Local SEND Reform Plans · 40 documents asked · 40 answered · 0 not stated · run 21 September 2026
When this council describes its inclusion bases or resourced provision, does it name what would make a place actually work, such as on-site therapy staff, flexible integration with mainstream, or a properly designed space, or does it only give a number of places and a budget?
Want a question surveyed?
Tell us the question and the set. A new survey takes a morning.
Ask for a surveyHow councils describe inclusion bases and resourced provision
Most councils go beyond bare numbers and budgets. The typical pattern is to name specific enabling features: sensory rooms, breakout or regulation spaces, acoustic and lighting adaptations, and access to Educational Psychologists, Speech and Language Therapists and Occupational Therapists, often through an "Experts at Hand" or similar outreach model. Councils in this group include Barnsley, Bath and North East Somerset, Bournemouth, Cambridgeshire, Cornwall, Dorset, Durham, Hounslow, Isle of Wight, Kingston, Leeds, North Northamptonshire, Nottingham, Oxfordshire, Reading, Rochdale, Shropshire, Solihull, South Gloucestershire, South Tyneside, Stoke-on-Trent, Wigan and Wirral.
Some councils stand out for going further than most, setting design standards or quality frameworks rather than one-off features. Bath and North East Somerset sets entry/exit criteria and skills-mixed teams. South Gloucestershire commits to "inclusion by design" covering acoustics, natural light and biophilic principles. Solihull has a named "Solihull Way" design standard. Nottingham and Wigan both specify staffing, therapeutic input and reintegration criteria as commissioning standards, not just aspirations.
A sizeable group mostly gives numbers and budgets, with little or no detail on what makes a place work. This includes Brighton and Hove, Bristol, Coventry, Cumberland, East Sussex, Hackney, Harrow, Hertfordshire, Richmond upon Thames, Slough, Somerset, Staffordshire, Wolverhampton and Worcestershire. Several of these name specific figures: Hertfordshire cites 650 new places and £140m; Somerset breaks down per-place costs (£17,000 for an inclusion base versus £74,000 for an independent placement); Bristol cites £53.1m for 569 places; Harrow gives a £762k Schools Block transfer.
Bromley and Norfolk sit in between, offering firm numbers alongside some qualitative commitments, such as co-production with schools or evidence that a mainstream-linked design keeps 85% of pupils in mainst
About this survey
The question was put to each document on its own, using up to six of its most relevant pages. Page numbers in the table link to the document itself.
Model claude-sonnet-5. How a survey is made.
Every document's answer
Barnsley
The plan goes beyond numbers and budgets, naming specific enabling features. It commits to adapting mainstream environments with "sensory, breakout, and flexible learning spaces" p15, and to creating spaces that "enable flexible, responsive and inclusive practice" p61. It also emphasizes multidisciplinary staffing, including educational psychology and therapy services embedded via the EAH model within mainstream settings p14, rather than only stating place numbers or the £1.8 million block transfer p60.
Bath and North East Somerset
The plan goes beyond just numbers and budgets. It specifies criteria for what settings must have to open an inclusion base, integration with mainstream and local communities, and quality standards with entry/exit principles p14. It also addresses physical design, including attention to sensory environments, noise, scale, regulation space and accessibility p31, plus workforce elements like skills-mixed teams with registered professionals (EP, OT, SALT) p15. Specific place numbers, such as expanding Margaret Coates to 60 places, are also given p15.
Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole
The plan describes qualitative features rather than just numbers or budgets. It references a co-produced "Inclusive Design Charter" ensuring "sufficient places within inclusive, welcoming and well-organised environments" p16, capital investment aligned to "accessibility planning and inclusive design principles" p62, and an "Experts at Hand" workforce drawing on Educational Psychologists, Occupational Therapists and Speech and Language Therapists alongside teachers and SENCOs, extending outreach into mainstream settings (page 7, page 10).
Brighton and Hove
The plan mostly gives numbers and budgets: 10 support bases, 6 specialist bases, 17 post-16 places, 40 AP places, costing around £600k and £8.8m p27. It does mention some qualitative design factors, such as location chosen using transport/demand analysis to reduce travel, and capital funding for "accessibility adaptations, sensory environments, specialist facilities and...assistive technology" p27. However, on-site therapy staffing is described separately as commissioned Experts at Hand multidisciplinary access rather than tied to specific bases p8.
