Agenda item

To consider any Notices of Motion that have been received in accordance with the Council Procedure Rules.

Consideration was given to the following Notices of Motion which had been submitted in accordance with the Council’s Procedural Rules.

 

1               Adlington New Town

 

The two Notices of Motion in relation to Adlington New Town have been consolidated into one Motion, which had been agreed by the original proposers and seconders.

 

Proposed by Councillor F Wilson and Seconded by Councillor M Sewart.

 

“This Notice of Motion is brought forward because we object to the Independent New Towns Task Force’s (NTTF) proposition to establish a New Settlement of up to 20,000 homes on land at Adlington. We recognise that the decision maker is the Secretary of State, not the Council.

 

Additionally, we are concerned at how this proposal was brought forward, with a lack of public consultation on behalf of both the landowner (Belport) and the NTTF.

 

Cheshire East Council cannot ignore either the fundamental flaws of the proposal or the significant opposition from the people of Adlington, its surrounding parishes, and neighbouring towns.

 

In short, we cannot support the building of a New Town at Adlington and as such we would recommend that the Council’s opposition to the proposal should be formalised.

 

Recommendation

 

1.             That this Council formally objects to the proposal for a New Town on land at Adlington.

 

2.             This Council requests and authorises the Leader and Deputy Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government (the decision maker) asserting the Council’s opposition to the proposed New Town at Adlington and setting out the reasons for its opposition.

 

3.             That should any further proposals, of a similar nature, be brought forward, that the details of such proposals are referred to the Council’s Economy and Growth Committee for consideration.

 

4.             Similarly, in the event of the Adlington proposal moving to the next stage, the formal response to any further consultation should also be referred to the Economy and Growth Committee and the Council’s formal response to such matters be agreed via the Economy and Growth Committee.”

 

RESOLVED:

That the Notice of Motion be approved.

 

 

2                        Protecting the Role of Police Community Support Officers across Cheshire and Warrington.

 

Proposed by Councillor J Clowes and seconded by Councillor J Smith

 

“This Council notes with significant concern, the proposal, announced on
21^st November 2025, by Chief Constable Mark Roberts and later confirmed by the Police and Crime Commissioner Dan Price, to axe sixty PCSO jobs, reducing the current number from 87 to just 27 PCSOs by Spring 2026.

 

A 30-day internal consultation to consider how £13m savings might be achieved by 2029, was launched on 17^th November and is still live, however all PCSOs have already received a notice of redundancy commencing 31^st March 2026, (stating that any applications for non-uniform posts must be submitted by 16^th December).

 

The Chief Constable has stated that this drastic action is to enable the introduction of a new Neighbourhood Policing Model that will “meet the needs of modern-day policing” and for which “a reduction in the current number of PCSOs is required.”

 

In addition, the Chief Constable has stated that the reduction of PCSOs will put more warranted Police Officers in local policing teams, in order to support the Government’s Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee.

 

This statement and action related to Cheshire PCSOs directly contradicts the Labour Government’s own Recommended protocol (13^th May 2025), for the implementation of the Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee Problem Statement which states:

 

“The Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee (NPG) aims to rebuild the link between police forces and the communities they serve through delivering 13k additional neighbourhood officers and PCSOs. This will be set out through activities that will be delivered through 5 pillars of the NPG”.

 

“INPUT

 

-         £200m commitment for Year 1 (2025/2026)

-         Delivery of 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and special constables into    neighbourhood policing roles”

 

In addition, each Police Authority is to be assessed every six months by the Home Office with regard to their progress against delivery of the five pillars that underpin the NPG.

 

In light of the current legislation that demands an increase in the numbers of both warranted police officers AND PCSOs on the streets of our neighbourhoods, the proposed actions of both the Chief Constable and the Police and Crime Commissioner are counter intuitive.

 

In light of this significant inconsistency:

 

This Council requires answers to the following concerns and resolves to:

 

1.        Contact the Chief Constable and Police and Crime Commissioner and request the following definitive information:

 

i)               Please confirm that just £3m has been allocated to the Cheshire Police Force of the £200m funding identified by the Labour Government, for the implementation of the Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee (NPG)

 

ii)              How will the loss of the majority of Cheshire’s PCSOs by April 2026 enable the Cheshire Police Force to meet key performance indicators (KPI’s) for PCSOs that the Home Office expects?

