This week in Kent:

Council Grapples with Budget Shortfall: Key Decisions on Revenue and Financial Plans

The Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, facing the critical task of approving late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). This meeting also included a review of the Quarterly Performance Report for the third quarter of the 2025-26 financial year. The proposed adjustments to the budget signal a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total to £1,654.5 million. This rise is attributed to shifts in final funding announcements, adjustments to retained business rates, and a deficit in the business rate collection fund.

Budget Adjustments: Balancing the Books Amidst Funding Changes

The core of the discussion revolved around necessary changes to the approved 2026-27 revenue budget. The final Local Government Finance Settlement and adjustments to Retained Business Rates have created a shortfall that the council must address. To balance the books, the Cabinet was recommended to approve drawing down from the local taxation reserve.

A significant point of discussion was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which supported local authorities in managing deficits in the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This programme is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant. While the new grant will cover 90% of the accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026, the remaining 10% must be funded by local authorities. The report indicates an estimated High Needs Stability Grant of £167.887 million from the Department for Education. Crucially, previous local authority contributions to the Safety Valve Programme are expected to cover Kent's 10% share, leaving a residual surplus of £31.4 million.

• What's at Stake: These financial decisions directly impact the council's ability to fund essential services. For vulnerable groups, particularly those relying on SEND support, any shortfall in funding could mean reduced services or longer waiting times for crucial interventions. The increase in member community grants, proposed to rise to £4,600 per member for 2026-27, aims to support local initiatives but is funded from the overall budget.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised net revenue budget and to draw down from the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances related to the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: You can find the full details of these budget adjustments here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six Key Indicators Flagged as 'Red'

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', meaning they did not meet the floor standard. These indicators span several critical service areas:

• Customer Services: Percentage of complaints responded to within the timescale.
• Governance and Law: Percentage of Freedom of Information Act (FoI) requests completed within 20 working days, and Percentage of Data Protection Act (DPA) Subject Access requests completed within statutory timescales.
• Children, Young People and Education (Education and Skills): Percentage of pupils with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) being placed in independent or out-of-county special schools.
• Children, Young People and Education (Integrated Children's Services): Percentage of foster care placements which are in-house or with relatives and friends (excluding Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children - UASC).

• Adult Social Care: Percentage of KCC-supported people in residential or nursing care where the Care Quality Commission (CQC) rating is 'Good' or 'Outstanding'.

• What's at Stake: 'Red' ratings in these areas signal potential issues that could directly affect residents. For example, delays in responding to complaints or FoI requests can hinder transparency and accountability. The placement of pupils with EHCPs in out-of-county schools can be costly and disruptive for families. Similarly, a low percentage of in-house foster care placements can impact the stability and quality of care for children in the system. In Adult Social Care, a low percentage of 'Good' or 'Outstanding' rated care homes could mean a higher risk of substandard care for vulnerable adults.

• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (achieved or exceeded target) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators highlight areas requiring urgent attention and improvement. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities.

• Learn More: Review the full performance data here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Navigating Uncertainty and Planning for Change

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter was also considered.

Scenarios for Reorganisation: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several potential scenarios if the LGR timetable changes. These scenarios highlight the inherent uncertainty and potential disruption:

• Scenario 1: Vesting Day delayed to April 2028, but decision delayed to Autumn 2026. This would significantly compress the implementation timetable, requiring an exceptionally short timeframe for the Structural Change Order (SCO) to be drafted and approved.
• Scenario 2: Vesting Day moved to April 2029. This offers more preparation time but could lead to uncertainty around shadow unitary elections and Vesting Day falling close to a general election. Shadow council members could serve for two years.
• Scenario 3: Vesting Day pushed beyond the next General Election (August 2029). This poses a significant threat, as a new government could halt or redesign the programme, leaving Kent and Medway in limbo with substantial sunk costs.

• Scenario 4: Government abandons LGR policy. This would leave financial pressures unaddressed and require managing transition costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline and the very future of the reorganisation creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors voiced concerns about potential recruitment of senior officers by new authorities, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements. The council's response to the government consultation strongly supports a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, arguing it is the most financially sustainable and service-effective option.

• Learn More: Explore the detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for both the council and the Pension Fund for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and the accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Impact: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timelines or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, impacting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the implementation of the Oracle system. The materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council's risk management strategy and received updates on counter-fraud activities and schools' financial management.

External Audit Focus: Financial Sustainability and Governance Under Scrutiny

Grant Thornton presented the external audit plans for the year ending 31 March 2026. Key risks identified for the council include management override of controls, the valuation of land and buildings, and the Oracle system implementation. Materiality for the council's audit was set at £59.5 million.

A significant focus for the value for money assessment will be on financial sustainability, particularly concerning the ongoing cost pressures in Adult Social Care and SEND. The decision to raise Council Tax by 3.99%, which is below the maximum allowable flexibility, was also flagged as an area for scrutiny. Additionally, potential governance weaknesses arising from recent changes in the administration's membership since the May 2025 elections will be examined.

• What's at Stake: The audit process provides assurance on the council's financial management and its arrangements for securing value for money. For residents, this means confidence that public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively, especially in critical areas like social care and SEND.
• The Outcome: The committee received updates on the audit plans and accounting policies for the upcoming Statement of Accounts. The updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy for 2026-2028 was approved.
• Learn More: Read the full details of the audit plans and governance review here: Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Summary.

Other Matters

Transport Appeals Panel Meets in Private

The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) met on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. The panel was scheduled to consider six appeals. As is typical for this panel, these items were discussed with the press and public excluded due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to individuals.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Kent Community Safety Partnership will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 01 April 2026.
• The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will meet on Thursday 02 April 2026.

Council Faces Tough Choices on Budget and Service Delivery

Kent County Council's Cabinet met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to approve significant adjustments to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and the 2026-29 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). These changes, driven by shifts in final funding announcements and adjustments to retained business rates, result in a net increase of £6.4 million, bringing the total budget to £1,654.5 million. The council is facing a substantial deficit, necessitating a draw from the local taxation reserve to balance the books.

SEND Funding Under Pressure: A £167 Million Grant and a £16 Million Local Contribution

A key discussion point was the cessation of the Safety Valve Programme, which previously supported local authorities in managing deficits within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block. This is being replaced by the High Needs Stability Grant, which will cover 90% of Kent's accumulated deficit as of 31 March 2026. However, the remaining 10% – an estimated £16 million – must be funded by the council. While the new grant is substantial at £167.887 million, the council's contribution highlights the ongoing financial strain on services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

• What's at Stake: For children with SEND and their families, these financial decisions are critical. A shortfall in SEND funding could mean longer waiting lists for essential support, reduced access to specialist services, and increased pressure on families already navigating complex needs. The council's commitment to finding the remaining 10% from its own reserves, while necessary, underscores the difficult choices ahead in balancing budgets across all services.
• The Outcome: The Cabinet was asked to approve the revised budget and the use of the local taxation reserve. Technical changes were also proposed to transfer residual balances from the Safety Valve Programme to a new earmarked SEND reserve.
• Learn More: Full details on the budget adjustments can be found here: Late changes to the 2026-27 Revenue Budget and 2026-2029 Medium Term Financial Plan MTFP.

Performance Report: Six 'Red' Indicators Signal Areas for Urgent Improvement

The Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) for Quarter 3 of the 2025-26 financial year revealed that six out of 39 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'Red', indicating they failed to meet the minimum standard. These 'Red' indicators span critical service areas, including customer service response times, Freedom of Information and Data Protection request handling, SEND placements, foster care provision, and the quality of adult social care homes.

• What's at Stake: These 'Red' ratings are a stark warning sign, directly impacting residents' experiences with council services. Delays in complaint responses and information requests can undermine trust and transparency. For vulnerable children and adults, issues with SEND placements, foster care, and the quality of residential care could mean instability, disruption, and substandard support.
• The Trend: While 18 KPIs were rated 'Green' (meeting or exceeding targets) and 15 were 'Amber', the six 'Red' indicators demand immediate attention. The report also proposed new KPIs for 2026/27, focusing on commercial and procurement activities, but the immediate concern lies in addressing the underperformance in these crucial service areas.
• Learn More: Review the full performance data and identify areas needing urgent improvement here: Quarterly Performance Report - Quarter 3 - 2025-26.

Local Government Reorganisation: Uncertainty Looms Over Kent's Future Structure

The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee met on Monday, 23 March 2026, to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and the significant risks associated with LGR. The council's response to the government's consultation on the matter, which strongly advocates for a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, was also considered.

Potential Scenarios: From Vesting Day Delays to Policy Abandonment

The committee explored several scenarios that could arise if the LGR timetable shifts. These highlight the significant uncertainty surrounding the reorganisation:

• Vesting Day Delayed: Scenarios involving delays to Vesting Day (the date when new authorities take over) could compress implementation timetables or lead to prolonged periods of uncertainty.

• Government Policy Changes: A change in government or a shift in policy could halt or fundamentally alter the LGR programme, potentially leaving Kent and Medway with unaddressed financial pressures and sunk costs.

• What's at Stake: The LGR process has profound implications for the structure of local government in Kent and Medway, affecting service delivery, governance, and financial stability. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline creates significant challenges for planning and resource allocation. For residents, this could mean changes to how services are delivered and who is responsible for them.

• Concerns Raised: Councillors expressed concerns about the potential impact on senior officer recruitment, the financial implications of abandoned policies, and the fairness of election arrangements for any new authorities.

• Learn More: Detailed discussions on LGR scenarios and preparations are available here: Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee Meeting Summary.

Governance and Audit Committee Reviews Audit Plans and Risk Management

The Governance and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, to review the external audit plans for Kent County Council and its Pension Fund. The committee also discussed the council'The Policy and Resources Cabinet Committee met on Wednesday, 6 May 2026, to discuss a range of important issues affecting Kent residents. Key decisions were made regarding the allocation of the new Crisis and Resilience Fund, the strategy for tackling domestic abuse across Kent and Medway, and the recommencement of the Infrastructure Condition Survey Programme.

