a)     

There had been an increase in the number of children and young people with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP);

b)     

There had been work underway across the partnership to support children within mainstream settings without the need for an EHCP but it would take time to embed and would not replace the need for special educational provision;

c)     

Following data analysis, it was forecast that the city would be short of at least 105 special school places by 2030.  Due to capacity pressures within the special school estate the city has found itself in a position where its had to place children in independent special school (ISP’s);

d)     

There were 376 children and young people that attended 37 registered independent schools and post 16 settings, with a total cost of those placements in 2023/24 being approximately £8.6 million;

e)     

Children who had requested a special school place for point of entry in September 2024 had their place confirmed and the 0-25 service had been working with families to confirm as many places as quickly as possible;

f)      

Plymouth City Council was increasing its special school estate wherever possible to increase the number of places available in September. Many special schools had limited space to expand due to the nature of the sites but the Council would expand at the following sites:

·         Cann Bridge – eight additional places

·         Longcause – six additional places 

·         Millford expansion within a temporary satellite provision of an additional 20 to 30 places

g)     

The Local Authority had been receiving funding via the high needs provisional capital allocations grant (HNPCA). The grant should be used to increase the number of SEND places in Plymouth. Plymouth received £15 million via the grant over a seven year period with £13 million remaining to fund expansion. All future expansion needed to be funded by the grant as there would be no additional funding available;

h)     

Increase in resource provision would provide an additional 50 to 75 places across the city;

i)      

Following surveys to Milford’s school which was in poor condition, it was hoped that remodelling of the building could offer an additional 30 places;

j)      

The Council was progressing an option to buy a building near to Longcause school which could provide an additional 100 places to Plymouth, subject to internal remodelling and refurbishment;

k)     

The final option would be to build a new school, however the current HNCPA grant would not be able to cover the cost which was estimated at £26 – 35 million dependant on size and design. 

l)      

There was a rising need in relation to SEM and complex special educational needs nationally which was creating a pressure within the system and mainstream settings, but also in terms of those complex needs that required specialist provision;

m)   

Plymouth had a high level of requests for an EHCP accepted when compared nationally;

n)     

The plan would expand the building spaces for Plymouth’s children that genuinely required a special school place, but it would only work if Plymouth invested in its early and targeted help to ensure children and young people whose needs could be met in mainstream settings to be met in those places;

o)     

Having an EHCP allowed children, their schools and their families to access support and funding beyond the notional £6,000 of funding that is received as an entitlement to all children;

p)     

Plymouth wanted as many children as possible within mainstream schools and mainstream settings to keep them with their communities;

q)     

Plymouth had a high percentage of children with identified social, emotional, mental health needs when compared nationally. A deep dive was underway to understand the SEMH need. Additionally work was underway with schools in Plymouth to focus on early language acquisition in 2025 to work with family hubs, nursery and primary school provisions;

r)     

Family hubs in the city had been working with libraries on language acquisition, which Plymouth wanted to grow;

s)      

The Plymstock Dunstone site was kept should funding become available to build a new school. The trust that occupied the building, stripped the building when they left which left the shell of the building only. Under the building regulations, the Council wouldn’t be able to adapt further and would need to be demolished before it could meet the needs of those children requiring a special school;

t)      

The listing of the proposed building purchase next to Longcause school was not a barrier to providing that provision for Plymouth;

u)     

Plymouth would see an assessment nursery which may lead to EHCP’s being allocated to children at any earlier stage more than before;

v)     

The SEMH deep dive would be undertaken and presented to the SEND Strategic Board in October;

w)    

Feedback from schools in relation to the resourced provision was positive around the direction of travel. There was a significant number of schools that attended the first meeting trying to identify schools in the city that were interested in the resourced provision, including secondary schools. The Council made it clear that there needed to be a matching secondary school for every primary school within resourced provision. Schools wanted assurance that it would be well funded and liked that it would be locality based so children could go to their local school rather than travelling across the city;

x)     

The COVID-19 pandemic had impacted early years children significantly due to the isolation many families had faced and the lack of modelling;

y)     

CAMHS waiting times in Plymouth was strong when compared nationally and in the top quartile. Health waiting times was a key part of the SEND Improvement work and one in which was integrated in the improvement plans;

z)     

Work had been undertaken with Health colleagues around what waiting well looked like. Children and young people provided their feedback around their experience of waiting well and what they felt needed to improve;

aa)   

The Council did provide bus passes which had clear criteria and was an online application process;

bb) 

The Free School Meal (FSM) entitlement would expand due to the expansion of the FSM programme;

cc)   

The Council helped parents/carers in the application process and did refer them to the Plymouth Information Advice and Support for SEND (PIASS) service;

dd) 

The admissions process for Plymouth SEND children and young people;

ee) 

The Council had statutory powers to direct schools to take children and was used as a last resort;

ff)     

The Council’s independent travel programme.