Agenda and minutes

To note any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R Bailey, M Beanland, R Moreton and G Smith. Councillors D Clark, J Clowes, S Holland and M Gorman were present as substitutes.

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, other registerable interests, and non-registerable interests in any item on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 19 January 2026.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2026 be agreed as a correct record.

In accordance with paragraph 2.24 of the Council’s Committee Procedure Rules and Appendix on Public Speaking, set out in the Constitution, a total period of 15 minutes is allocated for members of the public to put questions to the committee on any matter relating to this agenda. Each member of the public will be allowed up to two minutes each to speak, and the Chair will have discretion to vary this where they consider it appropriate.

Members of the public wishing to speak are required to provide notice of this at least three clear working days’ in advance of the meeting.

Petitions - To receive any petitions which have met the criteria - Petitions Scheme Criteria, and falls within the remit of the Committee. Petition organisers will be allowed up to three minutes to speak.

Nic Brindle, Chief Executive of the Youth Engagement Schools (YES) Trust, addressed the committee in relation to agenda item 7: ‘Update on Recent Communication from the Department for Education (DfE) - New Alternative Provision Free School, Flag Lane, Crewe’.

The following points were raised in relation to the site, timescales and financial considerations of the proposal:

·         Site: it was acknowledged that the Flag Lane site was not perfect but was central, accessible and Council?owned; it had remained derelict for some time. It was noted that alternative sites existed but were not as accessible for children and families.

·         Timescales: the immediate temporary provision could be opened in the new The Dome Youth Zone from September 2026; the Trust could provide accelerated support.

·         Financial considerations: the proposal would deliver significant savings for the Council, with an estimated £1.6m per year through less expensive interventions.  It was commented that wider projected benefits would include reductions in exclusions, NEET outcomes and crime and antisocial behaviour, and save an estimated £60m in revenue over the next decade.

·         The proposal would address longstanding inequalities in provision in Crewe.

Sapna Sanghvia, Regional Leader for Smartphone Free Childhood, addressed the committee in relation to agenda item 10: ‘Notice of Motion - Prohibiting Smartphone Use in Local Authority Schools’.

The following points were raised:

·         There was extensive evidence linking smartphone use to mental health impacts, reduced concentration, sleep issues, addiction, myopia, cyberbullying and exposure to harmful online content.

·         Strengthened Department for Education (DfE) guidance and funding from the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) was welcomed, but it was stressed that phone pouches, although helpful for school staff, would not protect children when travelling to and from school. 

·         A ‘brick phone’?only, smartphone?free policy would be welcomed.  It was noted that ‘brick phones’ were affordable, easy to enforce and supported children’s independence without online risk.  It was suggested that the available funds could instead be used to supply ‘brick phones’ where needed.

·         Cheshire East was encouraged to follow other examples nationally by adopting the gold standard approach for safeguarding.

As proposer of the Notice of Motion that was submitted to Full Council on 10 December 2025, Councillor D Jefferay addressed the committee in relation to agenda item 10: ‘Notice of Motion - Prohibiting Smartphone Use in Local Authority Schools’.

The following points were raised:

·         The intention of the Notice of Motion was to improve pupils’ wellbeing, behaviour and safety and was not anti?technology.

·         Cheshire East’s pilot schools had reported significant improvements in behaviour and safeguarding when phones were removed.

·         Concerns regarding cost, SEN needs, medical needs and parental communication were acknowledged, but it was noted that early adopter schools had successfully addressed these issues.

·         Councillor Jefferay supported most of the recommendations but requested that the committee highlight the strengthened DfE guidance issued on 26 January 2026, which stated that schools should be phone?free for the entire school day and that Ofsted would now review implementation.  It was recognised that a statutory ban could not currently be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

To receive a verbal update on the Third Financial Review of 2025/26.

The Director of Finance and Deputy Section 151 Officer presented a verbal update on the Third Financial Review (FR3) of 2025/26.  The following points were raised:

·         The review outlined the Council’s forecast year?end financial position based on data to the end of November 2025; work was currently underway on the fourth Financial Review.  A briefing paper had been circulated to members summarising Children’s Services position at FR3.

·         The Council’s overall financial position had continued to improve from FR1 to FR3 and currently forecasted a break-even position, as reported to the Finance Sub?Committee on 30 January 2026.

·         Within Children’s Services, an improvement of £600,000 was reported between FR2 and FR3.  Despite this, the Directorate remained under significant pressure and forecasted an overspend of £8.1m at FR3.  The main cost drivers continued to be placement costs and staffing pressures.

·         Regarding the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) deficit, this was now forecast at £147.9m cumulatively.  Recent national changes in the treatment of DSG deficits, announced in the final financial settlement published on 9 February 2026, would form part of the upcoming budget approval process.

