Priority 2: Compelling medical or other exceptional reasons to attend the school guidance

About Priority 2: Compelling medical or other exceptional reasons to attend the school

This priority applies to pupils with a specific need that can only be met by one school rather than any other. This could be a medical or social reason that makes it essential for your child to attend a particular school.

Find more information about school admissions:

Exceptional circumstances

You must provide independent supporting information (such as a report or an assessment that specifies why the child's needs can only be met at one school) from a professional working with the family. They must make a compelling case as to why the child's needs can only be met at the preferred school and no other.

They might be a:

doctor
consultant
mental health practitioner
social worker
other professionals

A medical condition or diagnosis in itself will not automatically result in priority being given. We'll get advice from a panel of relevant professionals to determine whether or not the evidence provided is sufficiently compelling to qualify under this category.

Application process and decision making

Submission of evidence

We must receive the supporting information from a professional by:

31 October 2025 for secondary school applications
15 January 2026 for infant, primary and junior school applications

Where we accept an application as late with a good reason, supporting information will be considered alongside it, if it is received by:

22 January for secondary school applications
8 March for infant, primary and junior school applications

You must provide independent supporting information for your application to be considered for exceptional circumstance priority.

Evidence submitted should be no more than 1 year older than the date of applying.

Hospital appointment letters or prescriptions for medication cannot be accepted as sufficient proof.

Required supporting evidence

Along with your application, you should submit supporting evidence which sets out the reasons why the school is the most suitable, and the difficulties that could be caused if your child were to attend another school.

This will normally be in the form of a letter or assessment from a suitably qualified or registered professional, who knows your child, such as a GP, medical consultant, social worker or education professional.

Supporting documentation must be on letter headed paper and must clearly indicate the impact of your child's needs and why these can only be met at a particular school.

We will not contact professionals for information about you or your child's condition. Therefore, a decision will be made solely on the information you provide in support of your application.

Panel assessment process

Before the allocations are made in March for secondary schools and April for primary phase schools, we will convene a panel meeting of the relevant professionals to consider all criteria 2 applications. When there are in-year applications that wish to apply using criteria 2, a virtual convening of a panel will take place to consider the application.

The panel is likely to comprise representatives from:

the School Admissions Manager
a Consultant Community Paediatrician
a Senior Social Worker
an Educational Psychologist
a Mental Health Practitioner
Social Care Practitioner
Carers Centre Representative (when discussing young carer applications)
any other relevant professionals as needed

Each panel member will consider the evidence submitted independently and make their decision based on their professional knowledge and experience.

If a child is going to be offered a place anyway under another criteria area, for example, sibling link, they will not be considered by the panel as the place will be offered and therefore a decision is not needed.

Panel decision process

The panel should judge the impact of the exceptional medical or social need and decide what the child would need from the school placement.

The panel will consider if:

the child’s needs can only be met at the school indicated
any other school can meet the same needs

The panel will make a decision based on the information received, even if it is incomplete.

Communication of decisions

We'll record the outcome of the panel decision and the decisions will be used when allocating the school places.

If a child is unsuccessful in being considered under criterion 2 and does not receive the school of first preference, we'll send a written description of the panel's decision making to you upon request.

Appeal process

There is no appeal about the panel's decision, but you can make an appeal to the independent Admissions Appeal Panel if you have not been offered a place at your preferred school.

The appeal panel are not bound by the our admission arrangements or the exceptional circumstance panel’s decision.

Reapplication process

A parent is only able to apply to the panel once during an academic year.

We will not consider new evidence until at least 6 months have passed from the last application and only if there has been a material change in the child’s circumstances.

What is considered as exceptional circumstances

The situation for each child and their family is unique, but to meet the exceptional circumstances criteria, it must have a significant impact on the life of the child or the family.

The Panel will objectively assess the evidence submitted on why the child can only attend a particular school. The Panel will make its decision in accordance with the Equalities Act 2010.

