The County Council of Kent Council met on Thursday 12 February 2026 to discuss and vote on the proposed budget for 2026-27. The council approved the budget, which includes a 3.99% increase in council tax, after extensive debate and consideration of several amendments.

Budget Approval and Council Tax

The primary focus of the meeting was the approval of the council's budget for 2026-27, including the setting of council tax. The proposed budget, presented by the Reform administration, was ultimately approved by a vote of 48 in favour, 26 against, and one abstention. This decision means that council tax will increase by 3.99% for the upcoming financial year.

The debate surrounding the budget was extensive, with opposition groups raising concerns about financial risks, the level of reserves, and the impact of the council tax increase on residents. Councillor Collins, Deputy Leader of the Council, presented the budget, highlighting efforts to reduce long-term debt and protect essential services. He stated, Reducing long-term debt while protecting essential services became one of our first, and I'm pleased to report to this chamber that in September 2025, following careful negotiations with our lenders, this council repaid a £50 million loan 41 years early.

However, opposition members voiced significant criticism. Mr. Hook, from the Green Group, argued that the budget was a casino budget with high financial risk. Mr. Rayner of the Conservative Group described it as a gambler's budget, dependent on string and tie. Mr. Thomas, leader of the Independent Group, called it blind ambition and potentially reckless.

Despite these criticisms, the Reform administration maintained that the budget was responsible, balanced, and necessary to address the financial challenges inherited by the council. They emphasized that the council tax increase was lower than previously assumed and that essential services would be protected.

Amendments to the Budget

Several amendments were proposed by opposition groups, aiming to reallocate funds or alter budget priorities.

Amendment 1: Home to School Transport Proposed by the Green Party, this amendment sought to reduce congestion and pollution by reallocating funds from political assistant roles and deputy cabinet member allowances to support home-to-school transport. The amendment was defeated, with 5 votes in favour, 53 against, and 20 abstentions. Arguments against it included that the council already provided subsidised travel and that the proposed funding mechanism was unsound.

Amendment 2: Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation Reserves Also from the Green Party, this amendment proposed creating an earmarked reserve for local government reorganisation. It was defeated, with 5 votes in favour, 50 against, and 22 abstentions. Concerns were raised that it was premature to create such a reserve without knowing if reorganisation would proceed and that current reserves were already low.

Amendment 3: Invest to Save Proposals The Labour Group proposed an invest to save amendment, focusing on strengthening early interventions in adult social care and children's services, and bringing services in-house. This amendment was defeated, with 8 votes in favour, 50 against, and 20 abstentions. Arguments against it included that many of the proposals were already being actioned or were not sufficiently costed, and that it relied on one-off funding.

Amendment 4: Service Transformation and Efficiency Another Labour Group amendment, this focused on service transformation and efficiency, including investing in early help for children and young people, supporting vulnerable adults, and streamlining the analytics function. It was defeated, with 8 votes in favour, 50 against, and 20 abstentions. Opposition to this amendment cited that much of the work was already underway and that proposals like selling council companies were high risk.

Amendment 7: Children's Services - Speech and Language Therapy This amendment, proposed by the Liberal Democrats, aimed to fund additional speech and language therapists and educational psychologists. It was defeated, with 29 votes in favour, 48 against, and zero abstentions. The arguments against it centred on the national limitations of training places for educational psychologists and the fact that existing systems were considered robust.

Amendment 8: Kent Travel Saver 16+ Pass Also from the Liberal Democrats, this amendment sought to reduce the cost of the 16+ travel saver pass. It was defeated, with 29 votes in favour, 48 against, and one abstention. The administration argued that while the intention was good, it was not financially sustainable in the long term and that the funding source was already allocated to other areas.

Amendment 9: Highways Asset Maintenance Fund The Liberal Democrats proposed increasing funding for highways asset maintenance. This amendment was defeated, with 29 votes in favour, 47 against, and one abstention. The administration stated that additional funding had already been allocated within the budget and that the proposed council tax increase was not justified for this purpose.

Amendment 10: Household Support Fund Crisis Kent Support and Assistance Service The Independent Group proposed reallocating funds from political assistant roles to the household support fund. This amendment was defeated, with 26 votes in favour, 48 against, and zero abstentions. The administration argued that the proposed funding was a modest, short-term gesture and that political assistants were necessary for policy development and scrutiny.

Amendment 11: Maintenance Budget The Green Party proposed an increase in the maintenance budget for council assets, funded by a small council tax rise. This amendment was defeated, with 7 votes in favour, 56 against, and 15 abstentions. The administration stated that provision for building maintenance had already been included in the budget and that further council tax increases were not supported.

Directorate Budgets

The meeting also included discussions on the budgets for various directorates:

• Adult Social Care and Public Health: Ms. Morton presented the budget, emphasizing honesty about pressures and a focus on market stability and preventative measures. Arguments were made for and against a proposed 2% uplift for older persons' residential and nursing care homes, with the amendment ultimately being defeated.
• Children, Young People and Education: Ms. Fordham presented the budget, highlighting achievements in reducing costs for home-to-school transport and transforming processes for Education, Health, and Care Plans (EHCPs).
• Growth, Environment and Transport: Several cabinet members presented on this directorate, covering highways, community and regulatory services, economic development, and transport. Progress on road maintenance, public transport, and attracting investment was highlighted.
• Chief Executive's Department: Mr. Collins presented the budget for corporate functions, emphasizing efficiency, innovation, and investment in areas such as the counter-fraud team and customer service technology.

The meeting concluded with the final approval of the budget and the council tax rate for 2026-27.