SEND reform and the built environment: Why school sports facilities must now think differently.

There are moments in education policy that feel incremental. And then there are moments that redraw the map for schools in practical, day-to-day ways. The current reform agenda around SEND provision feels like one of those moments.

Schools across the country are being asked to strengthen SEND provision, often within tight budgets and shifting accountability frameworks. The direction of travel, greater clarity, better inclusion, stronger outcomes, is hard to argue with. But expectation and environment must move together. The physical fabric of a school cannot be treated as neutral backdrop. It either enables inclusion or it inhibits it.

For those of us who have spent decades delivering sports halls and indoor facilities across the UK, this is not a theoretical debate. It is practical. It is measurable. It is buildable. And it matters.

Inclusion is not an add-on, it is a design principle, and sport is often the first place inclusion is tested.

In classrooms, support can be carefully structured; small groups, adapted materials and specialist staff. In a sports hall, things move quickly; noise rises, energy builds, transitions are faster and expectations are visible. It is often in PE, in after-school sport, or in a busy games session where inclusion becomes tangible.

• Can a pupil with mobility challenges move from changing rooms to court without friction or embarrassment?
  
• Can a child with sensory sensitivities regulate themselves in a busy sports hall with high reverberation and harsh lighting?
  
• Can a wheelchair basketball session run without improvised workarounds?
  
• Does the environment help or hinder?
  

These are not dramatic questions. They are practical ones.

Over the years, I have seen how a well-considered facility can gently remove barriers, and how a poorly thought-through one can unintentionally create them.

As expectations around SEND provision increase, estates strategy inevitably sits alongside educational strategy. Schools are being asked to demonstrate inclusion clearly and consistently. Buildings form part of that picture. A hall built twenty years ago to minimum compliance standards may technically function, but that does not necessarily mean it supports the breadth of needs now present within a school community.

A sports hall does not need to be extravagant to be inclusive. Particularly in the current financial climate, realism matters. But it does need:

• Sensible acoustic control so instructions can be heard without the space becoming oppressive
  
• Lighting that can be adjusted, rather than fixed at one intensity
  
• Clear movement routes that allow different abilities to flow naturally
  
• Changing areas that provide dignity without segregating unnecessarily

These are design decisions made early, often long before the school community sees a drawing.

Where projects struggle is when inclusion is considered at the end. By that stage, budgets are fixed, specifications agreed, contractors appointed. Adjustments then feel expensive. Occasionally they are. More often, they are the consequence of inclusion not having been properly discussed at briefing stage.

That is where disciplined project management becomes essential, particularly for schools balancing aspiration with financial constraint.

Phasing can be part of the answer. Acoustics addressed first. Lighting upgraded later. Changing provision improved as part of a wider estate plan. Thoughtful sequencing allows schools, both state and independent, to respond to rising expectations without destabilising budgets.

There is another aspect that deserves equal attention, the building process itself.

Delivering construction works within a live school environment requires judgement and restraint. Construction activity brings noise, movement, unfamiliar faces and altered routines. For many pupils, particularly those with additional needs, disruption can have a disproportionate impact.

Careful site segregation, controlled contractor access, safeguarding discipline, scheduling around examinations and predictable communication with staff all matter. Schools are already carrying significant responsibility. The delivery team must reduce burden, not add to it.

The way a facility is delivered is part of its integrity.

Sport plays a significant role in confidence, social development and belonging. For children with additional needs, that role can be profound. Staff commitment in this area is rarely lacking. The question is whether the physical environment supports their effort.

Architectural quality and presence absolutely have their place. A sports hall can be a statement building, a point of pride, something that anchors a campus and signals intent. But whatever its external character, its internal performance must be calm, intuitive and reliable.

As SEND expectations evolve, the conversation around sports provision inevitably shifts beyond compliance and towards day-to-day performance.

Does the space remain composed on a busy afternoon?
Can it adapt to different needs without elaborate workaround?
Was it conceived with long-term clarity?

Where those answers are positive, the facility is aligned with its purpose.

Where they are less certain, the issue is rarely a lack of ambition. More often it comes down to detail, sequencing and foresight, the early decisions that determine how a building performs over decades.

Those gaps can be resolved through experienced, thoughtful and informed planning, combined with disciplined delivery and a deep understanding of sport itself, competition, training rhythms, spectatorship, community use and the flexibility schools require. That is where real value sits, in aligning technical competence with lived sporting knowledge, and ensuring the facility performs properly, day after day.