How do LAs set SEND transport eligibility policy?

Local authorities must provide free transport for any child who cannot reasonably walk to school because of SEND, disability or mobility; what they set is the policy, assessment, discretionary provision and appeals.

Start by separating what is fixed by law from what you actually decide. The floor is not discretionary. Under section 508B and Schedule 35B of the Education Act 1996 every authority must arrange free travel for an eligible child — including a child of compulsory school age who, because of their special educational needs, disability or a mobility problem, cannot reasonably be expected to walk to the nearest suitable school even if accompanied, regardless of distance. This limb is not distance-based and it does not require a diagnosis or an EHC plan. Eligibility is assessed case by case on whether the child can reasonably be expected to walk, so you cannot gatekeep it behind a diagnosis or a plan.

What an authority genuinely sets

Four layers sit on top of the statutory floor, and these are what your policy actually decides:

• The written policy. Published annually as part of the composite prospectus and on your website, clearly distinguishing statutory provision from discretionary provision.
• The assessment method. How you assess eligibility on SEND, disability and mobility grounds — physical ability to walk, health and safety, route safety and accompaniment — applied to the individual child.
• Discretionary provision. Travel you choose to arrange for children who are not eligible children, using the discretionary power in section 508C of the Act.
• The appeals process. A clear, transparent two-stage route, with an independent panel at the second stage.

Statutory versus discretionary

The line your policy must draw, and the line an Ombudsman complaint most often probes, is this one:

The lawful boundaries

You must have regard to the DfE statutory guidance on home-to-school travel and transport, updated 26 May 2026, so a policy review must be measured against that current version rather than the long-standing 2014 guidance. Within that, three things you cannot lawfully do recur in Ombudsman findings. You cannot set a threshold below the statutory minimum. You cannot fetter your discretion by applying a blanket rule that ignores the individual child — for example refusing all SEND transport inside the statutory walking distance. And you cannot make an EHC plan or a diagnosis the eligibility test, because the test is whether the child can reasonably be expected to walk. A plan that names a school may trigger transport, but it is not the test.

Rising SEND transport demand and cost is the usual trigger for a review; the National Audit Office set out that pressure in its October 2025 report. Budget pressure is a legitimate reason to review discretionary provision and routing efficiency. It is not a lawful reason to narrow the statutory floor.

This page is general information, not clinical or legal advice.