Performance Dashboard Highlights Service Pressures

The committee received an update on the performance of the Chief Executive's Department and Deputy Chief Executive's Department. While 24 out of 30 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were rated 'green' (meeting or exceeding targets), three were 'amber' (meeting minimum standards but not targets) and three were 'red' (failing to meet minimum standards).

The 'red' KPIs were:

• FN06: Percentage of sundry debt due to KCC under 6 months old: This has been below the floor standard all year, with the majority of outstanding invoices relating to health debt. Discussions are ongoing with the Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board (ICB) to resolve these issues. Councillor Harry Rayner expressed concern about the ICB's financial difficulties and asked about payment status. Mr Brendan Arnold, Corporate Director, stated that high-level conversations have been positive and a future report will provide more detail.
• GL03: Subject Access Requests (SARs) completed within statutory timescales: Performance has been inconsistent, with a significant number of requests relating to the Children, Young People and Education Directorate, particularly Special Educational Needs. SARs are noted as complex and resource-intensive.
• CS07: Complaints responded to in timescale: While quarter four showed a slight improvement, performance remained below target due to high demand and previous resourcing pressures within the complaints team, which is now fully staffed.

On a positive note, Freedom of Information (FOI) requests saw a significant improvement, achieving 91% in February, the best performance in over six years.

Crisis and Resilience Fund: £60 Million for Preventative Support

The committee endorsed the delivery plan for the new Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF) for 2026-2029. This fund replaces the Household Support Fund and aims for a more preventative approach to crisis support and housing-related help, with over £60 million allocated to Kent over three years, plus additional funding for rising heating oil costs. The plan outlines four strands of support: crisis payments, housing payments, resilience services (like debt and budgeting advice), and community coordination. Eligibility criteria include being aged 16+, a resident of Kent (excluding Medway, Bexley, and Bromley), in receipt of means-tested benefits or with a household income of £33,000 or less. A cash-first approach will be used where appropriate, with vouchers or goods offered where safeguarding risks exist. Applications will be assessed by trained staff with robust fraud prevention and data protection controls.

Resilience Update: Learning from Major Incidents

An update on the Resilience and Emergency Planning Service highlighted their role in responding to incidents, including:

• Kent water disruption (January 2026): KCC led the response to widespread water outages. Debriefs identified areas for improvement in staff resourcing and communications, while cross-directorate collaboration was praised.
• Canterbury Meningitis Outbreak (March 2026): KCC Public Health chaired strategic meetings, and a media cell was established.
• Installation of the Archbishop of Canterbury (March 2026): A multi-agency operation was in place as a contingency.

Member briefings on civil resilience have continued, with 72% of members having attended. Lessons learned from a cyber incident simulation (Exercise Troy) and ongoing business continuity planning were also detailed.

FOI and SAR Performance: Mixed Results

An update on Freedom of Information (FOI), Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), and Subject Access Requests (SARs) showed improved FOI/EIR performance (88.5% compliance), though still below the ICO benchmark of 95%. SAR performance remained significantly below the ICO's benchmark of 85%, with a backlog of 55 cases. Proposals to improve SAR performance include enhancing directorate ownership, improving training, developing action plans for late cases, expanding standard responses, and promoting the online request form.

Kent & Medway Domestic Abuse Strategy: Year 2 Progress

The second year of delivery for the Kent & Medway Domestic Abuse Strategy showed progress in early intervention and prevention (awareness campaigns, survivor-co-produced website), immediate needs (MARAC Hub model, Cyber Sanctuary programme), and recovery (parental conflict tools, enhanced therapeutic support). Demand remains high, and financial pressures across partners necessitate prioritisation.

Infrastructure Condition Survey Programme: Recommencing Essential Assessments

The committee endorsed recommendations to recommence the Infrastructure Condition Survey Programme. This is crucial for understanding the condition of KCC's ageing estate, informing investment decisions, ensuring health and safety, and supporting financial reporting. The estimated 10-year condition spend requirement for the corporate estate is £197 million, with only 44% spent over the last five years due to budgetary constraints.

Freehold Disposals Programme: Targeting £17 Million in Capital Receipts

A proposed Freehold Disposals Programme for 2026-27 targets £17 million in capital receipts and projected holding cost savings of over half a million pounds. The programme identifies 45 assets for disposal, aiming for greater transparency and strategic oversight. Concerns were raised about the potential sale of community assets and the impact of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).

Biodiversity Net Gain Pilot at Preston Hill

A pilot scheme at Preston Hill aims to generate Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) units, a mandatory requirement for developers. KCC has an opportunity to generate income by creating or improving habitats on its vacant land. Leasing the site to Commercial Services Group (CSG) for management and sale of BNG units is the preferred option. The pilot will be monitored over 18 months.

The meeting also included discussions on the Work Programme for 2026.

Upcoming Meetings

Here's a look at the meetings scheduled for the next 7 days:

• The Regulation Committee Appeal Panel (Transport) will meet on Thursday 07 May 2026.
• The Children, Young People and Education Cabinet Committee will meet on Tuesday 12 May 2026.
• The Scrutiny Committee will meet on Wednesday 13 May 2026.
• The Cabinet meeting scheduled for Thursday 14 May 2026 has been cancelled.
• The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee will meet on Thursday 14 May 2026. Today's meeting is going to be webcast live to the internet and may be recorded by any member of the public, so if anyone wants to avoid being filmed, please, please let us know now. For anyone speaking at the meeting, it's important to speak closely to the microphone so viewers of the webcast can hear you. Any mobile phones, please put on silent and move it away from the microphone as it may affect the audio system and distract the speakers. Around the room are exit signs with the fire alarm sound during the meeting, pleasing your mate to at nearest exit. Just to let you know, there will be a slight change of the running order, so item number eight will be taken after item number five, because we are today welcoming our leader. So we've just changed the order for that reason. Hayley, apologies. Thank you, Chairman. Apologies have been received from Mr. Hook, for whom Mr. Sowell is present as substitute. Jolly good, thank you. Any declarations? Does any member wish to declare any interest and items on today's agenda? And if so, please state which item the interest relates to. Mr. Chairman, I'm also subbing for the layman. I've started badly. I've got my days mixed up. Well, you're not a sub, but you're still very welcome. Item number three, minutes. Do members agree that the minutes are a correct record? Jolly good. Straight on to item number four, the performance dashboard. This is a report to be noted. I'd say, what do we need? Has everyone seen it? I'm sure there'll be some questions on this. Lida. Thank you, Chair. If I may introduce this item. Yes. So this report presents the May performance dashboard, providing members with a concise overview of the Council's performance against key strategic and operational measures. It also highlights areas of strong performance, as well as emerging risks and pressures, enabling informed challenge and oversight. The dashboard supports our ongoing focus on delivery value for money and transparency, and it helps ensure that resources remain aligned to our agreed priorities. So 24 of the 30 key performance indicators achieved target for the latest month reported, and were red, amber, green, rated green. Three were below target, but did achieve the floor standard of amber, and three did not achieve the floor standard, and they are rated red. The Policy and Resources Cabinet Committee is asked to note the performance position for the Chief Executives Department and Deputy Chief Executives Department, and I believe officers may wish to run us through this in more detail, if that is all right with you, Chair. Mr Wagner, I think that's your cue. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair. So, yeah, as I said, this is the third performance report for the 25-26 financial year and tracks the KPIs and targets that were brought before committee last July. The leaders have done a good job of summarising those key points, so I think I'll just summarise the three red indicators. The first is under the Finance Division, which is the percentage of sundry debt due to KCC that is under six months old. This KPI has been below the floor standards all year. As has been previously reported, the vast majority of these outstanding invoices relate to health debt, and we're going through a process with the Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board around these issues. If there are any questions about this, I think I will defer to finance colleagues who can give the most recent update on developments there. The second red KPI is under Governance and Law, which is subject access requests completed in the statutory timescales. Performance here has been up and down in recent months, with February showing a significant improvement on the previous three months. Despite the total number of requests remaining historically high, performance is better than the previous year. Over three quarters of subject access requests this year have fallen on the Children, Young People and Education Directorate. The majority of overdue requests relate to Special Educational Needs Service. As has been noted previously, SARs are extensive and complex pieces of work, and most of this work falls on the operational teams with limited resource who have to balance this alongside the various other duties that they have. The final red indicator is under Marketing and Resident Experience, which is the complaints responded to within timescale. This KPI is reported quarterly, and the dashboard shows performance up to the end of December. However, since publishing, we now have the quarter four figures, which is a slight improvement from 54% to 59%, however, this is still well below our target. This is in the context of high demand. The number of complaints in 25-26 was 11% higher than the previous financial year. Dealing with complaints is a collaborative task between operational services, who tend to draft the response, and the complaints team, who acknowledge the complaints, manage the process, and provide quality assurance on that response. In addition to the usual pressure that we experience amongst the operational teams in the same way that we do with subject access requests, performance was also affected by earlier resourcing pressures within the complaints team, which led to slower than usual acknowledgement and progression of cases. That team is now fully staffed, though it will take some time for colleagues to fully embed in their positions and for the backlogs that have developed to be cleared. This has particularly affected CYPE, the Children's Directorate, where existing backlogs have been further exacerbated. On a positive note, a reduction in overdue cases was seen during the quarter, as the complaints team worked closely with services to close longstanding complaints, resulting in 119 more complaints being closed than were received in quarter three. So, reflecting back on the overall picture, 80% of the KPIs were rated green, three were rated amber, and three rated red. And finally, although there's a much more detailed update on this later in the agenda, I should highlight the KPI for Freedom of Information requests. I think Ben wouldn't let me miss this one, which has achieved 91% in February, which is just one percentage point below being rated green, and is actually the best performance that we've seen against this KPI for over six years, so a really positive improvement there. Thank you. Wonderful, thank you. Mr. Rayner, I saw you had a question. Thank you, Chairman. I wanted to speak to page 13, FN06, percentage of sundry debt due to KCC under six months old, and also over the page on page 14, same paragraph number. Questions on this, really? Well, firstly to say this is of considerable concern. It's something that I have pursued in this committee for a number of meetings now, and the Chief Executive was kind enough to give some assurance previously that the situation is under control. But I read the situation with the ICB as being in severe financial difficulties. And my concern is, firstly, to ask the question, is anything at all being paid by the ICB debt, or is it all being rolled up, partially rolled up or in full? And in these circumstances, is there something further that can be done? What I'm concerned about is if there is going to be a situation where it's going to go to arbitration or some similar process, that the authority is not simply strung along through that process for the ICB only to end up in some kind of statutory arrangement where it's abolished and the whole debt falls on KCC. And obviously, if the debt is simply being rolled up, then it is of considerable concern, and the administration ought to be looking at further steps to secure the finance of the authority. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rayner. I did expect that question. Mr. Arnold. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chair. So, I think the questioner is quite right. I mean, this is a serious matter for both the ICB and the Council. Clearly, the ICB indebtedness has been the subject of a mediation process. And further to that, both parties have very recently begun conversations at the highest level with a view to finding a way through the issues that lie in that area. Clearly, there are interests on both sides because the Council claims money from the ICB, but the reverse is also true. And so what we are trying to do is to unlock that position. I'm pleased to report that the character of the conversations that has happened so far, although those conversations have only recently started, have been very positive. And I think that myself and the Corporate Director of Adult Social Care, who is joining me in those conversations, we're both optimistic that we will be able to move those issues on. So we will provide a report at subsequent meetings of this committee as that process unfolds. But I would ask members to regard the opening of conversations in a cooperative frame of mind and context as being a positive step forward on this difficult issue. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Rayner, do you... The question I'll put, which is, are any payments forthcoming, or is the whole debt month by month being rolled up, either wholly or partially, please? I don't have that information with me today. Unless any of my colleagues know the answer, I'll respond by written response to Councillor Rayner, if that's okay, Chair. Thank you. Mr. Sowell. Thank you, Chair. Two points to make. The first one, again, on the sundry debt. I'd be interested to know, we've just been told that some money is owed one way and some money owed the other way. Is the figure shown here in the detail, does that relate to the net debt, or if it doesn't, how much is it? You know, what are we talking about in the way of a money is owed to the Council as well as money the Council might owe? Is the debt in any way secured? Is there a risk that we won't get this? And is there a mechanism in which we can receive interest on amounts that are owed to us that aren't paid for such a long time? And finally, on that, are we currently, in the current sort of budget, made any provision against not receiving any of this, or if it doesn't come in, will it be a significant impact on our budgets? The second point is on CS07, the complaints. Shall we do the first ones first? Then that might be easier. It's quite in-depth. Mr Arnold, are you happy to respond? Sorry, Chair, I pressed the wrong button. Yes, very happy to do so. These figures are not the net figures, but very happy to express the gross figures on both sides of the question by way of written response. In terms of the debt being secured, no, it's not in the nature of this debt that you would typically expect to see it secured on anything. But noting that both the Council and the ICB are funded by the taxpayer, that does present a level of comfort in terms of seeking to recover the sums that are noted. It is not usually the practice to seek to recover interest between public sector bodies on debt, and in particular with regard to the conversations that we're mutually having at the moment, accepting that there are positions in both ways. That is probably not a major issue and may indeed complicate the prospects of successful encounters in those conversations. So not an issue that I think is one that we need to consider, given that the main issue is unlocking the debt across the boundary between the two organisations. Otherwise, so I'm just trying to read my note, it is the policy of both the ICB and the Council to make provision for debt that is considered doubtful, but of course you wouldn't expect me to make any pronouncements on the specifics of this debt, given that it is still the subject of negotiation between the parties. Thank you, Chair. Okay, thank you. Mr Sahl, do you have any follow-up on your first point? Just a quick follow-up. Thank you for letting us have a written response as to the breakdown between who owes what which way. I think it would be very useful if in future reports that information was given to members in order to help us understand a bit more about the sums involved. So if in addition to that report on future agendas when this comes up, that could be included. That would be very helpful. Mr Sahl, you had an additional question? I do. Thank you, Chair. Yes, on CS07, the complaints. Obviously, it's not good news, the level of time it takes to deal with complaints, but for me, when I've read this, I think more worrying is that the number of complaints have gone up. And that says something about the performance of the Council if residents are complaining in larger numbers. And I wondered if we could have any information about, are we getting more valid complaints? Are we getting just a lot more requests for information that you might not call a complaint? And of course, as, the further you get behind with complaints, then you get complaints about the fact your complaint hasn't been dealt with. So any more sort of information about the number of complaints in the, if you like, what are the complaints about? I know that it mentions highway complaints there, but are we just seeing more people complaining, or are services getting worse to a standard that is involving more complaints? Okay, thank you. Mr Watts, are you able to comment on the number and the nature of these complaints? I can do a few things in relation to Mr Sowell's request. So, I think the thing I'd start to say is there isn't a linear relationship between complaints and performance. And there are a range of different factors, as you, indeed, in your own question, recognise. We provide a very detailed paper that goes to the Governance and Audit Committee. And indeed, for next week's Governance and Audit Committee, we've just, or this might be this week's, I've lost track of time. For this month's coming Governance and Audit Committee, we've got a paper that's providing some further granularity on the very things that you've asked there. So, what I'm very happy to do, Chairman, is to provide Mr Sowell with both the earlier report that was provided, and then when it's published, the other report, so that you've got that further detail there. It picks up all of, it's sort of 15, 16 pages worth of detail. And as I say, there's another conversation happening at Governance and Audit Committee, specifically about members that asked for further information to allow the very sort of conversation that you were seeking to have. So, I'm very happy to share that, so that you've got that, and clearly all the relevant people. We are arranging for all the relevant officers, senior officers from directorates, to attend the Governance and Audit Committee meeting, because often, as is the case here, you'll be having a conversation with me as the responsible officer for the complaints process without necessarily having the officer you might want to ask the questions about performance to. So, a date for the diary is Governance and Audit Committee, but I'll share those with Mr Soule right now. Mr Soule, do you have a follow-up on that? No, that's very helpful. Thank you. Are there any other questions? In that case, do the members agree to note this report? Wonderful, thank you. Right, moving on to item five, Crisis and Resilience Fund. This committee is asked to consider and endorse to make recommendations to the leader on the proposed decision as detailed into the record of decision. Leader. Thank you very much, Chair. So this report brings forward Kent County Council's proposed delivery plan for the new Crisis Resilience Fund for 2026 to 2029. This fund replaces the Household Support Fund and brings together crisis support and housing related help into a stable multi-year grant so we can take a more preventative approach. Kent's been allocated over $60 million for the next three years, plus further money to help residents facing rising heating oil costs. The plan sets out how we will use the fund across four strands: crisis payments, housing payments, resilience services such as debt and budgeting advice, and community coordination to strengthen referral pathways and local support. In considering our local eligibility criteria, we've looked at how best to use this money to make a difference to support people in immediate crisis and to help build resilience. This is taxpayers' money and in considering taking this decision, I have asked officers to create systems to make sure that money is protected and spent well and wisely. This includes making sure that a cash-first approach will be used only where it is felt safe and appropriate, alongside a program of ongoing monitoring and evaluation that will track spend, volumes, and importantly, repeat need and the outcomes. So I'm going to ask officers to now run you through the short presentation that's mentioned in the papers and then we will take any questions that members may have. Thank you, Chair. Wonderful, thank you. Mr Watts. Thank you, Chairman. And I'll run through this as quickly as possible if we could... Next slide, please. So, as the leaders touched on, this is a fund that's been available to all local authorities which means over £60 million coming to KCC over the course of the next three years, including an additional nearly £1 million in relation to those rising domestic heating oil costs. Some members will be aware of the predecessor of the Household Support Fund but this replaces that and with a much more targeted approach and the funding is required to be used to achieve the expected outcomes, covers the costs of administration and there being no cost to KCC's core budget. Next slide, please. In setting out the funding expectations, the government has clarified that KCC and indeed all councils must allocate funding across four fund components, so crisis payments, resilience services, community coordination and housing payments which will be delivered by districts in years one and two and to use it to respond to immediate crisis as the leader just touched on there and to build household resilience helping prevent escalation and reduce repeat demand on services. The intention is that councils must target those low income households who are experiencing a financial shock, prioritising cash first approach where appropriate and looking at how we give people flexibility and dignity and ensuring that effectively we're meeting the needs of those families whilst protecting taxpayers' funds as was touched on by the leader as well. We have to maintain a year round crisis payment scheme ensuring support is available and ensure that support is time limited, needs led and proportionate and we also have to offer multiple access rates. Go to the next slide. So the bits that are within KCC's discretion are about the allocation of that fund, sorry, KCC's discretion about setting local eligibility criteria and that does include how to define that low income category and the crisis and what a crisis means based on our local context, demographics and need and you'll see in the papers that that's been explored. Deciding the most appropriate form of support to make sure that it has the maximum impact for the individuals concerned and determining award levels and limits with maximum award values, frequency and repeat support to make sure that this money has the biggest possible impact on those communities, parts of our community that need it. We're required to apply our own professional judgement and discretion in those individual decisions to design access routes including digital applications and in person support and to determine where to target and prioritise groups locally such as low income families. Next slide, please. So our proposed delivery touches on those four key columns there, crisis payment, resilience services, community coordination and support for families and members having the papers before them and the detailed way in which the leader said that she'd asked us as officers to make sure that we looked and thought about this very carefully as to how this might have the maximum impact on our communities and cognizant of making sure that that money was used as appropriately as possible. Next slide, please. There is also, on the 16th of March, government confirmed an additional £27 million for areas that have higher rates of heating oil to support people in crisis with rising energy costs and there's been quite a bit of considerable media coverage in relation to that and if members have specific questions the team's very happy to answer this but KCC having been allocated nearly a million pounds and the council has worked across partner agencies and district and borough councils to deliver this support. So our proposed eligibility criteria are on the next slide. Again, within