[2025] UKUT 010 (AAC)

The local authority’s submissions address these grounds together.

The local authority respectfully disagree with the Upper Tribunal’s observation, in paragraph 66 of its permission determination, that “the FtT must have anticipated the need for D to be (physically) restrained during 2:1 supervision or otherwise”. The EHC Plan identifies no need for physical restraint. The EHC Plan provision that refers to restraint was simply the First-tier Tribunal’s attempt to summarise Skybound’s evidence that community supervisors should be “trained in the same physical intervention skills and showing competence at application of the Behaviour Support Plan” (see Skybound’s report). Furthermore, the reference to restraint is found in the ‘provider / by whom’ column of the EHC Plan rather than the provision column. The EHC Plan does not order restraint provision; the Plan, in this respect, only determines the training required of those who supervise D in the community. The authority submit that “restraint training would form part of the standard training provided [for] those who accompany in the community and is not reflective of D’s need”.

In conclusion, the local authority submit that the First-tier Tribunal was not required to set out, in the EHC Plan, permitted types of restraint because the Plan did not provide for restraint. Likewise, the Tribunal was not required to address restraint in its reasons.