Based on previous decisions, the following conditions alone are not usually considered sufficient for exceptional circumstances:

Asthma
Autism Spectrum Conditions
Eczema
allergies
Diabetes
Dyslexia
car or travel sickness
dispensing of medication that may require some training, as this can be undertaken by any school
gifted and talented young people who possess abilities or potential to develop significantly beyond their peers
speech and language delay, use of a hearing aid or because an Education Health and Care plan has not been completed - all our schools are able to draw resources and experience to support pupils with these issues
need for the child to stay in friendship groups
attendance at a nursery and not obtaining a reception place
care arrangements where the carer lives close to a particular school
assistance required to travel to school - our Home to School Transport explains when we have a duty to provide home to school transport generally and for children with special educational needs.

If you feel that one of these examples should be considered, you can apply but your independent supporting evidence would be expected to demonstrate how this has a significant impact on your child and why only a particular school can meet your child's need.

Managing school transitions for SEN Children

We acknowledge that transitions between educational phases can be particularly challenging for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Many children may experience anxiety linked to changing schools or leaving friendship groups this can be heightened for children who are neurodivergent. Because of the transition plans that will be in place this will not usually be considered a significant medical or psychological need.

All schools in Brighton & Hove are equipped to support pupils through the transition process, including those with Education, Health and Care Plans or other identified needs. You should expect your child's current school to work collaboratively with the receiving school to ensure appropriate transition planning, including sharing of relevant information, gradual familiarisation visits where possible, co-ordination of support strategies and with developing friendships. For comprehensive guidance on what to expect during the transition process and how to support your child through this change, you're encouraged to contact the SEN team for individualised advice, if they have an Education, Health and Care Plan.

Guidance for medical or other professionals submitting supporting evidence

Tell us:

the full case history
how long you have known the child, including the last time you saw the child or parent
the impact of the medical/social issue for the child and the family
any medication/interventions the child or parent is receiving or support offered
Why the child’s condition or social need will mean the child must attend a certain school.

Case studies

We've created some examples to demonstrate how the panel could consider requests for exceptional circumstance priority.

Case Study 1: Jamie’s Story

Background

Jamie is a 10-year-old autistic child who has applied for a secondary school place. While Jamie performs well academically and appears to cope well in their current primary school environment, they experience significant anxiety and sensory processing challenges.

Current situation

Jamie masks effectively during school hours, which means they try to hide their difficulties to fit in.
After school, Jamie experiences emotional overwhelm and shutdown at home, which can be very distressing for both Jamie and the family.
Jamie's current journey to primary school is a short 5-minute walk, which is manageable for them.
The catchment area secondary school would require a 45-minute bus journey with one change, which is likely to increase Jamie's anxiety and stress levels.

Professional evidence provided

Paediatrician report:

Diagnosis of autism with associated anxiety.
Details of sensory processing difficulties, explaining how Jamie is affected by loud noises, bright lights, and crowded spaces.
Impact of masking on mental health, highlighting how Jamie's efforts to hide their difficulties lead to emotional exhaustion.
Recommendation for minimising environmental stressors, suggesting that a shorter, simpler journey to school would be beneficial.

2. Educational Psychologist or relevant Specialist Assessment:

Evidence of Jamie's coping mechanisms, showing how they manage their anxiety during school hours.
Documentation of increasing anxiety levels, with identification of possible triggers.
Impact of masking on emotional regulation, explaining how Jamie struggles to manage their emotions after a day of masking.
Specific concerns about transport-related anxiety, emphasising the potential negative impact of a long and complex journey.

3. Current School SENCO Report:

Observations of post-masking fatigue, noting how Jamie is often exhausted after school.
Impact on homework completion after demanding days, showing how Jamie struggles to complete homework due to fatigue.
Pattern of increased absence following high-stress periods, indicating that Jamie is more likely to miss school after particularly stressful days.

Application for nearest school

The family applied under the compelling medical or other exceptional reasons priority for the secondary school within walking distance, though outside their catchment area.

Panel consideration

The panel noted:

the combination of autism, masking, and sensory processing challenges.
the cumulative impact of a long bus journey before and after a full day of masking.
the likely effect on attendance and academic performance.
clear documentation of why alternative schools would create additional challenges.