The committee asked questions and made comments in respect of:

·         The High Needs Stability Grant.  Officers confirmed that, subject to national criteria and approval of the local SEND Reform Strategy, the Council may be able to reclaim up to 90% of the cumulative DSG deficit at the end of March 2026.  It was noted that further discussions or additional relief may be possible only in exceptional circumstances.

·         The continued challenges posed by rising Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) numbers and the need for sustained work to address SEND pressures.

·         Appreciation was expressed for the efforts of finance and SEND officers in managing these issues.

·         DSG pressures were a national issue and not unique to Cheshire East.

RESOLVED

That the Children and Families Committee

1. Note the information received.

To consider the Dedicated Schools Grant 2026/27.

The committee considered a report on the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) for 2026/27.

The report:

·         Provided the committee with an update on the DSG for 2026/27.

·         Sought approval for the allocation of each sub block making up the DSG.

·         Sought approval of the schools funding formula and early years funding formula following recommendations from the Schools Forum.

·         Sought approval to provide delegated authority to the Executive Director of Children’s Services to use the funds in accordance with the relevant guidance and proposed funding formula methods.

Key funding movements were highlighted to the committee, which included increases in the overall DSG, the Schools Block and Early Years Block.  The continuing rise in EHCP demand, with nearly 500 additional plans in the past 9-12 months was also noted.

Regarding the Schools Forum vote, Members heard that although the Forum had not supported the transfer, the outcome reflected wider national frustrations about school funding pressures - rather than disagreement with the Local Authority.  It was emphasised that the DfE had considered the transfer through the lens of system?wide need and the needs of all children.

The committee asked questions and made comments in respect of:

·         The real impact on school budgets and how the proposed use of transferred funds differed from existing provision.

·         DfE expectations regarding investment in inclusive mainstream provision.

·         The committee welcomed the context provided on the Schools Forum vote and stressed the importance of assessing the impact of spending on inclusion.

·         The implications of early years termly census changes.

·         The system and data issues raised in Appendix 7, in particular the issues experienced with the Controcc system.

·         The importance of strengthening and understanding inclusion and inclusivity whilst acknowledging the financial strain on schools, particularly those that were smaller and located in more rural settings.

In response, officers reported that:

·         All consultation materials and school?level modelling were available via the Schools Forum pages on the Council’s website.  Hyperlinks were included at paragraph 27 of the report.

·         Additional capacity was required to deliver the Inclusion Framework, provide workforce development for schools, strengthen specialist support and ensure consistent, ongoing engagement across all phases.  Existing services would be enhanced, not duplicated.

·         Cheshire East would be required to report regularly to the DfE under strengthened SEND financial oversight, supported by an independent chair of the SEND Improvement and Assurance Board.

·         The initial issues affecting the Controcc system had been resolved; some remaining issues were being worked through.

·         Moving to a termly census would increase accuracy but reduce the numbers reported annually; transitional funding would ensure no financial shortfall in 2026/27.

RESOLVED (Unanimously):

That the Children and Families Committee

Schools Block

1. Approve a formula for the adoption of the Schools Funding Formula 2026/27:

i.              The use of a local funding formula that uses the Department for Education (DfE) national funding formula factors, uplifted for the Cheshire East area cost adjustment, and with any additional funding being allocated via the basic entitlement factor. The formula factors are set out at Appendix 2.

ii.            The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

To receive an update on recent communication from the DfE regarding the new Alternative Provision (AP) free school, Flag Lane, Crewe.

The committee received an update on the proposed new Alternative Provision (AP) Free School at Flag Lane, Crewe, including recent correspondence from the DfE.

The DfE has paused AP free school projects nationally and had offered Local Authorities two options:

1.    Proceed with the DfE?led AP free school at Flag Lane, despite the absence of any confirmed delivery timescales; or

2.    Accept a £3.465m capital allocation, to be used instead for locally determined SEND and inclusion priorities within the refreshed SEND Strategy.

It was emphasised that officers had repeatedly sought clarity from the DfE on delivery timescales for the Flag Lane project but had been unable to secure a definitive response.  The deadline for the Council’s formal response to the DfE was 27 February 2026, and this must be issued by the Director of Children’s Services.

The committee asked questions and made comments in respect of:

·         The report stated that consultation was ‘not applicable’, which was felt inappropriate given the significance of the decision.  It was felt that local Councillors, the YES Trust and school leaders should have been consulted.

·         The report omitted information shared earlier in the meeting by the YES Trust representative around alternative delivery options.

·         The intended use of the £3.465m capital funding, the risk of losing funding if declined, and whether alternative sites had been fully explored.

·         The implications for the Council if a reply was not provided to the DfE by the stipulated deadline.