Bristol
The plan mostly cites numbers and budgets: "£53.1m in 569 new" specialist places p6, and specific schemes like Briarwood South (66 places) and St Anne's (24 places) p20. It does add some qualitative detail for new inclusion bases, noting "£6m" funding and that design will be needs-led, informed by an Estate Conditions Survey, and supported by special schools' Specialist Outreach for culture, curriculum, pedagogy and workforce training p37. It also mentions locality-based EAH teams (EP, SALT, OT) working within clusters p6.
Bromley
The plan mixes both. It gives numbers—inclusion/support bases (mainstream) rising from zero to 340 places by 2029 p22, with 23 existing bases p12—and mentions capital funding for expansion (page 12, page 52). But it also names qualitative elements: bases should be "co-produced with schools" and integrated so children are "supported effectively within their local setting wherever possible" p12, with special school outreach and expertise "fully integrated into mainstream practice" p12. It does not detail on-site therapy staffing specifics for bases themselves.
Bury
The plan describes qualitative design features rather than just numbers or budgets. It mentions capital funding for "sensory-friendly spaces, accessibility improvements, quiet regulation areas and assistive technology" to adapt mainstream settings p35. It names specific expansions—resourced provision at Peel Brow Primary Academy and new provision at Radcliffe Primary Academy, "developed in partnership with trusts"—and states inclusion bases target autism, SEMH and communication needs p35. No specific place numbers or budget figures are given in these excerpts.
Cambridgeshire
The council goes beyond raw numbers and budgets. It commits to designed spaces, stating inclusive design principles are embedded in new schools so "SEN spaces, Inclusion Bases, and accessibility features are incorporated from the outset" p60. It also describes curriculum integration, noting the offer developed with host schools is rolled out "alongside capital developments to ensure that build and provision offer are integrated" p60, and links provision to specialist advice like educational psychology, speech and language, and occupational therapy p64.
Cornwall
The council goes beyond numbers and budgets. It describes inclusion bases as "integrated, campus-based provision" designed with "adapted environments, skilled staffing and access to specialist advice" p45. It also specifies on-site enabling features: sensory-friendly adaptations, quiet/regulation spaces, therapeutic and vocational activities (e.g., animal husbandry), and technology like telepresence robots for reintegration p45. Family feedback shaped design so bases are "well staffed, accessible to all who need them, and free from stigma" p45.
Coventry
Mostly the latter. Coventry states numbers—10 Specialist Bases with 87 places, plus at least 100 more planned—and describes capital funding for "improved estate and workforce capacity" p20. It mentions a co-produced "Specialist Base Gateway process" assessing something, but the criteria are cut off p20. Workforce risk is noted, since inclusion-base recruitment draws from special schools, and a "coordinated workforce approach" is needed p25, but specific design features like on-site therapy staff or space design aren't detailed.
Cumberland
The plan describes expansion largely in terms of numbers, target cohorts, and site identification—prioritising communication and interaction, SEMH, and remodelling schools/trusts with surplus capacity p35, and increasing places to 152 independent and 778 special school placements by 2029 p16. It does not specify operational design features like on-site therapy staffing ratios or flexible mainstream integration models; it only references "adaptations to improve inclusivity and accessibility of the physical environment" as a general capital outcome p34.
Dorset
The plan goes beyond just numbers and budgets. It describes qualitative design features: a "stable, bespoke combination of specialist provision and mainstream inclusion" for Specialist Inclusion Bases p18, workforce training and skill mixes including assistant/associate and rotational roles to build integration capacity p18, outreach embedded with the Expertise Offer p19, and quality assurance/admissions criteria for consistent provision p18. It also cites "174 Inclusion Base places" as a current figure p18.
Durham
The plan goes beyond numbers/budget, naming qualitative design factors. It cites "sensory-friendly adaptations, flexible spaces for small-group or therapeutic work, and physical accessibility improvements" p14, plus "calm, predictable and accessible environments" p14. It also commits to "clear entry criteria, agreed service specifications and shared quality standards" and joint quality assurance p14. Site selection considers rurality, demand and travel distances p13. Innovative uses like assistive technology are also mentioned p11.