Outcome

The panel agreed the application under Priority 2 because:

The evidence clearly demonstrated how some of Jamie’s needs are exceptional in nature.
The impact of an additional bus journey would create a significant barrier to education.
The professional evidence specifically addressed why the nearest school was essential.
Alternative schools would create demonstrable additional challenges beyond assistance with travel which is a responsibility of the council.
The combination of needs and circumstances was deemed exceptional rather than routine.

This application demonstrated how evidence of indirect impacts can support a Priority 2 application. In Jamie's case, while autism itself wasn't the sole determining factor, the comprehensive evidence showed how the combination of autism, masking, and travel requirements would create a unique barrier to education that could only be addressed by attending the nearest school. The clear link between professional evidence and the specific school requirements was key to the application's success.

Case Study 2: Liam's Story

Background

Liam is a 12-year-old child with a rare neurological disorder that affects their mobility and coordination. They require a school with a specific building design to manage their condition.

Current situation

Liam's current primary school has specialised equipment and trained staff to assist with their mobility needs.
The catchment area secondary school does not currently have the necessary equipment or staff trained to meet his needs.
The preferred secondary school has a suitable design, a dedicated support team and specialised equipment to assist with Liam's needs.

Professional Evidence Provided

Neurologist's Report:

Diagnosis of the rare neurological disorder and its impact on Liam's mobility.
Details of the specialised care and equipment required.
Recommendation for a school with specific facilities and support.

2. Physiotherapist's report:

Analysis of Liam's mobility needs, and the support required in a school environment.
Documentation of the need for specialised equipment and trained staff.
Specific concerns about the lack of facilities in the nearest school.

3. Current school SENCO report:

Observations of Liam's condition and the support provided at the current school.
Impact on Liam's attendance and academic performance when their needs are not met.
Details of the support/facilities required to meet Liam’s needs as he moves to secondary school.

Application for preferred school

The family applied under the compelling medical or other exceptional reasons priority

for the secondary school with the necessary specialised facilities, though outside their catchment area.

Panel consideration

The panel noted the:

severity of Liam's neurological disorder and its impact on their mobility.
specific needs that could only be met by the design of the preferred school.
professional evidence showing why the preferred school was essential.

Outcome

The panel agreed the application under Priority 2 because:

The evidence clearly demonstrated the exceptional nature of Liam's needs.
The impact of attending a school without the right design would create a significant barrier to their education.
The professional evidence specifically addressed why the preferred school was essential.
Alternative schools would create demonstrable additional challenges.
The combination of needs and circumstances was deemed exceptional rather than routine.

This application showcased how physical needs requiring specialist facilities can qualify for Priority 2 when backed by comprehensive professional evidence. In Liam's case, the documentation clearly established that his specific mobility needs could only be met by a school with particular design. The evidence demonstrated not just the need for specialist support, but why this specific school's facilities were essential for his access to education.

Case Study 3: Alex's Story

Background

Alex is an 11-year-old child with dyslexia and anxiety who has applied for a secondary school place. The family has applied for a school with a good reputation for supporting children with special educational needs.

Current situation

Alex has dyslexia which impacts their reading and writing speed.
Alex experiences anxiety about academic performance.
Their current primary school has provided standard dyslexia support.
The preferred school is known locally for its SEN provision.
Both catchment area schools also have a dedicated SEN department.

Professional evidence provided

1. Educational Psychologist or Specialist Teacher report:

Confirmation of dyslexia diagnosis.
Description of Alex's reading and writing difficulties.
Recommendations for standard dyslexia support strategies.
No specific mention of why the preferred school was essential.

2. GP letter:

Confirmation that Alex experiences anxiety.
General statement about Alex needing a supportive environment.
Recommendation for continued anxiety support.
No specific reference to why the preferred school would be uniquely suitable.

3. Current school SENCO report:

Details of current support provisions.
Evidence of Alex's progress with standard interventions.
Description of anxiety management strategies used.

Application for preferred school

The family applied under the compelling medical or other exceptional reasons priority for a school known for good SEN support, though outside their catchment area.