·         Disappointment with the lack of DfE engagement; the risks to vulnerable young people if AP provision was not delivered in Crewe were noted.

·         Outcome monitoring if capital funding was accepted instead.

·         The types of provision that the capital funding would support.

·         The high quality of the YES Trust’s work and strong support for expanding AP capacity in Crewe.

·         Concerns over indefinite delays if waiting for a DfE?delivered build, given previous experience with Westfields.

·         Potential exploration of alternative sites rather than treating the decision as binary.

·         Potential alternative use of the Flag Lane site.

·         Loss of a valuable opportunity if the capital funding was declined.

·         Delivery of AP provision in the south of the borough.

·         The decisions to be taken and the impact on timescales for delivering support to children.

In response, officers reported that:

·         This issue was first raised at the previous committee meeting and brought back promptly at Members’ request.

·         The Council was working strictly within DfE deadlines and the limited options presented.

·         There was no question or concern about the quality of provision delivered by the YES Trust; their work was valued.

·         Officers had engaged with the YES Trust, having met with them in December 2025.

·         The principal risk of proceeding with Flag Lane related to unknown and potentially significant abnormal costs, and the need to maintain the site at Council expense for an indeterminate period while awaiting DfE progression.

·         The £3.465m could support capital modifications within mainstream schools, enabling the creation of nurture spaces, resource bases, small?group rooms or alternative provision rooms, tailored to local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

To receive an update regarding the new primary school at Basford East, near Weston, Crewe.

The committee received an update following the recent public consultation on the proposed new 1FE (210?place) primary school at Basford East, linked to the development of 815 new homes.

The committee noted the consultation feedback included within the report.  Officers confirmed that earlier questions raised at the previous committee meeting had been addressed within the update.

The committee asked questions and made comments in respect of:

·         Whether updated pupil forecasts had been prepared, given changing birth rates in parts of the borough, to ensure that new provision would not destabilise nearby schools.

·         Whether housing numbers from Basford West and the South Cheshire Growth Village (450 homes) had been factored into planning.

·         The low number of consultation responses - eight responses had been received.

·         Whether drop?off/pick?up issues had been addressed.

·         The need for safe routes to school and potential future consideration of ‘safer school zones’ and ‘safer school streets’ schemes.

·         An event had been held last week for all interested Trusts to attend.  The turnout had been positive, with the majority already operating in Cheshire East.

In response, officers reported that:

·         Revised pupil forecasts were included in the September 2025 committee report, which demonstrated a clear need for additional places.  Weston Village Primary School was the only school within walking distance and could not meet projected demand.

·         The school would be built with infrastructure for future expansion to 2FE, with additional classrooms to be added as growth proceeded.  Section 106 contributions from the Growth Village would be sought.

·         Only 3-4 residents had attended the in?person event; however, this was a repeat of the exercise undertaken in 2022, prior to the scheme being put on hold.

·         Plans submitted to planning now included an on?site drop?off area, sufficient staff parking for a future 2FE school, and improved pedestrian access and crossings to encourage active travel.

RESOLVED

That the Children and Families Committee

1.    Note the feedback received from the recent public consultation on the proposed new primary school in Basford, near Weston, Crewe.

The meeting adjourned for a short break.

To consider the Reconnect programme.

The committee considered a report that sought approval for a proposal for Cheshire East Council to enter into a payment?by?results partnership with Reconnect Services Ltd.

The aim was to support up to 40 children currently in high?cost residential care to step down safely into family?based placements, including foster care or appropriately assessed family networks, in line with their care plans.

Reconnect’s 17?month programme provided:

·         Trauma?informed assessments.

·         Therapeutic support.

·         Carefully planned step?down transitions.

·         Close co?working with social care teams.

·         Stability planning.

·         Recruitment of specialist foster carers via their wider professional networks.

The partnership involved no upfront costs and Reconnect was only paid when verified savings were achieved, with programme fees (£970k) drawn from in?programme savings.  An additional £10,000 fee was payable per specialist foster carer approved, covering assessment activity.  Carers became Cheshire East foster carers and would be supported under normal fostering regulations.

Potential savings were significant due to the high-cost differential between residential and foster placements.  Officers noted that the approach aligned with the Corporate Parenting Strategy, Sufficiency Strategy and MTFS through risk?sharing and measurable outcomes.

The committee asked questions and made comments in respect of:

·         Alternative options and procurement processes and requirements.

·         Evidence of success and long?term sustainability.

·         Monitoring and governance arrangements; the importance of robust and regular monitoring.

·         The rationale for residential costs and wider market context.

·         The purpose of the £10,000 payment.

·         The current costs associated with foster carer recruitment.

·         Links with Families First and kinship care.

·         The number of placements covered by this cohort.

