Reorganisation and Independent Travel Training

What the reshaping of England's councils means for ITT programmes and what the national picture looks like today

Purpose 

This article analyses the impact of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) on independent travel training (ITT) programmes in England. It sets out the current national picture, how many authorities run schemes and how those schemes are delivered, and seeks to examine what the move to unitary councils is likely to mean for ITT provision, commissioning and continuity over the transition period.

Independent travel training has become a mainstream part of the SEND transport offer. The Department for Education and the Local Government Association expect ITT to feature in every SEND Local Offer, and a growing number of authorities frame it as an invest-to-save measure: specialist home-to-school transport costs on average around £9,000 per child per year, so each young person who learns to travel independently removes a recurring cost while gaining independence and better access to education, work and social life. At the same time, English local government is undergoing its most significant structural change in a generation. Understanding how the two intersect matters for any authority planning its SEND transport over the next two to three years.

The national picture: ITT provision in England today

A July 2026 desk review of all 152 English local authorities with education transport responsibilities established which authorities operate an ITT scheme and how each is delivered. The headline figures show a service that is widespread but unevenly documented:

Two points stand out. First, in-house delivery is now the dominant model where the delivery route is known, 32 confirmed internal teams against 13 confirmed outsourced arrangements. Second, documentation is patchy: 67 authorities publish no ITT information and a further 19 describe an offer without saying how it is delivered. An absence of a published page does not prove absence of a scheme, but it does show how variably ITT is recorded across the Local Offer.

How ITT is commissioned: four delivery models

Across the 152 authorities, four broad approaches to commissioning and delivering ITT are visible.

• In-house teams - the most common approach, especially in county councils and the northern cities. Authorities employ their own travel trainers, often integrated with transport coordination or preparing-for-adulthood teams. Examples include Kent, Hertfordshire, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Warwickshire, Devon, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford and Newcastle.

• Outsourcing to third-sector specialists - concentrated in London, where a mature third-sector base delivers on councils’ behalf. Providers include DABD (uk) across several east London boroughs, KCIL across four south-west London boroughs, and Ealing Mencap, Merton Mencap and the specialist college Transition2 in Derby.

• Local-authority-to-local-authority trading - one authority delivering for another. Essex County Council’s traded arm, Essex Travel Training, delivers Suffolk’s service.

• Arm’s-length and outcomes-based structures - council-owned companies and outcomes-based contracts. Surrey Choices (a council-owned company) and the HCT Group Social Impact Bonds in Lambeth, Norfolk and Surrey are examples. Both have since retreated: HCT entered administration in 2022 and Surrey’s scheme ended in 2025, pushing former clients such as Norfolk towards insourcing.

The direction of travel is clear. The collapse of the largest specialist outsourced provider in 2022 removed the market’s national reference point and reinforced a shift towards building and keeping capability inside the authority.

What Local Government Reorganisation involves

In December 2024 the Government set out plans to replace two-tier local government, county and district councils, with single-tier unitary authorities. Following invitations to submit proposals in February 2025, decisions have now been announced for the large majority of the 21 two-tier areas. In the areas decided so far, around 134 existing councils are due to be replaced by roughly 38 new unitary authorities.

The timetable runs on two tracks. Surrey was fast-tracked, with elections to its new councils in May 2026 ahead of a vesting day of 1 April 2027. Most other areas are expected to hold elections to shadow authorities on 6 May 2027, with new unitary councils taking full responsibility on 1 April 2028. Kent and Medway, for example, will move from a county, unitary and district structure to four new unitary councils under the Government’s July 2026 decision.

What reorganisation means for ITT programmes

Because ITT usually sits with the upper-tier authority, the county or unitary responsible for SEND transport, reorganisation directly affects who owns, funds and runs each scheme. Several effects are worth authorities’ attention.

• In-house county teams may be divided where a county runs a single in-house ITT team, splitting the county into two or more unitaries raises the question of how that team, its trainers, its caseload and its accreditation are divided or shared. A team built for one authority does not automatically transfer intact to a successor.

• Continuity of provision is at risk during transition a new unitary formed largely from a district base may inherit residents who previously received ITT from the county, without inheriting the county’s delivery capability. This can leave a gap between the duty to provide and the means to deliver on vesting day.

• Existing contracts and traded services need review outcomes-based and outsourced contracts, traded LA-to-LA arrangements, and shared services all have to be re-examined when the commissioning authority ceases to exist. Contracts, novation and data-sharing all need planning well before vesting day.

• New authorities set their delivery model early reorganisation is also a moment when successor authorities design their SEND transport offer from a blank sheet. Decisions taken in the shadow period, whether to build an in-house team, commission a provider, or share a service across neighbouring unitaries, will shape provision for years.

• Financial baselines carry across with SEND transport budgets under pressure, the invest-to-save logic of ITT tends to feature in transition financial planning; a functioning ITT programme lowers the transport cost baseline a new authority inherits.

Practical considerations for authorities

For authorities in reorganising areas, a number of questions are worth working through during the transition:

• Where does ITT currently sit, and which successor authority will own it after vesting day?

• If an in-house team spans a county that is being split, how will trainers, caseload, referral systems and Open Awards accreditation be allocated across the new authorities?

• Which ITT-related contracts, traded arrangements or shared services expire, novate or need re-commissioning at reorganisation?

• What delivery model will each successor authority adopt, and is a shared service across Neighbouring unitaries viable for smaller populations?

• How is continuity of training maintained for young people mid-programme across the transition date?

In summary

Independent travel training is now embedded in the SEND transport landscape, delivered mostly in-house but through a mix of models that vary by region. Local Government Reorganisation reshapes the authorities that own and run those programmes, and the transition period, running to vesting days in 2027 and 2028, is when decisions about ownership, delivery model and continuity will be made. Authorities that map their ITT provision against the reorganisation timetable early will be better placed to protect provision and the savings that come with it.

If you would like to know how our ITT specialists can assist, please contact us for a consultation.

Sources: STM ITT provision review of 152 English local authorities (July 2026); House of Commons Library, “Local government reorganisation 2026”; Local Government Association LGR hub; Medway Council LGR decision (16 July 2026); Government Outcomes Lab (University of Oxford) and Bridges Fund Management on ITT outcomes and transport costs.