Panel consideration

The panel noted:

the diagnosis of dyslexia and anxiety was well documented.
the supporting evidence detailed appropriate interventions.
the preferred school had good SEN provision.
other schools in the city also had appropriate SEN support.
no evidence was provided to show why only the preferred school could meet Alex's needs.

Outcome

The panel did not agree the application under Priority 2 because:

While Alex's needs were clearly documented, they could be met by any mainstream secondary school with standard SEN provision.
The evidence did not demonstrate why the preferred school was essential over other schools.
Both catchment area schools could provide similar levels of support
The combination of needs, while requiring support, was not exceptional in terms of school placement.
No compelling evidence was provided to show why alternative schools would be unsuitable.

This application highlighted that while learning difficulties and anxiety are taken seriously, the evidence must demonstrate why only the preferred school can meet these needs. In Alex's case, while the preferred school had a good reputation for SEN support, there was no compelling evidence that other schools with standard SEN provision would be unable to meet Alex's educational needs.

Case Study 4: Maya's Story

Background

Maya is a 10-year-old child with type 1 diabetes who has applied for a secondary school place. The family has applied for a school closer to their home, though outside their catchment area, citing the need to manage Maya's medical condition.

Current situation

Maya's diabetes is well-managed with an insulin pump.
They can monitor their blood sugar levels independently.
The family lives 15 minutes from the preferred school.
The catchment school is 30 minutes away by bus.
Training for staff in supporting pupils with diabetes is readily available.

Professional evidence provided

1. Diabetes Specialist Nurse report:

Confirmation of type 1 diabetes diagnosis.
Details of Maya's current management plan.
Statement that Maya is competent in managing their condition.
Confirmation that standard school medical support would be sufficient.

2. GP letter:

Overview of Maya's medical history demonstrating the condition is managed.
General statement about the benefits of a shorter journey to school.
No specific medical necessity for attending the closer school.

3. Current School Medical Officer report:

Evidence of Maya's successful management of their condition.
Description of current support arrangements.
Confirmation that Maya rarely needs emergency intervention.
Statement that standard diabetes care in any school would be appropriate.

Application for preferred school

The family applied under the compelling medical or other exceptional reasons priority for the closer school, citing the convenience for managing Maya's diabetes.

Panel consideration

The panel noted:

Maya's diabetes was well-controlled.
they could manage their condition independently.
both schools had staff trained in supporting pupils with diabetes.
no evidence suggested the catchment school would be unable to meet Maya's needs.

Outcome

The panel did not agree the application under Priority 2 because:

While Maya's medical condition was significant, it was well-managed and could be supported in any mainstream school.
The preferred school offered no specific medical advantage over other school.
The catchment area school(s) could provide appropriate medical support.

This application highlighted that while medical conditions are taken seriously, the evidence must demonstrate why only the preferred school can meet these needs. In Maya's case, while the closer school might have been more convenient, there was no compelling medical evidence that it was essential for education or health management.

Case Study 5: Debbie's Story

Background

Debbie is a 10-year-old child who is a young carer for her mother who has severe, unpredictable Fibromyalgia. She also provides critical care for her 6-year-old brother while her father works night shifts. Debbie's caring responsibilities have resulted in her developing anxiety disorder, while maintaining essential family care duties.

Current situation

Debbie lives with her mother who experiences severe, unpredictable Fibromyalgia flares that can leave her completely immobilised and unable to care for herself or Debbie's younger brother.
Debbie's father works permanent night shifts (11pm-7am) at a care facility, making him unavailable during critical evening and morning periods when emergencies typically occur.
Debbie has documented responsibility for:
Administering her mother's emergency medication during severe flares.
Calling emergency services when her mother becomes immobilised.
Supervising and caring for her 6-year-old brother when her mother is unable to provide hands-on care.
Managing the household during father's absence.
Medical professionals have identified that someone must be available within 15-20 minutes of home to respond to emergency situations (documented 18 emergency interventions in the past 12 months).
The catchment area secondary school requires a 45-minute each way journey with two bus changes, making emergency response impossible.
The preferred school is 8 minutes walking distance from home.
Debbie has developed anxiety due to her responsibilities and fear of not being available during emergencies.