In response, officers reported that:

·         Reconnect’s model was new, with limited direct comparators. 

·         In terms of procurement processes, at the time the report was prepared it was understood there were no alternative providers offering this type of service through a payment?by?results model.  This indicated that a direct award could be considered.  However, as some time had passed during the report’s progression through governance processes, it was noted that this position would need to be rechecked and updated procurement advice sought to confirm whether this remained the case.  Initial information indicated no comparable competitors in the market.

·         The programme carried low financial risk as payment was dependent on results.

·         The success of the programme would be reviewed after 17 months.

·         Foster carers recruited via Reconnect would be subject to the same approval and oversight as all Cheshire East foster carers.

·         The costs associated with children’s residential care were driven by market forces; Regional Care Cooperatives were being developed to help address this.

·         This programme would supplement, rather than replace, existing fostering recruitment.  Reconnect’s role would be to identify and assess potential foster carers.

·         Figures pertaining to the current care population were outlined.

·         A written response would be provided on the current cost of foster carer recruitment, as other staffing and team activity costs would need to be separated out from this work.

·         This programme focused primarily on the recruitment of foster carers.  The intended outcome of having more children able  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

To consider the Notice of Motion - Prohibiting Smartphone Use in Local Authority Schools.

The committee received a report responding to the Notice of Motion regarding prohibiting smartphone use in Local Authority schools, which was submitted to Full Council on 10 December 2025.

Officers outlined that the motion required consideration of four areas: restricting pupil access to mobile phones and similar devices; developing a consistent policy with schools; ensuring alternative communication arrangements were in place; and supporting schools through clear guidance and phased implementation.

It was noted that national guidance had been updated, including revised DfE guidance and a letter from the Secretary of State for Education (January 2026) advising schools to have clear policies in place by April 2026.

Members were informed of engagement with the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), including information shared with schools on funding availability, pilot schools, and safeguarding improvements observed elsewhere.  Cheshire East was unable to access PCC funding directly but continued to work collaboratively to support schools.

The committee was advised of the ‘Early Years Screen Time & Usage: Call for Evidence’ consultation undertaken in February 2026, along with the  consultation currently taking place regarding proposals to ban social media for children under 16.

The Deputy PCC highlighted evidence showing reductions in safeguarding incidents, exclusions, and risks linked to mobile phone use when devices were restricted during the school day.  The aim was not to prescribe policy but to support schools with an approach shown to improve safeguarding outcomes.

The committee asked questions and made comments in respect of:

·         The use of pouches versus alternative locked storage in schools and the practical and safeguarding challenges in high?volume settings.

·         Engagement with Multi?Academy Trusts and the limitations of Council jurisdiction, noting reliance on collaboration rather than mandate.

·         The potential use of ‘brick phones’.

·         The potential impact on homework apps, access to bus timetables, and other digital use.

·         Evidence from schools and from the Esther Ghey (Brianna Ghey) Phone?Free Education campaign, particularly on reducing exposure to harmful content and improving school culture.

·         The need to act early to prevent long?term normalisation of harmful digital habits.  This would be an important first step in addressing wider issues around mobile phone use among young people, with further measures likely in the future.

In response, and in addition to the information outlined previously, the officer and Deputy PCC reported that:

·         ‘Brick phones’ were outside the scope of the current proposal, which focused on the school day.

·         The approach towards use of mobile phones for homework, bus timetabling and other digital use varied between schools and could be adapted.

·         Further work would take place as required.

RESOLVED (Unanimously):

That the Children and Families Committee

1.    Approve that Cheshire East Council can support Point 1, 3 and 4 of the Motion via:

a.    Reminding schools to refer to the DfE Guidance for Schools on prohibiting the use of mobile phones throughout the school day, February 2024.

b.    Linking schools to the Advisory Board formed by nine pilot schools in Cheshire.

c.    Continuing to work with Cheshire's Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

To note the minutes of the Cared for Children and Care Leavers Committee meeting held on 2 September 2025.

The committee received the minutes of the Cared for Children and Care Leavers Committee meeting held on 2 September 2025.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes be noted.

To consider the Work Programme and determine any required amendments.

The committee considered the Work Programme.

The following was noted:

·         No amendments were proposed by officers.

·         A Member requested that a future report be brought to the committee to provide an updated overview of significant deficit budget positions, noting the associated risks to the DSG management plan and the value of understanding the scale of financial pressures across the education system.  The Chair acknowledged the importance of the topic and noted the Council’s transition to the Cabinet system in May 2026, with only one committee meeting remaining before the change.  Officers advised that September 2026 would be an appropriate point in the year to consider this item.  The Chair suggested that the matter could be considered by scrutiny.

RESOLVED:

That the Work Programme be received and noted.