unilaterally by the LA. In this case, the Statement said provision could be changed during the year following a ‘formal discussion’. This was not acceptable – any change to a Statement or an EHC plan should follow a proper process (such as annual review) so that the parents have a right of appeal.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council v Bowers (SEN) [2026] UKUT 31 (AAC): The Upper Tribunal found that the golf coaching and gym training provision the young person wanted specified in their EHC plan was not called for, or required, by their special educational needs. As such, the SEND Tribunal was wrong to order the LA to include it. The Upper Tribunal said such provision was not incapable, in any case, of being special educational provision – it all depends on the individual’s special educational needs, and what they call for, or what the child or young person requires by reason of those needs.

L v Clarke and Somerset County Council [1998] ELR 129: Where special educational provision is set out in Part 3 of the Statement (now Section F of an EHC plan) it must be specific, which will normally involve specifying the number of hours of support.

LL and MM v Telford and Wrekin Council (SEN): [2026] UKUT 129 (AAC): This case was about whether reference could be made to a hub (which was a part of a special school but based within a mainstream school) in both Section F and Section I of an education, health and care (EHC) plan. The Upper Tribunal decided that:

1. Parties can agree to include the name of a hub in Section I (using closed brackets after the name of the school/other institution) - and where this agreement happens, the SEND Tribunal  can order the agreed wording into Section I. It can do this under  Regulation 43 of The Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 (The SEND Regulations 2014).
2. Even if the parties don’t agree, the SEND Tribunal can still (under SEND Regulation 43) order the name of a hub to be included in this way as something called a “consequential amendment”. It may decide to do this if the EHC plan would be deficient without doing so.
3. The name of a hub (and possibly even providers of other sorts of special educational provision) can be included in Section F, where that is needed to make sure the provision reasonably required is specific enough.
4. The SEND Tribunal can also order it in for this reason.

R v Cumbria County Council ex parte P [1994] ELR 337: Simply referring to a financial banding or an amount of money to describe what special educational provision will be made in Part 3 of a Statement (now Section F of an EHC plan) is not specific enough to satisfy the law’s requirement.

SB v Herefordshire County Council [2018] UKUT 141(AAC): This case looked at how small class sizes can be specified in EHC plans.  It may be necessary to specify staff:pupil ratio and/or class size where this is required to deliver the provision the child or young person needs. If parents or young people feel that a particular class size or staff:pupil ratio must be specified (for example, in support of a request for a particular school), they should get evidence as to why this is required. Where they have such evidence, they should request that the EHC plan specifies the size of the group by reference to a lower and upper range (such as ‘8-10 children’). 

Staffordshire County Council v JM (SEN) [2016] UKUT 246 (AAC): Transport is generally not special educational provision and should not usually be included in Section F of the EHC plan.

Worcestershire County Council v SE [2020] UKUT 217 (AAC) and London Borough of Redbridge v HO (SEN) [2020] UKUT 323 (AAC): These linked cases considered how specific an EHC plan should be, and provided a series of general principles to be followed in order to achieve practical and enforceable plans.