East Sussex
The plan gives numbers (over 100 new places delivered, "224 places by 2029/30," 8% of primaries and 38% of secondaries hosting a base) and funding sources like HNPCA (page 22, page 1). It does mention some qualitative factors: decisions informed by speech and language and occupational therapists, MATs developing bases "on suitable sites," a travel impact assessment to reduce pupil travel time, and capital funding for "adaptations to the mainstream estate, improving accessibility" (page 22, page 3, page 6). It does not describe on-site therapy staffing or space design in detail.
Hackney
The plan mostly gives numbers—around 530 support base places p59, 186 new specialist places, 120 social communication special school places, and a 48-place post-16 Specialist Hub with a 32-place Support Base p60—alongside funding mechanisms like SLAs and top-up rates. It does mention flexible base sizes (16–24 pupils) adapted to school environments, co-designed "environmental standards" and design standards with partners, and repurposing spaces for "high-quality inclusion bases" p59, but does not specify on-site therapy staffing details.
Harrow
The plan mostly gives numbers and funding rather than detailed design features. It cites specific targets, e.g. "expanding specialist bases in mainstream settings from 191 to 419 places" p68, an ambition for "270 places in specialist bases and, 137 special school places and 26 AP places" p29, and a £762k Schools Block transfer p68. Some qualitative elements are mentioned—"flexible spaces that support consultation, outreach and specialist intervention," accessibility adaptations, and assistive technology p68, plus multidisciplinary therapy access via locality teams p29—but these are generic, not tied to specific bases.
Hertfordshire
The plan gives numbers and budgets more than design detail: "at least 650 new places in SRP and SEND Units by 2029/30" p37 backed by "£140m investment" p8, plus up to 500 special school places and 100 post-16 places p37. It does mention strategic location to reduce travel times, geographical needs assessment, and "adaption of buildings and environments where required" for special schools p37, but does not specify on-site therapy staffing or flexible mainstream integration for inclusion bases specifically.
Hounslow
The plan goes beyond just numbers and budgets. It specifies "240 places" as Specialist Bases with capital works including sensory-friendly environments, acoustic adaptations, breakout spaces, hygiene facilities, and assistive technology p34. It also commits to "150 secondary age SEMH places" with therapeutic environments, smaller class sizes, and specialist staffing p34. Additionally, therapist recruitment (SaLT, OT, EP) via the "Experts at Hand" offer and 22 new specialist posts are named as supporting resourced provision (page 11, page 10).
Isle of Wight
The plan goes beyond numbers and budgets. It commits £8.9 million across mainstream and special settings, including £600k for suitability surveys targeting acoustics, accessibility and DDA compliance p123. It states mainstream specialist bases will have "specialist staff" in a "smaller, structured and supportive environment" while enabling pupils to keep access to wider mainstream learning and social opportunities p123, and describes a phased staff recruitment/training approach before places fill p141.
Kingston upon Thames
The council goes beyond numbers and budgets, describing qualitative design features. It cites using "special school expertise" to build "a shared understanding of a SpIB" for consistency and impact p49, mainstream staff benefiting from Dysart School's knowledge p7, and Support Bases providing "flexible, sensory, and emotional regulation spaces" alongside alternative KS4 curriculum offers p36. It also references linking planning to NHS capacity p8, though specific on-site therapy staffing details are not detailed.
Leeds
Leeds goes beyond numbers and budgets, describing qualitative design elements. It plans environmental adaptations such as "acoustic/lighting adaptations, sensory and regulation spaces and hygiene suites" and assistive technology to support mainstream access p62. It also commits to aligning capital investment with the Experts at Hand model so "specialist environments are complemented by access to advice, intervention and workforce support," with quality assurance systems ensuring "environments are high-quality" p22. Budget figures like £14.4m and £27.67m are also given p62.
Norfolk
Norfolk gives both numbers and some qualitative design features. It cites specific place growth figures (e.g. Autism/C&I SRBs net +156 places to 418) and a "c. £42m investment" p59, plus capital funding "to support schools to do works to mainstream school building so that they create the right environments which facilitate inclusion" p11. It notes SRBs achieve an "85% success rate in retaining children in mainstream 12 months on," citing connection to mainstream community as key to design p59.
