East Riding of Yorkshire Council v Bowers (SEN) [2026] UKUT 31 (AAC)

Case overview

The young person asked the SEND Tribunal to order hours per week of golf coaching and gym training be specified in section F of their EHC plan. This section sets out the required special educational provision.

The SEND Tribunal decided this was educational provision and ordered the local authority (LA) to include the golf and gym provision in the EHC plan.

It also said it would not be appropriate for her special educational provision to be made in a college, and that her education should be made otherwise than in a college under section 61 of the Children and Families Act (CFA) 2014 (this is sometimes called EOTIS).

The LA appealed against the inclusion of the golf and gym provision to the Upper Tribunal. The LA said it was incapable of being special educational provision.

The Upper Tribunal said the SEND Tribunal had made an error of law. The provision the SEND Tribunal had ordered did not have the “necessary nexus”, or connection, with the young person’s special educational needs, as set out in section B of her EHC plan. In an EHC plan, the special educational needs set out in section B must call for, and require, the special educational provision in section F.

In this case, the needs did not call for, and require, the golf coaching and gym training provision, and the Upper Tribunal said it did not address the young person’s severe language disability, or the developmental gap that made her vulnerable.

It did not agree with the LA that the golf and gym provision was 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 young person requires by reason of those needs.

The Upper Tribunal set the decision aside and sent it back to a fresh tribunal to be reconsidered. It also set aside the SEND Tribunal’s decision in respect of placement, as this could not be decided without knowing the special educational provision required.

What does this mean?

Showing certain special educational provision is required

When asking for certain special educational provision to be included in a draft EHC plan or on appeal, you need to explain to and show your LA/the SEND Tribunal the connection between the special educational needs and the provision. You will want to show that the provision you are asking for is ‘called for’ or required by the special educational needs.

If the provision is not reasonably required by the needs, then the LA or SEND Tribunal on appeal will not agree to include it.

What can be special educational provision

The Upper Tribunal confirmed that just because the connection between the golf and gym provision and the young person’s needs was not established in this case, that did not mean such provision could never be special educational provision.

The CFA 2014 is concerned with the identification and specification of special educational needs, as defined in section 20, and what special educational provision is called for as a result of the needs. Once that has been decided, the provision reasonably required to meet those needs must be specified in an EHC plan. This will vary enormously as it depends on the individual, and the personalised provision they require.

Remember, for children and young people from 2 - 25 years, educational or training provision can be special educational provision if it is additional to, or different from, that made generally for others of the same age in mainstream settings in England, and it is called for/required by their special educational needs. This can be a wide range of things, and the CFA 2014 does not carve out any particular provision from potentially being special educational provision.

For children and young people from 0 – 25 years, health or social care provision can also be deemed special educational provision, if it educates or trains the child or young person in some way and is reasonably required to meet the special educational needs. This too can be a range of support and therapies.

The full case report for  East Riding of Yorkshire Council v Bowers (SEN) [2026] UKUT 31 (AAC) is available online.

For more information, please see our pages on What should be in the sections relating to education (Sections B and F) and Appeals about the contents of an EHC plan.

Manage Cookie Preferences