the papers, applicants must be aged 16 or over, be a resident of Kent permanently living with one of the 12 local authorities covered by Kent County Council, so that excludes Medway, Bexley and Bromley. They must be in receipt of means tested benefits or have a total household income of £33,000 a year or less and in addition for crisis support they must be experiencing an urgent need due to an emergency disaster or unforeseen circumstance or a pressing need significantly beyond low income, normal low income pressures. And then just the final slide, picking up the leader's point about protecting taxpayers' money, applications are going to be assessed by trained staff using a consistent evidence based scoring framework with all decisions documented and audited. The council's got a strong history in this space having worked on a number of these types of schemes in recent years and we are including strong fraud prevention and data protection controls including a customer management system, identity verification, evidence checks, authorised data matching and with full UK GDPR compliance. And the cash first approach being used as the leader touched on there where safe and appropriate and vouchers, goods and services being offered where safeguarding risks exist or where cash is unsuitable or where specific items might be required based on an individual assessment, meeting the needs of those individuals as they present to the scheme. And there will be ongoing monitoring and evaluation which will track spend, volumes, repeat need and outcomes. I'm very happy for members to consider how they might like that to come back at some point in the future, recognising that this is a three year scheme. Officers from the team is. So given the fact that we're going to be responsible for the years. So given the fact that we're going to be having a cash first approach, can you outline the scenarios that would trigger this not being issued and maybe a voucher or something along them lines would be issued instead? Thank you. Mr Watts. I think it's very difficult to give precise examples. This is a scheme that is going to be based on the needs of the individuals. So I think it is about making sure that the solution that's found for the individuals is the right one. So I don't know whether anyone from the team has passed to Tracy in relation to some of the further detail on that. Thank you. I'm just going to add that all cases will be looked at on a case by case basis. And so it is very much dependent upon those personal circumstances. And we will look at the evidence that's available to support that circumstance as well. So it's about providing that background information. And if they are being supported by a professional, then we would speak to the professional to ask perhaps if there is any gaps in information that we are looking for. But we do have great experience of delivering schemes like this in the past. In fact, when we were delivering the household support fund, the DWP came to visit KCC and commended us on how well we were delivering our provision then. And we're using our examples as case studies for other local authorities. So I'd like to think that we have had great experience over the last six years in doing something very similar. Wonderful. Thank you. Mr Evans. Happy with that? Great. Mr Solve, you had a question. Thank you, Chair. I mean, it's obviously very welcome money for those who need it. And it's always going to be a balance between making sure money gets out to the right people as quickly as possible and balancing that with potential for fraud. And, you know, that's always going to be difficult. Will we – I'm not quite clear from this at the moment. Can I just have it confirmed, first of all, that anyone who needs to apply will apply to this council for that? I thought at one point that the districts might be involved in this. Can we clarify is this something that we will manage as a council or whether anyone wishing to apply for it goes through the districts? And getting this money out to people is really important, letting them know that it's available. We know, for example, where people are claiming council tax discounts through the districts and boroughs. It would be really helpful if we can make sure that communications go out directly to people to let them know this money is available rather than just assuming that they will hear about it. And it's going to be very difficult, I think, as well, to target those who might be entitled to the money who aren't oil heating. We won't know those details. So that's going to be a big communications exercise, and we'll be interested to know how we might be dealing with that. Is there even a role to work with, you know, the heating oil suppliers so that they can let their customers know that this is possible? Mrs Feesia, are you able to have a question? Yes, I'll pick that up, Chair. Thank you for the question. So I'll take the first one you spoke about with whether it's going to be delivered by KCC or districts. So there are two elements of delivery here. So there is the oil support funds, which is just shy of a million pounds. And so we're working with districts to deliver that. So that's about half of the districts. I think it's six districts are going to be delivering support to their locality. And in addition to that, we're working with another partner to deliver the remaining support across the county. And that's just for the domestic oil support. Thinking about the wider 60.5, as Ben covered in the presentation, we have to have a crisis support scheme that's available to everybody. So KCC will manage that. So districts can make referrals into our scheme. And we already have a great relationship with all of the 12 districts through the household support fund to ensure that, you know, we collaborate and complement each other on the provision that we're providing. So any support that we are looking to deliver, that will be communicated as part of our regular rent meetings that we have with the district. So they'll know exactly what's available, and they'll be able to complement that. In addition to communicating out to members of the public, we have a CRF web page on the KCC web page. And all of the information will be contained there with regards to eligibility criteria and how people can access that support. And there'll be lots of different ways that they will be able to do that as well. Thank you. And it's a very good point in terms of the importance of the targeted communications as well as the offer of support on our website. So we'll also be working really closely with our partners about how we do that. And we'd be happy to provide members further information about how we're targeting our communications approach. Thank you. Mr. Solt, do you have a follow-up? There was just one specific point there. Have we considered talking to the oil providers? You know, there aren't many of them in the county. It wouldn't be too difficult just to ask them to let their customers know that there is a route to claim some financial support. That's a good point. Thank you. We welcome today Mr. Yates as a guest. And as such, you get to ask this question. Please, please go ahead. Thank you very much, Chair. I want to talk about two words used in the report and then ask a few questions in relation to that. Income maximization or financial inclusion is money that could be used, that could be in the pockets of our residents, money that can be spent on local businesses and services. Last week, I met University of Kent Professor Jan Pahl, CBE, who shared a piece of research from policy and practice about this. The research shows that in Kent, we could have an additional £350 million into the pockets of Kent residents using income maximization strategies. In Thanet, the most deprived district in Kent, we could have £48 million more each year, which could be spent on our local economy. So where does this money come from? The research shows that £49 million is because £49 million missing from Kent residents' pockets comes from residents not being on the right water tariff, the wrong broadband tariff. I'm trying to seek relevance here on this to this particular. So the report, if you look at Clause 1.3, it mentions income maximization, and this report gives KCC the right to spend CRF money on income maximization strategies. I'm trying to explain income maximization. The detail is that some of it's from water companies, some of it's from broadband tariffs, not being on the right tariff. Some's not on free school meals, pension credit. And then I come to answer your question. It's why do I share this information, this £350 million? I share it because if we target the CRF money onto income maximization strategies, then we can get that £350 million into Kent residents' pockets. So my questions, and I come to my questions now. Thank you, Chair. Do KCC recognize that hundreds of millions of pounds are missed every year from residents who are not getting the right financial support from water companies and others? Question two, whether KCC will consider using platforms like the low income family tracker in order to find the low income families who need this support? And three, whether KCC can take the lead on income maximization across Kent and across our districts by hiring a responsible income maximization officer as part of this funding to ensure our economy has that additional £350 million the residents are entitled to? Such leadership, for example, could show – could have what they're doing in Canterbury, which is to have leaflets at food banks and surestarts. Okay, I think we've got the questions. It's the last sentence, which helps pensioners get pension credit and helps carers be on the right carer's allowance. So I think there's a role here that we could potentially be showing leadership on income maximization. Thank you, Chair. You're welcome. I think we've strayed off a little bit, but Mr Watts, are you able to make comment on that? Yeah, very happy to, Chairman. I think there's sort of a separation of some of the comments in the scheme and the rules that are here, but the broader point that you're making is something that's perhaps best – I'm very happy to meet you and colleagues outside of the room to understand that as part of the activities. If there are opportunities to make things better for residents in Canterbury, then we'll have a look at it. In terms of the arrangements that we've got for this scheme itself, they're quite heavily constrained, and we've got, as the slide deck set out, the arrangements that we've got. But there are a range of things, and your question asks us, not just in terms of this decision, but as a local authority, what we might be able to do. So I'm very happy to take that outside and have it as an action arising against me that I follow up with you and go through in detail, but you'd be very happy to. Wonderful. Thank you, Mr Watts. Mr Finch, we have a question from you. Again, back to something a little bit more simpler, to the nearly a million pounds of heating oil. Have we any idea how many Kent households are in crisis that this might apply to? Because it could be deemed at present, given the oil crisis and the price of heating oil, every resident could be in crisis. You said it was targeted, and anybody who had incomes of less than 33,000. That's a considerable amount of people in rural Kent. Given the, if they were deemed to be all in crisis, and that between 5% and 6% of households have heating oil, we could be talking about a sum of £25 per household per annum. That's the worst-case scenario. I just wondered if we had some more figures where this might be more applicable to those that were actually in crisis. Thank you, Mr Finch. Mr Watts? Yeah, and happy to answer the questions the best I can, and perhaps provide you with some written information in relation to what we are aware of and the information we do have. This is a decision in relation to the application of a scheme and the funding that's made available by government. You'd appreciate, as an officer, I'm not going to make too much of a comment about the suitability or extent. The points you may make about the broader challenges that people are facing is something we've considered very carefully as part of the design of this scheme. So, our job as a local authority in this set of circumstances is to divide up the funding that we've gotten to allocate that on a fair basis, which is what the scheme does. In terms, I don't think we've got any significant information that we'll be able to answer that, but perhaps if we have a look at what we've got and circulate it to you, very happy to do so. Mr Finch, thank you. Mr Hood? Thank you very much, Chairman. I've got a couple of queries about this. In my experience, district councils normally handle benefit inquiries and have historically handled this kind of thing. Is it mandatory that the county council has to administer this fund, or has the administration made a decision that it has to be administered by the council itself? Who would be best placed there? Mrs BC, over to you. Thank you for the question. So, as part of our delivery plan, there is a requirement for KCC to have, as I said earlier on, the crisis scheme that has to be delivered countywide. However, we propose to distribute funds to the districts to enable them to do work locally, because they understand the need better than us. That's brilliant. It was just confusing me that normally, I think that they know at grassroots their communities really, really well, and it just seems that our officers have got great expertise, but that kind of in-depth knowledge is invaluable. Wonderful, thank you. Mr Rayner, we think we might have seen your hand up. We're just checking. No, Chairman. The only thing I was going to say was to ask Mr Finch if he could talk more closely to the microphone, should he have occasion to speak in the future. Thank you. I can see Mr Finch smiling. He's noted that, exactly. If there's any more questions... Ah, Mr Burns. Thank you, Chair. Just a little bit curious on asking the question, how would residents without fixed addresses be able to claim for this? How would they be supported? Mr Speicher, I can see you looking like you may be able to answer that. Thank you for that question. You would have seen earlier on that the eligibility was for permanent residents of Kent, but we fully understand that if someone is homeless and requires support, it is likely that they will be working with a homeless officer, and so we expect that support to come via a professional referral, and so that would happen either via a district or through our scheme. Thank you, Mr Burns. Good. I think that's it with the questions. If that is it, as per the recommendations for page two of the supplementary agenda pack, is the proposed decision endorsed? Wonderful. Thank you very much. Now, as I said at the start of the meeting, while we're blessed with the presence of our leader, we're going to go to item number eight, Kent and Redway domestic abuse strategy, and we're asked to note progress made against the Kent and Medway domestic abuse strategy and make recommendations on future delivery plan direction. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you. So this item presents the Kent and Medway domestic abuse strategy for 2024 to 2029. It's a partnership strategy that sets out how we are working collectively to reduce the prevalence of domestic abuse and to ensure that all those affected receive the right to support very quickly. It outlines our shared commitments across prevention, early intervention, immediate safety, and long-term recovery, and it reflects both our statutory duties and our ambition to deliver a coordinated, survivor-led response across Kent and Medway. So today's report highlights progress to date, and it frames the next phase of delivery. So this committee is asked to note progress made against the Kent and Medway domestic abuse strategy and then make recommendations on future delivery plan direction. Thank you, Chair. Wonderful. Thank you. Mrs. Hanna, do you have anything to add? Mrs. Hanna, over to you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Leader. I'm Jenny Hanna, Domestic Abuse Projects and Partnerships Team Lead at Kent County Council. I'll briefly summarise and highlight key points that have been delivered in Year 2 of the Kent and Medway domestic abuse strategy. So, as you've heard, this is a five-year partnership strategy overseen by the Domestic and Sexual Abuse Executive Group. It's bringing together statutory duties, including safe accommodation, alongside wider commitments across children's services, adult safeguarding, mental health, housing and community safety. Year 2 has been about embedding delivery, moving from strategy into consistent practice across a large and complex system, improving coordination, professional confidence and survivor experience. This update responds directly to Cabinet's request for annual reporting. I'll start with early intervention and prevention. This last year, we've significantly strengthened awareness, workforce capability and access to support. The No See Speak Out campaign and a high-reach 16 Days of Activism programme achieved over 3.3 million organic views across Kent and Medway, supported by strong partner engagement. Schools have been a major focus for our work. Every secondary school and pupil referral unit received domestic abuse awareness materials, alongside safeguarding-focused guidance. The aim here was practical, ensuring schools act as confident, trusted points of support, clear on how to respond and where to refer. We also launched the Kent and Medway Domestic Abuse Services website, co-produced with survivors and children and young people. This provides a single, trusted hub for information and support, with survivor-centred language and strong safety features. Workforce development over the year has remained a priority, including 1,200 DASH training places across children's services, over 300 Kent community domestic abuse champions have been trained, ongoing engagement through partnership webinars and white-ribbon activity. Importantly, we also widened the narrative around who domestic abuse affects, including targeted work highlighting men as victims, addressing stigma and barriers to disclosure. The key message here is leadership on prevention, confidence and culture change, the foundations for long-term reduction in harm. Turning to immediate need, Year 2 focused on risk, safety and system responsiveness, especially for high-risk cases. A major development has been the implementation of the multi-agency risk assessment conference, MARAC hub model. Increasing capacity and improving information sharing through digital systems. As expected with change at this scale, early challenges were identified and these are being addressed through clear governance and an action plan, with improvements already visible. Frontline professionals are now supported by domestic abuse navigators in children's services, providing specialist consultation and strengthening decision-making in complex cases. We've also responded to emerging forms of harm, including the launch of the Cyber Sanctuary programme, which addresses technology-facilitated abuse and cyber-stalking risks, which are increasingly identified through our survivor voice and domestic homicide reviews. For children and schools, new Operation Encompass guidance now bridges the gap between police notification and meaningful support. While the new Child or Adolescent to Parent Violence and Abuse CAPFA guidance addresses a previously underdeveloped but high-risk area. Housing remains central to safety. We've progressed with DAHA, Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance Accreditation, and completed targeted research into the use of temporary accommodation, helping us better understand survivor choice and system pressures. We've also recognised pets as a safeguarding factor, promoting pet-friendly refuge provision and provided specialist training. The key message is a system that is more coordinated, more risk-aware and better equipped to respond, though demand remains high. Recovery has been an increasing focus in Year 2, recognising that being safe does not automatically mean being well. Key developments include a new tool to differentiate parental conflict from domestic abuse, supporting safer pathway decisions. Healing Together as a programme embedded into Kent Family Hubs, making Kent one of the first areas to integrate this trauma-informed programme at scale. Expansion of enhanced therapeutic support in safe accommodation. Plans to embed mental health recovery and pathway workers in this current financial year. Kent has also continued to lead nationally on the link between domestic abuse and suicide, including specialist support for people bereaved by a perpetrator's suicide, a complex and often hidden harm. Throughout all of this, the Survivor Voice Ambassador programme has remained central, shaping commissioning, training and communications. The key message here is a shift towards genuinely recovery-focused, trauma-informed system. Challenges and next steps. Demand remains high across domestic abuse, including housing, mental health and safeguarding issues. Ensuring consistent practice across complex systems requires sustained effort and financial pressures across partners mean prioritisation is essential. These risks are being actively managed through partnership governance, evidence-led commissioning and phased delivery planning. Overall, the report provides strong assurance that the strategy is being delivered effectively and it closely aligns with corporate priorities to protect vulnerable people and improve outcomes. We're now in the process of developing the Year 3 delivery plan and plan for a formal strategy review scheduled for 2027-2028. Thank you. We're happy to take questions. Wonderful. Very well done. Any questions? Mr. Soule. Thank you, Chair. This is all very good news. Great to read and hear all of the work that's being done here. I know it's a five-year strategy and also when I read the report and have listened today, this is in many ways a partnership and some money has come in from outside organisations as well. I'm keen to understand the finances moving forward on this. Have we got the money or the will to put the money aside to make sure that this continues certainly throughout the five-year strategy here and approximately how much of the funding that comes into this isn't our own money but it might be grants or from other organisations that is potentially at doubt or not guaranteed? Thank you. Thank you. Mrs. Hanna, are you able to tackle this one? So Kent County Council receives ring-fenced government funding to meet its statutory duties under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, specifically for safe accommodation based support. KCC does hold that funding but also receives funding from partners to help contribute to the Kent integrated domestic abuse services. There is work ongoing currently by our Domestic Abuse Commissioning team who are working on developing that next iteration of domestic abuse services through that CAIDA-CFDAS recommissioning. That team will be bringing an update soon which will talk through the funding arrangements and the future recommissioning. Thank you. Thank you. So I'm happy for that? That's fine. Thank you. Great stuff. Mr. Hurt, you had a question. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much for the report. It's clear that a huge amount of work has gone into this. I've just got a few questions. It's fantastic to see the scale of work which is being done in schools. And tackling the behaviour of a small minority of young men is extremely important because we're all aware of the troubling trends out there. Would it be appropriate, do you think, would the officers think it's appropriate through you, Chair, that the schools sign up to the White Ribbon Charter themselves to embed healthy behaviours throughout the school campus? I've got a question about the Don't Disrespect campaign because that campaign which challenged toxic masculinity that campaign which challenged toxic masculinity was co-produced with young people and it was, in the year that I witnessed it, it was extremely powerful because it was coming from people in our county, young people, and they were acting out roles in videos and I thought it was really worthwhile during that 16 days of activism. Is it possible that we can link the White Ribbon Campaign and our work with sports clubs across the county? Because in many communities, the rugby clubs and football clubs and these kinds of organisations, the people in those teams, the young men in those teams are really important. And if we can enlist their help and they can feature in some of the more localised publicity, then I think we can make a real difference and then we can actually have the White Ribbon Charter extended to that club so it becomes embedded. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Hood. Hannah, there was a few things there, comments on campaigns, training, and sports club, and then I'll lead it over to you. Yeah, so in terms of the Don't Disrespect campaign, yes, we worked alongside the Violence Reduction Unit in the previous year and children and young people on that campaign, which was great that you enjoyed that and felt that that was positive. In terms of active bystander training, that's something that I believe has been run previously by the Violence Reduction Unit, so I would need to take that back to them and check the position around that, but I'm happy to do so. In terms of the White Ribbon Campaign and extending that, there is a White Ribbon Working Group and I'm sure they'd be really pleased to pick up that point and to work on that to see if that's something that would be possible. We also have a working group that looks at our campaigns, so something that we could do together alongside those two working groups, it may be a possibility. I'm happy to look into that as well. Anita, you had a comment on that point as well. Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, I did. Thank you for my friend's comments opposite, but I think it's very important this committee recognises and notes that domestic abuse can be perpetrated by anybody of any sex and any age. We are not simply focusing on young men, old men, so-called toxic masculinity. It must be recognised that it can be perpetrated by anybody within the domestic setting. I think that's very important. Thank you. Wonderful, thank you, Mr Hood. I just wanted to ask a question. Is the Don't Disrespect aspect of the work of the Council going to be coming back? Because it was very powerful and I didn't see it last year, during last year's campaign. So will it be reappearing? And on this point about, it's a fundamental ask of the white movement campaign that we acknowledge that the majority of this violence is perpetrated by men. And that men and boys are actually at the forefront of ending it. Was there a question in there, Mr Hood? I was clarifying and I was asking whether the Don't Disrespect would be coming back. Thank you. Any more questions on this? This is Hannah, apologies. In terms of the Don't Disrespect campaign, that was a one-off campaign, but it's something that we can again take back to the Violence Reduction Unit to see if the young people wanted to explore that again, because it was driven by them. Thank you. Let's do it. Wonderful, thank you. Any more questions on this? In that case, well done on a lot of hard work that's been put into this, so we'd recognise that here. Is this report noted? Wonderful, thank you very much. Well, we're going to skip back to item number six. Leave a thank you for joining us this morning. Mr. Collins, I think this puts you back in the hot seat where this committee has asked to note the report. Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Being in the Chamber for an hour and I haven't said a word so far, so that's quite good. Noted. I'm going to break that mould. This is obviously to do with crisis management, emergency management. Before I pass over to Andy Jeffery, who can give a full briefing on it, I think we ought to, if we're not aware, that there are quite a few members within the team that have to be on 24-hour call. Quite often these things, as always, happen at weekends, so I think I'd just like to give a vote of thanks to a lot of the officers and staff that put in far and above the time that we probably realise they do. So on that note, Mr. Chair, if I can defer to Mr. Jeffery. Certainly. Mr. Jeffery, over to you. Thank you, Chair. Just three additional points I'd like to raise in support of this paper. Firstly, in relation to the section on member briefings. At present, we're in the middle of another set of briefings, two members on the role of elected members as part of resilience work. And the next and last session of the current block is this Friday from 12 to 2, and I would strongly encourage any members who have not yet signed up to do so at their convenience. Thank you. Secondly, I'd also like to bring to the committee's attention the change last week in the national threat level. So the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, or JTAC, raised the UK national threat level from substantial, which means a terrorist attack is likely, to severe, meaning terrorist attack is highly likely. And that change follows the attacks in Golders Green on the 29th of April, although it's not solely as a result of that. The UK has been experiencing a gradual increase in terrorist threats for some time, and that's driven by a rise in both Islamist and extreme right-wing terrorist threats from individuals and small groups in the UK. The current level of threat is characterised by that following breadth and complexity of incidents and cases across various ideologies, and whilst Islamist terrorism remains the primary threat to the UK, extreme right-wing terrorism has been on a steadily rising trajectory. The elevated threat to the Jewish and Israeli communities and institutions in the context of the conflict in the Middle East is also part of the reasoning behind the increase in the threat level. The Kent County Council resilience and emergency planning service, which I am head of, and also the preventer team will continue to monitor as normal and will be advising on any KCC-specific actions and liaising with services directly on matters as appropriate. But at present, there are no specific actions that KCC is required to take above and beyond our usual processes that we have in place. Finally, to reiterate and amplify the point made just now by Councillor Collins, from an officer point of view, as the head of the service which is responsible for making sure KCC can respond to incidents and emergencies, I continue to be impressed by the positive engagement that we get from services officers and duty officers across the Council to those incidents that we have been responding to in the past three months. Since my last update at this committee meeting, as highlighted by Councillor Collins, staff continue to go above and beyond both in and out of hours to mitigate the impact of these incidents on the residents and communities of Kent, and without that commitment, KCC's response will be far less effective. And just to pull out a point that those of you who have attended the member briefings I've delivered recently, the reason that all officers from this authority prepare and respond to incidents is because they affect people. And on what may be the worst day of someone's life, it's our statutory duty to do the best we can to help them, and I'm pleased to say that officers from KCC continue to uphold this position, and it's important for us to highlight this to the committee. Thank you. Do we have any questions on this item? Mr Sall? The report says, Chair, that we will receive a verbal update on the meningitis position. Are we receiving an update on that today? Apologies, yes. So we have recently held the internal debrief for the meningitis outbreak. Sorry, just getting my, there we go, the right file up. So just to remind members that the outbreak was centered on Canterbury and the University of Kent, and the outbreak occurred in mid-March this year. As with all debriefs, we looked at areas for improvement, areas of good practice, and then put together some actions to turn into recommendations for progression and improving our response in the future. Areas that we felt needed improving, and it's worth pointing out that some of these are very small operational detail matters rather than necessarily wide-ranging strategic issues, looked at staff resourcing for protracted incidents. This was especially important given that this was the fourth major incident that KCC had either led or co-led within a six-month period, which, whilst unusual, it's still something that KCC needs to have resilience in terms of its staff resourcing. There were also aspects around updates to multi-agency partners and how that worked from a process point of view. The use of our county emergency center, which is based here in Sessions House, our on-call arrangements and making sure those are resilient, and making sure that officers have access to the information that was being shared by multi-agency partners during the response. And also issues around member comms and making sure that we are communicating clearly with all members who need to be involved in the response. Also important, though, to highlight that there were areas of good practice, and those were principally around the expertise and engagement from our public health colleagues, the use of internal comms to reassure members of staff, the effectiveness of the command and control structures that KCC was part of, and in some cases led, and the strong cross-directorate and multi-service engagements that we observed during the response. Thank you, Chair. Wonderful. Thank you. Mr. Thole, are you happy with that? Please go ahead. Yeah, a couple of things. As a country member, can I just pass on my thanks to everyone involved in the meningitis outbreak, and then, of course, shortly afterwards, we had the installation of the new Archbishop, which went incredibly well and was a fantastic celebration of the city. So thank you to everyone, all the staff involved in that wonderful celebration. Can I just ask out of interest, though, the report talks about a limited test on the new airwave radio, and I'd just be interested to know what that is. Well said. And who can ask the question on the airwave radio? Mr. Jeffery. Yes, so airwave radios are most commonly used by the blue light services to communicate as part of their business-as-usual work. Some work that we did a couple of years ago now regarding national power outage planning highlighted the lack of resilience in the telecommunications network should we experience a national or regional power outage. And that it was highlighted as part of the planning and the exercising we did to test our plans that the airwave radio network might be a contingency option that would give us improved resilience in order for not just blue lights, but other category one responding agencies, such as ourselves, to communicate in that situation. And the decision was taken for KCC to procure a number of airwave radios, which are provided to all the duty emergency planning officers and also to all of the corporate directors, the chief executive and the director of infrastructure, in order that we have strategic, tactical and operational staff with the ability to communicate during those incidents. Thank you. I think that's a really good idea and really reassuring. Having been in Brighton about a month ago on the day of the Brighton Marathon, nobody's mobile phones were working because everybody wanted to get on the network. So having an alternative solution is a very pragmatic and sensible thing to do. Mr. Rayner. Thank you, Chairman. There are a couple of items that I wanted to make reference to here. I'm going to start first with the Kent water disruption, but touch on it really tangentially because the situation is now quite clear in South East Water that they have significant and ongoing resilience issues. And what I would ask is, and this is not intended as any criticism of what's gone before, you know, what's gone before has gone before, but can we please utilize KCC's services in this direction to make sure that if we get these, it's certainly clear to me that the likelihood of repetition of these types of incidents is much more likely. I am seeing, for example, much more significant growth in tankered fresh water being moved around the county. And when you see that, it's indicative of a lack of infrastructure resilience. Given that, given that the situation is likely to be repeated in one form or another, that we put in hand clear plans to take a grip on this at an earlier stage than we did hitherto, and that we start making arrangements earlier for things like distribution of, or at least coordinating, the distribution of bottled water, for example, at an earlier stage. And I say that as someone who was out and about actually collecting water for those in need within my division, and I want to make sure that we have matters in hand, and I've got someone to turn to at KCC who can help coordinate with the water company who, a bit like McCafferty's cat, are difficult to find when things go wrong. Chairman, I'm not looking for a direct response on that unless the officers particularly wish to do so. I would just draw attention to one point that South East Water made reference to Storm Goretti as one of the reasons for their failure. And in fact, Storm Goretti, as far as we were concerned in the South East, was little more than a gentle breeze. I do accept that it hit harder in the north, but there was, as far as I can see, this was merely someone cutting and pasting and sticking it in as a potential reason. It is that, and I have to make a point here as well, that I noticed that South East Water wrote recently to Tumbridge and Wells Borough Council, in fact wrote twice, to say that they were unable to meet the commitments forced on Tumbridge and Wells Borough Council by way of new building. And they said that they were only able to meet one third of the proposed local plan. Now, what that tells you is that with local housing developments throughout Kent continuing to be built, it is incumbent on us as a strategic authority to make sure that in circumstances that are covered in this report, that we have resilient plans in place and are able to meet them. Thank you, Mr. Rayner. I think Mr. Rayner is making some good points. Feel free to come back if you wish. You don't need to. I think anything I would just highlight to members is that next week at the Scrutiny Committee, the results of the short-focused inquiry regarding the water outage will be presented and discussed, so that might be an opportunity to go into that in more detail. That's a very good point. Mr. Hood. Yes, thank you very much, Chairman. Relating to what Mr. Rayner has just said, I think it is worth pointing out that only one third of the level of housing which is required by the government's target at Tumbridge Wells can be met by South East Water. That is actually, that covers the extant permissions granted. So if that council were to grant any further approvals for planning, then there's no assurance at all that the supply could be maintained. I know that we are waiting for the results of that short-focused inquiry and that it was limited to the West Kent issue. However, I am also aware that South East Water have written to Maystone Borough Council, I believe to Canterbury City Council as well, or at least Canterbury City Council who are aware that there are similar shortfalls in their areas. This is a county-wide crisis and it is obvious that despite the fact that Kent Resilience Forum have a, there is a protocol I believe which kicks in whenever there is a water shortage. And yet South East Water do not, have not implemented that protocol themselves, which I find staggering considering that is their sole, that's their sole job is to deliver water to our homes, but they don't use that protocol. And it is imperative that the County Council and the Kent Resilience Forum actually takes on the role of making sure that the water bottle stations and all the rest of it are put in place because South East Water cannot be trusted to do their job. I think you make some good points. I think we're all keeping a close eye on this, that's for sure. Mr Chapman. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Yeah, I totally agree obviously what's being said there by Councillor Rayner, but I'd also like to correct him. Storm Goretti actually did cause a lot of damage on the South Coast. I don't know where he was looking at things with Storm Goretti, but there was absolute loads of stone deposited up onto the highways down on the South Coast near Sandgate, which required a very intensive clear-up. And I thank the KCC staff that actually attended very speedily and carried that out. Also with what Councillor Hood was mentioning there with the short focus water inquiry. Yeah, I have been very privileged to be sat upon that. And yes, a lot of those items are focused to West Kent. There were some items within that that were also as East Kent as well. But yeah, likewise, I'm looking forward to that going forward to the scrutiny committee, which I'm also upon. But yeah, communications seemed to be one of the biggest failings also within us as an organisation that we need to be looking at. But thank you, Chairman. Great, yeah. Thank you very much. Mr Rayner. Thank you, Chairman. There are a couple of items that I wanted to make reference to here. I'm going to start first with the Kent water disruption, but touch on it really tangentially because the situation is now quite clear in South East Water that they have significant and ongoing resilience issues. And what I would ask is, and this is not intended as any criticism of what's gone before, you know, what's gone before has gone before, but can we please utilize KCC's services in this direction to make sure that if we get these, it's certainly clear to me that the likelihood of repetition of these types of incidents is much more likely. I am seeing, for example, much more significant growth in tankered fresh water being moved around the county. And when you see that, it's indicative of a lack of infrastructure resilience. Given that, given that the situation is likely to be repeated in one form or another, that we put in hand clear plans to take a grip on this at an earlier stage than we did hitherto, and that we start making arrangements earlier for things like distribution of, or at least coordinating, the distribution of bottled water, for example, at an earlier stage. And I say that as someone who was out and about actually collecting water for those in need within my division, and I want to make sure that we have matters in hand, and I've got someone to turn to at KCC who can help coordinate with the water company who, a bit like McCafferty's cat, are difficult to find when things go wrong. Chairman, I'm not looking for a direct response on that unless the officers particularly wish to do so. I would just draw attention to one point that South East Water made reference to Storm Goretti as one of the reasons for their failure. And in fact, Storm Goretti, as far as we were concerned in the South East, was little more than a gentle breeze. I do accept that it hit harder in the north, but there was, as far as I can see, this was merely someone cutting and pasting and sticking it in as a potential reason. It is that, and I have to make a point here as well, that I noticed that South East Water wrote recently to Tumbridge and Wells Borough Council, in fact wrote twice, to say that they were unable to meet the commitments forced on Tumbridge and Wells Borough Council by way of new building. And they said that they were only able to meet one third of the proposed local plan. Now, what that tells you is that with local housing developments throughout Kent continuing to be built, it is incumbent on us as a strategic authority to make sure that in circumstances that are covered in this report, that we have resilient plans in place and are able to meet them. Thank you, Mr. Rayner. I think Mr. Rayner is making some good points. Feel free to come back if you wish. You don't need to. I think anything I would just highlight to members is that next week at the Scrutiny Committee, the results of the short-focused inquiry regarding the water outage will be presented and discussed, so that might be an opportunity to go into that in more detail. That's a very good point. Mr. Hood. Yes, thank you very much, Chairman. Relating to what Mr. Rayner has just said, I think it is worth pointing out that only one third of the level of housing which is required by the government's target at Tumbridge Wells can be met by South East Water. That is actually, that covers the extant permissions granted. So if that council were to grant any further approvals for planning, then there's no assurance at all that the supply could be maintained. I know that we are waiting for the results of that short-focused inquiry and that it was limited to the West Kent issue. However, I am also aware that South East Water have written to Maystone Borough Council, I believe to Canterbury City Council as well, or at least Canterbury City Council who are aware that there are similar shortfalls in their areas. This is a county-wide crisis and it is obvious that despite the fact that Kent Resilience Forum have a, there is a protocol I believe which kicks in whenever there is a water shortage. And yet South East Water do not, have not implemented that protocol themselves, which I find staggering considering that is their sole, that's their sole job is to deliver water to our homes, but they don't use that protocol. And it is imperative that the County Council and the Kent Resilience Forum actually takes on the role of making sure that the water bottle stations and all the rest of it are put in place because South East Water cannot be trusted to do their job. I think you make some good points. I think we're all keeping a close eye on this, that's for sure. Mr Chapman. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Yeah, I totally agree obviously what's being said there by Councillor Rayner, but I'd also like to correct him. Storm Goretti actually did cause a lot of damage on the South Coast. I don't know where he was looking at things with Storm Goretti, but there was absolute loads of stone deposited up onto the highways down on the South Coast near Sandgate, which required a very intensive clear-up. And I thank the KCC staff that actually attended very speedily and carried that out. Also with what Councillor Hood was mentioning there with the short focus water inquiry. Yeah, I have been very privileged to be sat upon that. And yes, a lot of those items are focused to West Kent. There were some items within that that were also as East Kent as well. But yeah, likewise, I'm looking forward to that going forward to the scrutiny committee, which I'm also upon. But yeah, communications seemed to be one of the biggest failings also within us as an organisation that we need to be looking at. But thank you, Chairman. Great, yeah. Thank you very much. Mr Rayner. Thank you, Chairman. Just a couple of points there that were raised. I mean, just on the same point of looking at paragraph 3.5, I mean the real number there is greater than $197 million in the estimate in the paragraphs above in terms of the ongoing liability. I'd also, and the main purpose of my point was just to ask a question here, which is at 4.2 references made to quarter 3 of 2026 and it's just a question of is it relating to the calendar quarter or does it relate to the quarter of the financial year? Because they represent different months then and obviously if it is going to be the third quarter of the financial year then that will come after the July date that Mr Collins referenced earlier and it would be interesting just to learn whether or not this will go ahead regardless of what the outcome is in the event that there is a decision in July. Mrs Sproul. Thank you. So just to clarify in terms of the query that Mr Rayner had in terms of the quarter. So it's related to the financial year. That's the way the dates work in the paper and the way that we forecast our spend. In terms of the comments regarding LGR and the requirement for the backlog maintenance or the maintenance program and condition program. So regardless of LGR, we would need to undertake this program in that this program as set out in the paper enables KCC to understand in more detail the current condition of its assets. So the previous survey data we have is now historical. It's based in 2021 2022. It's the last time that some of the surveys were undertaken and it's important that we have that updated so that we have a 10 year forecast of what the condition looks like across the estate, both schools and the corporate estates. Now that that is required to inform good decision and sound decision making that happens across the Council. It's important just to note that whilst the conditions surveys will forecast a potential life cycle over a 10 year period, that doesn't necessarily correlate to the works that we've been undertaking under the modernization of assets budget, which is to ensure that our estate is maintained to a warm, safe and dry standard. So the conditions surveys are effectively what you would have to do to maintain the status quo due to the due to the nature of the funding that we've had over a period of time. We've moved to quite a reactive program, and as a result, if something breaks, then we are fixing it as part of the forward maintenance plans that we have that are informed by the work that we do in the buildings, the statutory testing, etc. So that kind of formulates the day to day program that is then undertaken. And we work very closely with our colleagues in finance to ensure that the two are aligned in relation to the resources that are allocated to that. And there is a distinction between the way that the two are funded, between the education works and also the corporate works. So one is predominantly funded by the council, the other is predominantly funded by a grant that comes forward from the Department for Education. So it's really important that we have this information to be able to feed into those returns and to inform the decision making in the future around the estate, whether that's us as a county council or whatever future success or authority there may be come the decision. So these are really important surveys that need to be undertaken, and they would need to be undertaken regardless of whether or not there is going to be any change in LGR. Wonderful, thank you. If there's no further comments, I'm looking around. Good stuff. So as per the recommendation, as far as the agenda pack, is the proposed decision endorsed? Wonderful, thank you. We'll do item number 10, which is the work program, and then we've got a couple of chunky items after that, so we'll have a quick break after the work program. So we've been asked to note the work program for 2026. Is that noted? Wonderful. Time to come back at midday. Is that long enough? Yes, it will be. Just waiting for Mr. Collins. Right, item number 11. Now this report does contain some exempt appendices. The meeting will remain an open session unless members indicate they wish to move into a private session to allow full consideration of the item. I think we all knew that. Mr. Collins, over to you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Everybody's favourite subject, freehold disposals. The paper is fairly self-explanatory, but with your permission, Mr. Chair, I'd like to defer to Rebecca Sport. Certainly, Mrs. Sport. Thank you. So the paper that you had before you is quite self-explanatory, as the Chair has indicated that any specific items of detail regarding the exempt appendices will need to be taken in the exempt session. So if we kind of stray towards any particular items that are listed in the programme, then I'm very happy to move into that session when we need to. In terms of the papers that you have before you, it sets out a programme approach, which is slightly different to the approach that we have taken in the past, which is where members would consider individual disposals as they come forward throughout the course of the year. So what this does is it allows a greater level of transparency and it allows members to have a strategic oversight of the programme that is likely to come forward over the course of the next year. The programme, as is set out in the papers and the exempt appendices, includes 45 assets that are all at very different stages. So some are quite far advanced and already have key decisions, have been marketed or in the family stages have been marketed. Others are at the very beginning of the process and have been identified as potentials that may go onto the disposal list and be taken forward in due course. So of the 45 assets that are set out in the appendices, there are six that are set out in Appendix C that will be covered by this decision that have yet to have a key decision that will be covered by the programme of activity should they move forward. They will be subject to all of the normal governance arrangements, and it's really important that I highlight that we are intending to come back and update the committee on a six monthly basis in terms of progress against the programme as a whole, but also that the property management protocol still remains in place and local members will be involved in the disposal as they start to move forward in terms of the information that they have available. So this gives members an opportunity to have early sights of what the programme may entail and enables us to have some of those conversations that I know that local members will be keen to have sooner rather than later in terms of the programme of activity. And as we progress with the various different appraisals, looking at KCC's own requirements and also other things that we need to take into account. So the programme approach is not an unusual one. It's one that many councils adopt in Kent, but also across the country. And it does include a number of information in terms of the assumed targets. You'll see in the unexempt unrestricted paper that it sets out what we are expecting to target in terms of capital receipts over the course of the next three years based upon the current programme. It changes as you move into future years and different decisions are made, but it gives members a good indication. And the reason why the receipts are potentially spread are things change in terms of the programme, but also it is dependent upon the types of offers that are received. So it might be the case that there are some sales that progress really quickly within a year and that's where this year we're targeting 17 million. Next year it might be that some of the transactions are subject to planning or take a little bit longer to work through the process and therefore wouldn't come into the council's bank account until the next year. So that's why you see it being phased, albeit that the work will happen now in respect of all 45 assets to bring those forward and to do the assessments that are required. So we make sure that we have the ability to respond to the market. So this decision allows us that agility to be able to do so. It allows the council to benefit from greater financial resilience as a result because we can move things about in order to make sure that the targets are delivered. It's important to note that any receipts that come into the council are redeployed and reutilised as part of the county council's capital spending priorities. And we've also seen in recent years that there have been some capital receipts that have been used to fund transformational activity in the revenue budget. The quantum of capital receipts that we're expecting is not unusual. It's in line with what we would expect and what we've seen in previous recent years. So when you look at 45 assets, although it feels quite a significant number, when you look at the overall land holdings that the county council have in its stock, it's a very small proportion of the county council's land ownership that will be brought forward as part of the disposal programme. We also, as part of the governance process, would ensure that we take into account other uses that might be appropriate from the county council's perspective. And that's built into the processes that we have. And we would also ensure that any relevant legislation or directions that come into play as a result of LGR are also considered as part of the disposal programme as we move forward. But this decision gives members the transparency and us the agility to be able to flex the programme accordingly, dependent on the market positions, to achieve the best result that we can for the county council. Thank you. Wonderful, thank you. We are in open session. Maybe it will stay that way. So, Mr Rayner, I saw you had your hand up. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to make a few points on this. Firstly, I'm very much in favour of the key consideration arrangements and the proposed change in strategy. And I recognise that the scale and frequency of disposals, as mentioned in paragraph 1.4, has evolved. And with this increase, the historic approach no longer provides the most effective governance framework. I very much concur with that. And in particular, in looking to paragraph 2.8, assets of community value, I can see circumstances coming up with regard to the potential for LGR where it would be very easy for community assets or assets of community value to be sold away for development. Where in other circumstances they would have been better retained within the community but in a different format. And I would like the officers to receive support from this committee for that type of approach where community assets would otherwise be lost. I do, and not at this stage, Chairman, I'm not going to make reference to it now for obvious reasons, but I would like just to speak to appendix B in the event that we go into part 2. I don't want to go into part 2 specifically for myself. It's a passing remark on my part, but if the event would do, I would like to come back to you without you saying you've already spoken. Looking at the matters on the recommendation, I'm somewhat surprised that there's four items for consideration for four potential recommendations. And the final one is discounted. That is to increase the delegated limits for disposal decisions but retain the current program framework. And that was discounted. Reasons for the discounting are not discussed, but I would have thought given the huge number of properties available that there could be with certain constraints, perhaps value constraints or that kind of situation. Having sat in the last administration myself and sat on a number of the bodies that discussed disposable arrangements, it occurred to me on a number of occasions that having delegated powers would have been advantageous to the authority. And whilst I don't want to stand up and fight with the administration over this, certainly in the event that if it was to run with that, I would be very supportive of it because I think it would be advantageous both to the administration and potentially to those authorities who may wish to purchase small tracts of land, for example, for community value going forward. With all the proper constraints that you would expect in terms of development value in the future and so forth to any successor authority to KCC. I'm not going to move the, I'm going to call it recommendation four for one of them as a description or the option four, but I would say to the administration that in the event that they have sufficient support amongst their own members, I would certainly support that as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Herdon, you had a question? Thank you very much, nasty. Thank you very much, Chairman. Thank you very much for the report. Having cited the list of proposed property disposals is really appreciated, having them all here in front of us together. However, the likelihood is that local government organization is on its way, and there are several large plots which are included, which I think would be suitable for residential development by successor councils to this one, rather than selling them on to developers who will inevitably be build properties which are going to meet the demands of people who will come from outside of our community. The failure to deliver social housing is a failure of local government over the last few years. Many councils do not have the ability within their ranks or the political will to build social housing. The lack of social housing in Kent is an absolute crime in my opinion, and some of these properties are in districts which they may not have the ability to self-build now, but some of the councils that they join have got that ability and have had the greater appetite for building social housing. And I think that there's a problem here, that by continuing with the disposals of some of these larger plots, we are going to deprive successor councils of the ability to provide for the people of Kent. It does worry me that disposals are increasingly used for transformation purposes rather than for capital expenditure, for recycling in that way. We've just had a debate about maintenance, and the fact that we have such huge levels of capital receipts that don't end up being channelled back into maintenance is something that I've raised in this room several times. And we're custodians of this publicly held land, and my fear is that we set it on and it's just going to be land banked. It's not going to be of benefit. So, there's other issues here. There's some sites here which are related to education, and I'm not sure whether Mr. Rayner has spotted a site, which certainly troubles me, where at the moment our educational need is calculated on existing planning applications. We don't horizon scan to look at local plans and where you're going to have strategic sites coming forward. And some of these sites, I think, are going to be necessary for educational purposes going forward. That won't be factored into the work of the infrastructure team, I don't believe, for the same reason. They are not required because of policy to do that work, but I think we would be failing our obligations to the people who can if we weren't mindful that some of these sites are going to be required by successor councils and that we are going to leave them. I hear your point, yeah. I think, Mrs. Spaulding, you mentioned LDR and what that might mean in the future, but I think people are looking for some reassurance, in general, we're not looking at specifics here, that other districts, unitaries, if that happens that way, might make use of that property. Have you got some thoughts on that for us?