North Northamptonshire
The council names qualitative design features rather than just numbers or budgets. It commits to investing in inclusion bases "within mainstream settings across all phases," developed with schools and trusts, focused on cohorts like speech/language, autism, and SEMH needs p46. It also plans physical adaptations, sensory environments, and assistive technology to improve accessibility and flexibility p46, plus multidisciplinary expertise via the Experts at Hand model providing educational psychology, speech and language therapy, and occupational therapy p29.
Nottingham
The plan goes beyond just numbers and budgets. It commits to agreeing "specification, quality standards and commissioning criteria for inclusion bases, covering target cohort, staffing, therapeutic input, curriculum access, reintegration, family engagement and review arrangements" p34. It also plans for Experts at Hand to deploy EPs, SLTs and OTs into settings p36, and physical adaptations to improve accessibility of the mainstream estate p67, alongside specific place numbers like 100 specialist base places p36.
Oxfordshire
The council goes beyond just numbers and budgets. It specifies that capital investment will fund "sensory environments, therapy-informed spaces and physical adaptations" and assistive technology, recognising "well-designed environments reduce escalation" p9. It also commits to integrated planning of health resource implications "such as therapy provision" to ensure services are deliverable (page 8, page 16). Alongside this, it does give place numbers (e.g. "1,950 inclusion support places", "approximately 500 additional places") and costed budgets (page 17, page 8).
Reading
The council goes beyond just numbers and budgets. It cites "128 additional specialist SEND places across two mainstream schools" opening September 2027 p39, but also describes design features: "adapted learning spaces and sensory environments," integration of therapeutic and MDT support aligned to the Experts at Hand model, and exploration of assistive technology p39. It also mentions cluster-based, co-located provision models developed with schools and trusts to distribute capacity strategically p39.
Richmond upon Thames
Mostly the latter. The plan gives place numbers and funding sources—e.g. "21 ASD places and 6 SEMH places" funded via "future High Needs Capital Funding Allocation" p44, and "102 local places" at satellite centres p22—without specifying staffing or design details. One partial exception: reviewing the Heathfield SRP space to identify "what improvements may be needed" to support pupils with complex needs p22, but this is not elaborated with specifics like on-site therapy staff.
Rochdale
The plan goes beyond numbers and budgets. It describes hubs as "integrated, needs-led provisions" focused on speech/language, SEMH and autism p22, explicitly "not standalone specialist units" but aligned to Experts at Hand and neighbourhood teams to build mainstream capability and support reintegration p22. It also references named therapists linked to schools via the Balanced System approach p8 and OT/EP/SLT "Experts at Hand" embedded within schools p50, alongside expansion figures like 36 delivered schemes and fourfold capacity increases p22.
Shropshire
The plan goes beyond just numbers and budgets. It describes capital funding for "environmental adjustments, sensory and therapy-ready spaces, reconfigured accommodation, and assistive technology" p27, continued OT/SLT support and recruitment of "4 SLTs, 6 SALTAs and 2.6 OTs" for inclusion bases p14, and integration "in mainstream environments" with delivery through schools, academies, colleges and trusts p27. Specific sites are also chosen for suitability, such as one with a swimming pool for complex needs p28.
Slough
The plan mostly gives targets and processes rather than detailed design features. It commits to "172 additional specialist places" by September 2027 p46 and an ambition that 95% of mainstream schools have at least one support base by 2029 p46. It says each capital scheme will identify target cohort, expected places, site/locality, capital cost, revenue implication and transport impact p33, and travel impact assessment is used as a gateway for approving inclusion bases p46, but does not specify therapy staffing or space design details.
Solihull
The plan goes beyond just numbers and funding. It commits to creating a “Solihull Way” design standard ensuring bases are inclusive, welcoming and support emotional regulation, and to adapting physical environments with funding support p3. It also states 200 specialist base places over three years, distributed geographically to meet different needs p3, and links these to the Experts at Hand specialists (EPs, SaLT, OTs) who can support settings p4.
