made the following findings about D’s need to access the community, as part of his education, and related provision
made the following findings about D’s need to access the community, as part of his education, and related provision:
“14…We found that 2:1 adult support is needed when [D] is out in the community, but we also approved the LA’s wording for 6 weekly risk assessments to investigate if it remains appropriate so as to ensure the right level of protective support is in place. However, we determined that the number of hours – 15 – was excessive and should be limited to 5, as no persuasive evidence was provided that it should take place on every teaching day. The parties agreed that as a Key Stage 3 child it is right that [D] experiences the wider world, but we found that 5 hours used flexibly across a teaching week (notwithstanding additional social care time relevant to accessing outdoor experiences) is adequate to meet his needs, within the context of the teaching time each week. We determined 2:1 support is required for 5 hours per week to access the community safely and participate in education related outdoor activities.
15…We determined that the LA’s italicised wording [in WD 16] should be included, i.e. the second person does not need to be an ABA Tutor, but can be an Assistant with training in restraint. This determination is because the evidence on the point does not refer to need for a second ABA Tutor, just someone “……..trained in the same physical intervention skills and showing competence at application of the Behaviour Support plan…..” (Skybound Therapy Report of 4 April 2022)”;
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the Appellant’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- Proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal
- Late agreement that D should be educated ‘otherwise than at school’
- The hearing on 1 April 2022
- Community access and restraint: arguments
- Ms Long’s reports
- Nutrition and sleep
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- stated as follows at paragraph 13
- made the following findings about D’s need to access the community, as part of his education, and related provision
- in relation to nutrition, stated
- in relation to assessment for sleep difficulties and ADHD stated
- in relation to Ms Long’s documentary evidence, stated
- Grounds of appeal
- Legislative framework
- As mentioned above, those matters are dealt with in sections B and F of an EHC Plan respectively
- Regulations
- Events following the Upper Tribunal’s grant of permission to appeal
- Local authority’s arguments
- Ground 1
- the Appellant argues (which is not accepted) that she had no opportunity to make submissions on the qualifications and expertise of the additional supervising support worker. However, the Appellant pr
- Ground 2
- Ground 3 & Ground 4
- Ground 5
- Ground 6
- Appellant’s response to the authority’s written submissions
- Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Grounds 3 & 4
- Conclusions
- Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Grounds 3 and 4
- Ground 5
- Ground 6
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 010 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)