So in relation to the questions specifically about LDR, so as a county council, we have to make sure that we're balancing the provision in terms of the financial return, our statutory duties, our fiduciary duties that we have, and vis-a-vis what might happen in the future. And at present, the county council doesn't have a direction in place that says this is going to happen, this is what you need to do. So we have to balance those two things as we move forward. Now, for those disposals that are in the pipeline, where it's appropriate to do so, we do speak to district councils in relation to those to understand whether or not there's an appetite from the district council who have the housing responsibility. But we don't necessarily in some areas. So we do have those conversations around what might be possible in relation to the sites. So, we do have those conversations around what might be possible in relation to the sites. Now, as we move closer to July and a decision is made, we fully anticipate that there will be directions and structural change orders that will be put in place, and that's a matter that's been discussed at the relevant committee, but that will impact on the disposal programme in terms of what that looks like. So when that comes, absolutely, we will ensure that all of the factors that are relevant are taken into consideration in relation to disposal activity that we're looking to bring forward. To safeguard against that at the moment, we are having conversations with district councils in relation to land that we are looking to bring forward. So that's how we're dealing with that in the short term, but certainly come July, there will be, we're fully expecting that there will be regulations that we will need to comply with and process that will need to be taken forward.

I think it's also important to note that any success of authority will have to make its own decision and policy about what it does and doesn't do. That's not for us to make that decision here or to make assumptions about what that decision is. And, of course, as that becomes clear, we will ensure that in relation to our assets that we're thinking very carefully about what that is, but that hasn't happened yet. And we need to be careful that we don't predetermine what that might be, although we do, of course, know that there is change happening. And it's important that we take that into account and we think about that actively when we're taking forward disposal activity, just in the same way as we do when we're thinking about our own requirements as a county council.