Somerset
The plan mostly quantifies places and cost rather than describing operational design: it cites "352 new specialist inclusion places" costing about £20m, with per-place costs of £17,000 for a specialist inclusion base versus £30,000 for special school and £74,000 for independent placement p38, and further tranches of "128," "96," and "64" places p25. It mentions "targeted accessibility improvements" and support for physical, sensory, medical and complex needs p38, and references "Experts at Hand" workforce (educational psychologists, SLTs, OTs) as a dependency p59, but does not detail on-site therapy staffing, integration flexibility, or space design specifics.
South Gloucestershire
The council goes beyond just numbers and budgets: it states Phase 2 will deliver "80 Specialist Base places across four mainstream secondary schools" p121, but also commits to "Inclusion by design," prioritising "good acoustics, flexible layouts, quiet and breakout spaces, natural light, biophilic design, therapeutic areas, full accessibility, and effective ventilation and temperature control" p121. It also notes bases need "greater flexibility to meet the needs required" and workforce development for staff skills p54.
South Tyneside
The plan does name qualitative features, not just numbers/budget. It commits to "defined cohort focus, staffing and expertise, integration with mainstream provision and a commitment to placement stability and reintegration" p28, plus workforce requirements, therapeutic input, and quality assurance p28. Page 46 adds developing "sensory-informed and therapeutic spaces" and accessible, flexible learning environments. One concrete example gives a number: "Key Stage 3 SEN Unit at Harton Academy (15 spaces)" p25.
Staffordshire
The plan mainly gives numbers and processes rather than describing what makes a place work well. It names a new 220-place special school and a 200-place special school p32, and mentions enhanced resource bases being prepared with contractual arrangements and change processes for schools p72. ERB settings are said to support secondary schools in developing inclusion bases p32, but no detail is given on therapy staffing, integration flexibility, or space design.
Stoke-on-Trent
The plan goes beyond just numbers and budgets: it commits to design features like "sensory rooms, adaptable teaching spaces and therapy-ready accommodation" through Inclusive Environment Grants p29, and states inclusion bases let children "access specialist input while remaining part of their local mainstream community" p28. It also names specific place counts (102 places in 2025/26, plus 64 more for 2026/27) and £3 billion capital funding (page 28, page 27), so both quantitative targets and qualitative design/integration elements are described.
Wigan
The plan names qualitative features, not just numbers or budgets. It describes Inclusion Bases and Resourced Provision as offering "flexible, time limited support" that combines "specialist environments, skilled staffing and access to mainstream learning opportunities" p21, with clear entry/exit criteria and integrated "SEND and therapeutic support" from the outset p21. Support Bases prioritise SLCN, SEMH, neurodiversity and post-16 pathways, aiming for "reduced need to travel for specialist input" p46. It does give one capacity figure—Three Towers providing "28 primary, 152" (unclear continuation) places p22—but design features dominate over budget figures.
Wirral
The plan goes beyond just numbers and budgets, naming design and integration features. It commits to "adapting classrooms, creating sensory and therapeutic spaces, and investing in assistive technology," plus minimum standards for inclusive learning environments and a "standard specification tailored to need, informed by inclusive design principles" p17. It also links bases to multidisciplinary teams, Experts at Hand specialist deployment, and geographic distribution for access, rather than only listing place counts (page 17, page 50).
Wolverhampton
Mostly the latter. The plan largely gives numbers and general commitments—over 250 inclusion base places across 13 settings p20 and expansion of four special schools—without detailing on-site therapy staff. It does reference "clear, proportionate models for inclusion spaces" and "existing therapy provision" alignment p9, and links inclusion bases to adaptive technology and the School Accessibility Strategy p20, but offers little specific design detail on flexible mainstream integration or staffing beyond these general references.
Worcestershire
The plan largely describes Inclusion Bases in terms of sufficiency planning, capacity, and location, such as sizing capacity "in line with local sufficiency need, the size of the area served and...the size of the mainstream setting" p27, plus capital investment earmarked per place p27. It does not specify on-site therapy staffing or detailed space design; the main qualitative element mentioned is outreach from specialist provision supporting mainstream settings to strengthen inclusive practice p27.
Want a question surveyed?
Tell us the question and the set. A new survey takes a morning.