A MUM of three from Farnham has outlined how planned £20m cuts to Surrey County Council’s special educational needs (SEND) budget could have a devastating impact on families and children across the county.

As reported on page of one, a judicial review into the legality of Surrey’s cuts got under way at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Tuesday, instigated by five Surrey families - including that of Kian Hollow, from Farnham - represented by specialist Human Rights lawyers Irwin Mitchell.

Kian, 14, has autistic spectrum disorder (ASD), ADHD anxiety and speech and language difficulties for which he receives specialist therapy sessions.

He relies on council-funded transport to take him to school in Roehampton because his mum Alicia, 44, who also has a 12-year-old daughter Bella and a 20-year-old son Edoardo, works full-time as a project management officer.

Alicia told the Herald: “The only cuts that would impact my son would be transport cuts, but as a working single mother I would then be left with the decision do I give up my job and drive him or does he stay at home? His school is not just around the corner as Surrey doesn’t haven’t any schools for able children with ASD, so he goes to Roehampton.

“In reality though this isn’t about my child, this is about all the children who would be impacted. My fellow complainants would be impacted by the other areas of cuts; Early Years, Post 16, Special School and Maintream funding as well as transport too.”

Alicia added many parents don’t understand the importance of the wording in an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP), the legal document that states the support their child will receive.

According to the mum of three, many children’s EHCPs are full of wording such as ‘access to’ or ‘benefit from’, meaning the moment cuts are announced, Local Authorities such as Surrey can take away support and parents have no right of appeal/recourse to Judicial Review.

She continued: “Schools are already massively cash strapped and so it is not their responsibility to provide the extra funding for the provision in an EHCP over and above the £6,000 they receive per SEN child, so children would be left without any support, leading to unmet needs, behaviour and ultimately sometimes exclusion.”

Alicia also hit out at an “offensive” comment by councillor Mary Lewis at Surrey’s cabinet meeting last Tuesday, in which she said the increase in EHCP numbers was due to the “hype” surrounding the change from Statements of SEN to EHCPs.

“This shows how out of touch she is with reality,” the Farnham mum added. “If it were ‘hype’ then why are over 90 per cent of parents winning appeals in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunals?

“The reason there has been an increase is due to years of cuts. There used to be Speech and Language support in schools and even therapists who would teach parents how to do Makaton at home.

“Early intervention is fundamental to give children good foundations. Imagine the frsutration of being in a classroom and not understanding or not being able to communicate.

“This is not parents asking for violin lessons for their children, this is parents asking for the support their children need in order to learn and in many cases become independent adults.

“The Judicial Review is because Surrey failed to consult with families about their planned cuts and failed to produce an Equality Impact Assessment on which to base their decision.

“In reality though they don’t have the funds so they should be going back to central government as they have a legal (and moral) responsibility to fund all the provision to meet all children’s SEN needs. They cannot legally make cuts like this if it means children with SEN won’t be properly supported.”