Professional evidence provided

1. Social Worker report (Children's Services):

Formal assessment confirming Debbie as a young carer with critical caring responsibilities beyond typical household support.
Documentation of 18 emergency situations in past year.
Evidence of failed extended family support - maternal grandmother has dementia, paternal family live 200+ miles away and unable to provide consistent support.
Risk assessment indicating potential harm to mother and 6-year-old brother.
Specific recommendation that Debbie needs to remain within 15-20 minute travel distance of home for family.
Confirmation that alternative care arrangements have been explored but are not viable or sustainable.

2. GP report (family doctor):

Detailed documentation of mother's severe, unpredictable Fibromyalgia with documented emergency flares requiring immediate assistance with mobility and medication.
Medical history showing emergency situations in past year where intervention was essential.
Clinical recommendation that there must be immediate responses to flare ups to administer medication.
Documentation of Debbie's own anxiety related to caring responsibilities.

3. CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services) Report:

Formal diagnosis of anxiety related to young carer responsibilities.
Documentation that Debbie's current coping strategies are contingent on proximity to home and ability to respond to emergencies.
Assessment showing that additional travel stress would trigger significant mental health deterioration.
Recommendation for minimal additional stressors and maintaining current support systems.
Evidence that longer school commute would undermine therapeutic progress and coping mechanisms.
Specific recommendation for school placement that minimises additional stress while maximising support.

4. Current primary school SENCO and Pastoral Care report:

Evidence of Debbie's successful educational progress when caring responsibilities are manageable.
Documentation of significant academic decline and attendance issues during periods when family emergencies occur.
Evidence of Debbie's anxiety and concentration difficulties when separated from home for extended periods.
Confirmation that current support strategies depend on Debbie's understanding that home emergencies will be responded to promptly.

5. Enhanced Professional Evidence - preferred school:

Documentation of specialist Young Carer Support Program with dedicated Young Carer Co-ordinator.
Evidence of flexible attendance required for young carers experiencing family emergencies.
Therapeutic support services specifically designed for young carers with trauma and anxiety.
Academic support systems that accommodate irregular attendance due to caring responsibilities.

Application for preferred school

The family applied under the compelling medical or other exceptional reasons priority for the secondary school within walking distance, citing the medical necessity for Debbie to remain within emergency response distance of home while accessing specialist young carer support unavailable elsewhere.

Panel consideration

The panel noted:

the exceptional severity of family circumstances requiring immediate emergency response capabilities.
Debbie's own diagnosed anxiety related to caring responsibilities.
documented pattern of significant academic decline and attendance issues when family emergencies occur.
the specialist young carer provisions at preferred school unavailable at catchment school.
failed alternative care arrangements confirming Debbie's role in family safety.
clinical recommendations for minimising additional stressors while maintaining current coping mechanisms.

Outcome

The panel agreed the application under Priority 2 because:

The evidence clearly demonstrated that proximity to home was necessary, not merely convenient.
The combination of severe maternal illness, emergency response requirements, and Debbie's own anxiety creating exceptional circumstances beyond typical young carer situations.
The preferred school offered specific young carer support services and therapeutic interventions unavailable at alternative schools.
Clear evidence that longer travel time would significantly worsen Debbie's anxiety.
Comprehensive evidence that other support arrangements had been explored but were insufficient to meet the family's emergency response needs.
Direct correlation between Debbie's family circumstances and her educational access and attainment.
Multiple healthcare and social care professionals agreed that the specific school placement was essential rather than preferable.

This application demonstrated how young carer circumstances can qualify for Priority 2 when they involve critical emergency response requirements, specialist therapeutic needs, and documented risks that can only be addressed by a specific school placement. The key difference from typical young carer applications was the transformation from general support needs to specific response requirements that could only be met through proximity and specialist provision.

Case Study 6: Emma's Story

Background

Emma is a 10-year-old girl with a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), combined presentation. She experiences problems with self-management, and experiences difficulties with emotional regulation, working memory, and task initiation. Emma does not have an Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHCP).