 

iii)            What is the fiscal evidence-base for making 60 of 87 PCSOs redundant?

 

iv)            Will the proposed new warranted police officers be funded by these redundancies or by the Government’s NPG allocation to the Cheshire Police Force?

-          In either case, how sustainable are these new appointments?

 

v)             Will the number of the new warranted police officers to be appointed, be commensurate with the number of PCSOs lost?

 

vi)            How has the loss of the invaluable local community knowledge (acquired and shared over many years by Cheshire’s PCSOs) been accounted for in implementing the NPG model?

 

vii)           How will the allocation of warranted officers across communities address the current sparsity of policing human resources across the wider geographies of rural communities as rural crime continues to rise?

 

2.       Considering the NPG and the concerns raised above, this Council requests that the Chief Constable and Police and Crime Commissioner reconsider their decision to reduce their PCSO cohort.”

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Notice of Motion be referred to the Cheshire Police Chief Constable and the Cheshire Police and Crime Commissioner.

 

 

3        Prohibiting Smartphone Use in Local Authority Schools

 

Proposed by Councillor D Jefferay, seconded by Councillor E Gilman

 

“Recent non-statutory guidance put forward by the Department for Education (DfE) (2024) states that:

 

” All schools should develop and implement a policy that creates a mobile phone-free environment by prohibiting the use of mobile phones and other smart technology with similar functionality to mobile phones throughout the school day, including during lessons, the time between lessons, breaktimes and lunchtime.”

 

However, even the schools that do have a ban vary in how it is applied. A recent review of smartphone policies in the UK by Mansfield et al. (2024) found that, among secondary schools,

·       11 per cent implemented what they term an ‘Effective ban’ (where phones are not allowed in school or are stored in lockers or equivalent, e.g., Yondr pouches, at the start of the day).

·       52 per cent ‘Ban, but phone present’ (e.g., in school bags).

·       36 per cent ‘Partial ban’ (phones banned in class, but allowed at some times, such as break or lunch).

Research commissioned by the Children’s Commissioner (School phone policies in England, April 2025) found a similar breakdown with very few schools having an effective ban. This research also indicates that exclusion rates in schools with pouches are drastically falling as the addictive nature of smartphones is broken during the school day.

 

There are some studies which suggest that having smartphones in schools does not affect grades but the more recent studies, where phone and social media use is widespread tend to indicate an adverse effect. The problem with the weaker bans is that they assume the use of the phone is the distraction but even having access to the phone is in itself distracting. Skowronek, J., Seifert, A. & Lindberg, S. (2023) demonstrated that the presence of the smartphone results in lower attentional performance and has a negative influence on the working speed (and thus on cognitive performance and attention). The paper concludes that “Students should avoid having their smartphone with them while attention is required.”

 

It is further noted that the Phone-Free Schools Movement and international best practice highlight the benefits of phone-free school days, including improved concentration and learning outcomes, healthier peer-to-peer interactions, a reduction in classroom disruptions, cheating, and disciplinary incidents; and better safeguarding of pupils during the school day.

 

Bans are supported by the Cheshire Police and Crime Commissioner who has launched an initiative for mobile phones to be locked away during the school day in every state high school in Cheshire. The PCC wants Cheshire to be the first county in the UK where all state high schools have lockable phone pouches. It is worth noting that he has a funding plan of up to £150k to launch the initiative. The PCC reports that schools with lockable pouches are seeing immediate, widespread, positive results in wellbeing and a dramatic reduction in online safeguarding incidents; one quoting an 80% reduction in these.

 

Based on the above, it is proposed that this Council moves to:

 

1.             Prohibit pupils’ access to smartphones and similar personal electronic devices during the school day in all local authority-maintained schools in Cheshire East, with reasonable exemptions for documented medical or special educational needs.

2.             Instruct the Director of Education to work with headteachers and governing bodies to develop and implement a consistent, enforceable policy across all maintained schools, in line with the Phone-Free Schools model of a “first bell to last bell” ban.

3.             Ensure that alternative communication systems are in place so that parents can contact schools during the day and pupils can access support in emergencies without recourse to personal devices.

4.             Support schools, staff, pupils and parents through clear communication, guidance and phased implementation, with a view to commencing the policy in the next academic year.”

RESOLVED:

That the Motion be referred to the appropriate committee.