Agenda item

To consider an options paper/report regarding Renewing the Sufficiency Strategy and Expanding Specialist Provision in Cheshire East.

During consideration of this item, Councillor L Crane declared an interest by virtue of the fact that she was Sandbach Ettiley Heath and Wheelock Ward Councillor.

The committee considered the report which provided an update of the current pressures and challenges with the sufficiency of SEND placements across Cheshire East, and a more detailed oversight of the data and information required to ensure decisions about how both capital and high needs spend were prioritised to ensure the highest impact on meeting the needs of all children and young people with SEND across Cheshire East.

The officers highlighted the following points:

• Approval was being sought to self?deliver and fund an all?through school at Westfields, which would require pausing the Cledford project and declaring St. Gregory’s and Vernon Infant School were surplus to requirements of Children and Families.
• There had been late developments following a Department for Education (DfE) communication in December 2025 regarding the proposed Alternative Provision (AP) free school at Flag Lane, with the YES Trust being the appointed sponsor.  The DfE had announced a national change in approach, indicating that free schools without a confirmed sponsor would not be progressing.  In terms of AP free school at Flag Lane, local authorities had been offered the option of receiving additional capital funding instead, to look at other options to enable the delivery of places.
• The Council was required to confirm to the DfE by 27 February 2026 whether it wished to proceed with the AP free school or accept capital funding as an alternative. Officers were seeking clarity from the DfE on the deliverability and timescales for the Flag Lane project before making a recommendation.
• Due to the timescales involved, an additional recommendation was proposed to delegate authority to the Executive Director of Children’s Services, in consultation with the Chair and Vice?Chair of the Committee, to make the necessary decisions regarding the AP free school.
• Government reforms relating to inclusion and effective use of resources, ahead of the anticipated White Paper announcement, were expected.
• There was a need to revise the SEND sufficiency strategy to reduce pressures on the High Needs Block and strengthen mainstream inclusion.  High numbers of EHC needs assessment requests were attributed to unmet needs in mainstream settings, and officers emphasised the importance of redirecting SEND capital to support inclusive practice alongside specialist provision.
• Even with additional DfE capital, the full cost of the Westfields scheme would not be covered, and therefore a review of all remaining SEND capital commitments was required.  Schools would be engaged in a partnership process to identify local priorities for investment.
• Schools would be engaged in a partnership process to identify local priorities for investment.
• The committee was asked to approve proceeding with an all?through special school at Westfields and to pause the Cledford scheme pending completion of the revised sufficiency strategy.  Westfields was identified as the preferred option due to site ownership, capacity and ability to deliver 140-plus places on a single site.
• Officers would undertake detailed feasibility work and report back to the committee accordingly.  The decisions required on the AP free school at Flag Lane was noted, with additional information awaited from the DfE.

A point of order was raised in relation to the additional recommendation, not in the report, that had been proposed.

The committee sought clarification as to the expected long?term savings that were noted in the report.  It was clarified that this was £56m over ten years.

Councillors G Marshall and S Corcoran spoke as visiting members and raised the following points:

Councillor G Marshall:

• Out?of?borough placement costs and impacts on families were unsustainable.
• The benefits of Cledford opening for the MTFS delivery 2026/27.
• Concerns over committing £16m expenditure prior to the release of the SEND White Paper.
• Strengths and benefits of the Cledford site and local integration opportunities.
• Concerns about delays and risk of rising costs at Westfields.

Councillor S Corcoran:

• Strong support for progressing Westfields due to urgent shortage of specialist places.
• Westfields feasibility work had begun in 2023.
• Delays to date had resulted in £2m–£8m avoidable expenditure.
• The benefits for Children, the Sandbach community and the Council’s financial position.
• Clarity was sought on project management, risks and timelines.  A comparison to another similar scheme was provided.

With regards to the point of order and the additional recommendation, the meeting was adjourned at 11:56am to allow for the recommendation to be provided in writing to Members of the committee.

The meeting reconvened at 12:04pm.

The Chair advised that, during the adjournment, it had been decided to defer the additional recommendation to the next meeting of the committee.  A briefing would be scheduled for Members in respect of that particular recommendation, prior to the next meeting in February.  The additional recommendation would not form a part of any of the debate and questions at this meeting.

Members asked questions and provided comments in respect of the following:

• Concerns were raised around the pausing of Cledford in relation to SEND numbers in Cheshire East; timescales around the delivery of places; and any unfilled places generating revenue elsewhere.
• Site ownership: only the playing fields at St?Gregory’s were owned by the Council; the area of the site that the school buildings sat on were owned by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Shrewsbury.
• A correction was noted in respect of paragraph 24 of the report: the General Election was held in July 2024, not 2025, therefore the DfE delay had been a larger contributing factor to this scheme to date.
• Clarification was sought on the projected 140?place capacity figure, as Members understood the current approval to be for 120 places. 
• Whether the Council had explored working with Multi?Academy Trusts on free school bids using existing assets.  Concerns were raised that disposal of sites could reduce future Council control and increase long?term revenue pressures if independent providers purchased them.
• The 2028/29 timescale for the Westfields development, particularly in relation to planning processes, feasibility studies, and contractor appointment, was tight – but hopefully achievable.  Feedback from the Director of Place in terms of the planning process would have been useful.
• The risk of cost escalation, referencing previous SEND schemes where estimated costs had doubled due to delays, were highlighted.  There was support for strengthening mainstream inclusion, but also challenges, particularly in relation to smaller and rural schools.  Challenges for rural schools included: deficit budgets; limited staffing capacity; insufficient space for appropriate SEND facilities (e.g., changing areas); and there was a risk that these schools could become default placements for complex pupils.  How would those schools be supported?
• Reference was made to the high cost of independent SEND placements (approx. £60,000 per pupil per year) and expressed concern that DfE delays had negatively impacted the DSG and reduced local provision.
• There was local disappointment, particularly in the north of the borough, regarding the potential loss of provision at St?Gregory’s and Vernon Infants.
• Delay in inclusion having an impact on children and families. 
• The current numbers of children placed in independent specialist provision and the impact on projected savings from Westfields.
• Whether a cost–benefit analysis had been undertaken comparing Westfields, Cledford and the Flag Lane site.

• The rationale for pausing the Cledford scheme.
• Oversight arrangements and the need for regular progress updates, suggested at three?monthly intervals.
• How mainstream schools with resource provisions were supported to maintain inclusive practice, including engagement between officers and school SENCOs.
• Whether the Council had had the opportunity to contribute to consultation on the forthcoming SEND White Paper.
• Numbers of Council?funded placements in independent and out?of?borough settings.
• Whether parents could insist that the Council funded such placements.
• Whether there would be any changes to the appeals process.
• Support for the workforce in Academies.
• The most common SEND support needs in Cheshire East.
• The impact of devolution on this proposal.
• There was a lack of clear, site?specific viability assessments.
• Clarification was sought as to the level of stakeholder engagement that would be undertaken with school leaders and SENCOs.
• Two schools with 60 places had already been approved by the DfE.
• Clarification was sought around the length of time that Cheshire East had not received the appropriate amount of funding for SEND.
• Consideration was given to free school versus satellite school options.
• Section 106 and CIL monies and how this was applied for.
• The implications of not approving the pause of Cledford.
• The importance of considering equality in design for the proposed Westfields development, noting upcoming SEND reforms and greater curriculum flexibility (including arts and creative subjects).  Procurement and design could take time and cost implications needed to be recognised.
• It was asked whether the decision on pausing Cledford could be deferred until the February committee meeting, when an update on the Flag Lane AP free school was also expected.
• Consideration was given to the balance of increasing SEND places with financial management.
• Children encountered difficulties with transitions; an all-through school would assist with this.
• Historical context and available SEND places being spread across Cheshire.
• Capital funding, once spent, could not be spent again.

In response, officers reported that:

• Many small schools attracted higher numbers of pupils with SEND due to the benefits of smaller environments, which were sometimes specified in pupils’ Education, Health and Care Plans.
• The need to support schools through workforce development, leadership support, and improved consistency in the identification of emerging needs was emphasised.
• All schools received a SEND notional budget, but it was acknowledged that this often did not meet the needs of schools with high numbers of SEND pupils.  There were plans to explore inclusion funding as a potential ‘invest to save’ model to support needs at SEND Support level and reduce unnecessary EHCP requests.  Work was underway to introduce a consistent inclusion framework for all schools, enabling clearer identification of pressures, needs and development opportunities across the system.  There was ongoing development of central and partnership?based support, including advisory services, specialist outreach and workforce training networks.
• In terms of smaller and rural schools, the issues raised were acknowledged and it was confirmed that the forthcoming Sufficiency Strategy would consider the differing circumstances of schools across the borough.  The forthcoming SEND provision proposal process would allow all local schools to submit proposals for the use of SEND capital to strengthen inclusive practice.  Schools would be able to identify needs relating to physical space, workforce development, and specialist facilities (e.g., changing spaces, sensory rooms), with proposals considered as part of an overall balanced capital allocation.  While funding was limited, the process would create fair opportunities for schools to outline what improvements were required to support pupils with SEND.  Schools with pupils holding EHCPs had specific commissioning arrangements and were able to respond to consultations on provision requirements.
• A new Inclusion Framework was being developed to ensure a consistent approach in identifying needs, assessing pressures, and supporting schools to strengthen inclusive practice.  Advisory services, specialist outreach, and network?based training were being reviewed and expanded to upskill the workforce and improve consistency across schools.
• In terms of national SEND reform, the Government’s SEND White Paper had not yet been published, though previously expected in late 2024.  Early indications suggested publication in February or March 2026.  The Government had commenced large?scale investment in SEND workforce development, including a £200m national training fund.  National reforms were expected to focus on inclusion, consistent pathways, partnership working, governance, leadership and predictable needs.
• The DfE had recently engaged local SEND advisers, SEND financial advisers and early years SEND roles in preparation for reforms.  Cheshire East would meet with the DfE in the coming weeks for pre?engagement discussions on the seven reform pillars.
• Updates from Ofsted also placed increasing emphasis on inclusive practice within school inspection frameworks.
• No detail was available yet regarding potential changes to the SEND appeals process under the forthcoming reforms.
• The most common SEND needs across Cheshire East related to communication and language, Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH), and behavioural needs.  Westfields was intended to support a generic range of needs across all age groups.
• No immediate implications in respect of devolution arrangements had been identified.
• There was a need to balance increasing requests for EHCPs with growing levels of need at SEND Support, emphasising the importance of improving mainstream inclusion while also increasing specialist places.
• In terms of financials, capital funding supported physical spaces and infrastructure.  High Needs Block funded SEND placements and ongoing support.  Revenue pressures arose primarily from unmet needs driving EHCP applications, not from specialist placements themselves.
• Parts of the St. Gregory’s site were jointly owned: the Council did part own some of the buildings on site.  A plan of the site could be shared with Members.
• The originally approved 120?place free school proposal was never progressed by the DfE; hence, Cheshire East was now considering delivering a larger all?through provision, subject to feasibility.  Full feasibility work would follow if the committee approved the Westfields proposal.  In terms of the planning process, due process would need to be followed.
• System pressures and inconsistent approaches make improvement necessary; it was not about schools not willing to be inclusive.
• Available data indicated the challenges relating to suspensions, exclusions, part?time timetables, and unofficial reduced timetables, reinforcing the need for increased mainstream support.
• SEND workforce development initiatives would include regular SENCO development sessions, improved consistency in identifying need, best?practice training, and improved use of physical space.
• All schools, including academies, would be able to submit provision proposals for SEND capital funding as part of an area wide strategy.
• In terms of MATs bidding for free schools independently, officers clarified that MAT?led bids depended on DfE provider?led application windows, which were currently closed.  Any new school created by the Council must follow the free school presumption process unless it could be clearly defined as a satellite site/expansion of an existing school.  The distinction between setting up a new school and establishing a satellite site was outlined in the school organisation regulations.
• Further information would be brought to a future committee in respect of: numbers placed in independent specialist provision; cost impacts; and High Needs Block management planning.
• A borough?wide analysis of physical space is underway to identify opportunities for new Resource Provisions (RPs) and SEND units.
• Working with all schools, irrespective of whether they were maintained or academies – all working together to provide support to support children in Cheshire East.
• Parents could express preference for schools and independent placements, and tribunals could direct the Council to fund them where appropriate.
• The deficit High New Block had been increasing year-on-year; further information would be available for a later committee date.
• Westfields was proposed as an all?through, generic special school, supporting a wide range of needs.
• Free school versus satellite options; statutory processes would determine which route was permissible.
• Section 106 funding was claimed for primary, secondary and SEND places - SEND as part of primary and secondary claim - where evidenced.  SEND contributions could be used borough?wide.  CIL funding was allocated through wider council processes and not controlled by Children’s Services.
• Proceeding with both Cledford and Westfields would significantly limit capital available for mainstream inclusion improvements.  Pausing Cledford allowed a full sufficiency review and detailed assessment of provision proposals from schools.
• Officers advised that delaying decisions would prevent progress on the wider SEND sufficiency scoping exercise, including seeking provision proposals from schools.  Schools would be expected to prepare full business cases (covering need, staffing, space and impact), and delaying engagement could undermine partnership working.  Pausing Cledford did not remove it from consideration; it remained a potential future option following the sufficiency review.

It was agreed that owing to the complexity of the recommendations they be voted upon in blocks, as follows: recommendations 1-4; recommendations 5 and 6; and recommendation 7.

RESOLVED (By Majority):

That the Children and Families Committee

1. Approve the funding and self-delivery of Westfields SEN school using existing capital allocations, see attached appendix 1 detailing how this would be funded. This would include the proposal to change this to an ‘all through’ special school rather than solely secondary.

2. Approve and delegate authority to the Executive Director of Children’s Services to:

3. Recommend to Finance Sub Committee to approve the grant funded capital budget of circa £16m to progress with the Westfields proposal and approve a virement of High Needs Capital Funding from the schemes as set out in Appendix 1.

4. Agree to progress with undertaking the free school presumption process to identify and obtain agreement for a new school sponsor under section 6A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006.This will include undertaking a consultation with the local community, schools, councillors, town council and local MP. This is not the formal statutory consultation which sponsors are required to undertake.

5. Approve the pause of the primary aged proposals, including the additional Springfield satellite (Cledford, Middlewich) to ensure funds available to make further decisions as we work on developing the strategy in response to the emerging information and data of both SEND support and EHCP needs.

6. Approve the release of the former St Gregory’s and Vernon Infant sites and declare the sites surplus to the requirements of Children and Families, enabling the sites to be added to the Council’s disposal programme.

7. Approve the development of a renewed sufficiency strategy to ensure a strategic approach to SEND provision across the system.

The meeting adjourned at 1:28pm for a short break.