Current Situation

Emma currently attends a small, nurturing primary school where routines are clear and support from familiar adults is readily available.
She can be impulsive at times and has difficulty managing frustration, especially when her routines are disrupted unexpectedly. These challenges occur more frequently than may be apparent, as she often masks or conceals them
She has experienced burn-out previously due to her ADHD.
Emma's current journey to school is a 10-minute walk with a parent, which includes time to prepare emotionally. This provides her with movement before school in an outdoor environment that doesn’t increase overwhelm and stimulation. This means she turns up to school ready to learn and her transition into school is smoother.
The allocated secondary school would require a 40-minute bus journey with one change at a busy interchange.
She would need to travel independently, presenting multiple challenges including:
Difficulties with time management, organisation, and flexible thinking.
Emotional dysregulation in response to sensory overload on crowded buses, anxiety linked to executive functioning challenges which would often be masked with the distress showing on arrival to school.
High levels of anxiety and distress related to travelling on public transport that can be unpredictable and fear of getting lost and being late to school.
Challenges with interactions and anxiety during unstructured waiting times
Given that Emma has experienced ADHD-related burnout previously and already feels overwhelmed and emotionally exhausted after school, a longer, more demanding commute could potentially worsen these difficulties.

Professional evidence provided

Paediatrician or Psychiatrist report:

Confirmation of ADHD diagnosis, combined presentation.
Details of Emma's executive functioning difficulties.
Explanation of emotional regulation challenges.
General recommendation for structured, supportive environment.
Details of sensory processing difficulties, explaining how Emma is affected by loud noises, bright lights, and crowded spaces, lots of auditory information at once which can cause her to feel overwhelmed and dysregulated.
Impact of masking on mental health, highlighting how Emma's efforts to hide their difficulties lead to emotional exhaustion and burnout.
Recommendation for minimising environmental stressors, suggesting that a shorter, simpler journey to school would be beneficial.

Educational Psychologist Assessment:

Analysis of Emma's cognitive profile and learning needs.
Documentation of working memory and attention difficulties.
Assessment of anxiety levels, particularly around change and transitions.
Recommendation for consistent routines and familiar adult support.

Current school SENCO report:

Observations of Emma's response to current support strategies.
Evidence of successful management in small, structured environment.
Documentation of emotional exhaustion after challenging days.
School is aware that Emma masks and how this adds to her challenges and can lead to burnout.

Application for preferred school

The family applied under the compelling medical or other exceptional reasons priority for the secondary school within walking distance, citing Emma's ADHD-related difficulties, anxiety, and distress, with independent travel and need for emotional preparation time, masking contributing to burnout.

Panel consideration

The panel noted:

Emma's diagnosed ADHD combined with significant masking behaviours and documented history of burnout.
The complex interaction between ADHD, sensory processing difficulties, and masking.
Professional evidence specifically identifying environmental stressors (crowded buses, loud noises, unpredictable travel) as triggers for dysregulation and burnout.
The documented pattern of delayed emotional dysregulation where masking during travel would result in school arrival distress.
Clinical recommendation for minimising environmental stressors to prevent recurrence of burnout.
The therapeutic value of the walking journey as essential preparation for successful school engagement.
Consideration that Emma's needs go beyond standard ADHD support due to the masking/burnout cycle.
The cumulative effect of travel stress combined with secondary school expectations potentially triggering severe burnout recurrence.

Outcome

The panel agreed the application under Priority 2 because:

Evidence of the combination of Emma’s ADHD, significant masking, sensory processing difficulties and documented burnout history.
The paediatrician specifically identified environmental stressors as medical considerations.
Professional evidence demonstrated that additional environmental stressors could trigger recurrence of burnout, creating a necessity for the walking route.
Emma’s masking behaviours meant that travel distress would significantly impact her ability to access learning at school.
Evidence showed the walking journey was essential for emotional regulation and successful school transition, not just convenience.

This application demonstrated how ADHD combined with masking behaviours, sensory processing difficulties, and burnout history can create an exceptional presentation requiring specific environmental accommodations. Emma's case showed that when professional evidence identifies specific environmental stressors as medical considerations, and when standard ADHD support cannot address the underlying masking/burnout cycle.