So we don't just look at the here and the now from an educational perspective. We do look into the future. So we have lots of sites, not on the disposal list, that we're holding for strategic educational purposes and that we will continue to do so because we know that there are strategic educational sites that will be required at some point, potentially in the future. I was only looking at one the other day that we've been holding for probably about 20 years plus in respect of an educational requirement that we anticipate will come forward at some point. So we do look very carefully at that in terms of the projections and we work very closely with our colleagues in education to think very hard about what are the local plans, what are the future requirements likely to be, what's the building stocking look like across the county, what are the things that we want to make sure that we safeguard as we move forward into the future.

In respect of assets of community value, which was the previous questions, so again we comply with all the legislation that is in place and we will continue to do so in terms of that legislation as it evolves as part of the devolution and community empowerment bill. We continue to work with our district colleagues in respect of the way that they're approaching their asset disposals and what they're doing and we look at any community use that might come forward in line with our disposal policy and we make that assessment as is appropriate. And there are cases and there are cases where we look at those business cases where we look at those business cases that come forward where they have been robust and they have met the criteria and as a result we have looked at those particular proposals in that light. So we do do that and we do that and we will continue to do that as we move forward.

In relation to option four, which is a change in the delegations, so we did consider very hard whether or not a change in delegations would be appropriate, but that would mean a change to the constitution and it would mean that disposal activity is then out of step with what's happening across the rest of the organisation in terms of what is categorised as a key disease. So it's really important and what isn't, so it's really important and we took the view that we needed to remain consistent with the approach that the County Council was taking as a whole and that at this point in time wasn't the right time to be making significant changes to the constitution. Thank you very much. Thank you for your reassurance. And Mr Reinders, does that answer the point that you were making as well? It does in part, but I would just say through you, Chairman, to Ms Spohr, that the constitution is actually up for change at the next council meeting or the next council meeting but one because of the way the constitution works. And if the administration were so minded, it could add into the proposals coming forward from Mr Mann for constitutional change if it was felt there would be advantageous. And I look and see the recommendation there in the preamble clearly states that more assets could be sold more quickly if there was a greater degree of delegation. And I'm going to leave that particular one there, but when you come back to me, Chairman, there's another point I would like to make as and when your other speakers have spoken. Wonderful. Thank you. Do we need to move into private session? I will ask the members then if you want to move into private session to look at the detail of this or we're happy to continue as we are. Show of hands. Move into private session. Okay. In that case, under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the