Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Mr Truder, for whom Mr Paul was substituting and Dr Sturley, for whom Mr Palmer was substituting.

1.    The following declarations were made in relation to item C1 on the agenda:

a)    Mr Defriend declared that his partner’s daughter was a non- verbal child with autism that attended a specialist school.

b)    Mr Reidy declared that he was a governor at St Simon’s Stock Catholic school and Holy Family Catholic school in Maidstone.

c)    Mr Shonk declared that his wife was a chaperone for the Home to School Transport scheme.

d)    Mr Thomas declared that his granddaughter attended a specialist school.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2026 were a correct record and they be signed by the Chairman.

1.    The report was introduced by Beverley Fordham, Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, who provided an overview of major ongoing reforms to the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) system, KCC’s assessment and Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) processes and potential alternative models of provision in light of the Government’s SEND White Paper and subsequent announcements. She also explained that the cost of a financially sustainable SEND system depended on the chosen policy direction, with KCC working towards a balanced approach aligned with national reform.

2.    In response to questions and comments from Members, discussion covered the following:

a)    Craig Chapman, Interim Deputy Director for Education: Access and Inclusion, advised that Central Government anticipated SEND numbers to rise for approximately 5 years before returning to current levels over a ten?year reform period, driven by increased support within mainstream schools. He recognised that Kent remained an outlier in specialist placements, raising the question of whether it would align with national trends by 2035. He further stated that Central Government’s proposals broadly reflected the approach Kent had been pursuing, aiming to redirect resources from specialist to mainstream provision to reduce escalating costs.

b)    Christine McInnes, Interim Corporate Director for Children, Young People and Education, emphasised that the White Paper did not propose removing specialist schools, rather it sought to rebalance the proportion of children placed in specialist and independent provision. She explained that special schools remained essential for children with complex needs, with some highly specialist provision continuing in the Independent sector.

c)    It was emphasised that the paper could not provide costed scenarios without clearer expectations from Members on the preferred model of a ‘sustainable SEND system’ as different models would generate different financial outcomes. It was also highlighted that KCC had to produce reform plans modelled on Central Government proposals, meaning further detail could only be provided once this full funding information was released.

d)    Mr Chapman advised that if Kent continued operating at its current capacity, the SEND budget would reach an overspend of around £100 million in 2027. Central Government’s deficit plan only addressed historic overspend, meaning that ongoing annual deficits would still rise unless there were reforms. He explained that while KCC was working with the Department for Education (DfE) on reform plans, the financial risk and potential future overspend ultimately sat with the Council.

e)    Mr Chapman stated that tribunal decisions had a clear financial impact by potentially directing pupils into high- cost independent provision. He explained that KCC supported the proposed SEND reforms, which aimed to reduce conflict in the system and to ensure limited resources were benefitting the greatest number of children. He also outlined that previous increases in spending did not necessarily improve outcomes and contributed to an unsustainable model. It was added that a detailed report on the tribunal system was published the previous year and could be updated for Members. It was also highlighted that Kent performed better than the national average, with approximately 96% of tribunal cases  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

1.    The report was introduced by Peter Osborne, Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport, who updated the Committee on the progress of KCC’s Winter Service up to the end of January 2026 and outlined pressures experienced during the most recent winter period and lessons learned. He also highlighted adequacy of resources and capacity, clarity on the definition and responsibilities around street cleanings, pothole maintenance, future planning and long- term resilience.

2.    Following questions and comments from Members, discussion covered the following:

a)    Simon Jones, Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport (GET) confirmed that the data showed an increasing number of surface defects, supporting perceptions of worsening pothole conditions linked to recent winters, unusual weather, and the overall condition of the highway network.

b)    Andrew Loosemore, Interim Director of Highways and Transport, explained that while January typically saw a spike in surface defect reports, February experienced an unprecedented increase due to cumulative severe winter conditions. Although this created a significant pressure and backlog, report levels reduced in March and recovery work was continuing.

c)    Mr Jones highlighted the existing scheme through which Parish Councils could invest their own funding into Highway Improvement Plans. Parishes that wished to accelerate local repairs were also advised to engage with the Highway Improvement team, who could liaise with operations as appropriate.

d)    Mr Jones explained that it was not possible to set a fixed timescale for when surface defects would reach intervention levels, as deterioration rates varied and were managed through a routine inspection regime. Mr Loosemore further confirmed that repairs were prioritised using a risk- based approach in line with the national Code of Practice for Well Managed Highways, with defects allocated to timed repair categories. Lower- risk issues were addressed through planned maintenance and asset management programmes.

e)    Richard Emmett, Head of Highways (Operations), explained that primary salting routes were planned to capacity and could not currently be expanded. However, additional “snow routes” may be deployed during severe weather once primary routes were complete, and in some cases single access routes to villages had been added. Members could raise requests through their Local Highway Managers, and post- season reviews of routes were undertaken over the summer months.

f)     Mr Jones advised that weather forecasting services were kept under regular review and confirmed that the Council had recently starting using Met Office forecasting. Alongside this, operational experience and innovations under the new contract were expected to improve preparedness for future extreme weather at no extra cost to the Council. Mr Emmett outlined these potential innovations, including the use of vehicle telematics to enable live tracking of gritting vehicles. They also included recognising pressures caused by the same staff covering both winter operations and pothole repairs, with work underway to explore designated crews to better manage emergencies and reduce operational strain.

g)    Mr Loosemore confirmed that the use of spray markings to identify temporary pothole repairs had been explored previously, but practical issues and potential confusion with utility markings meant this did not progress.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

1. The item was introduced by Jamie Henderson, Cabinet Member for Environment, Coastal Regeneration and Public Health, who outlined the impact of fly?tipping on streets and rural areas. He highlighted the significant costs associated with clearance and disposal and the pressure placed on County and Borough Council budgets, as well as the impact on landowners, farmers and businesses.

2. Following questions and comments from Members, discussion covered the following:

a)    Mr Henderson assured the Committee that businesses were required to be licensed as waste carriers and pay for lawful disposal and that commercial waste should not be subsidised by Council taxpayers. He also explained that £345,000 was spent dealing with fly- tipping in 2025 in gate fees alone, increasing the case for investment in stronger enforcement activity. He suggested that in light of the current Lords review, it could be timely to seek assistance from Central Government to support enforcement and help struggling businesses.

b)    Matthew Smyth, Director for Environment and Waste, explained that commercial operators could use waste transfer stations at cost, but that expanding access would add non?statutory costs to Kent taxpayers. He also outlined that commercial waste volumes could be comparable to household waste, making limits on access impractical. He added that the booking system had reduced costs by £1.4 million and was supported by 96% of users.

c)    Mr Henderson agreed with a suggestion that clearer promotion of licensing requirements could support legal compliance and reduction in fly- tipping, citing the numbers of under- licensing among small companies.

d)    Mr Smyth highlighted that residents were legally responsible for ensuring their waste was disposed of correctly, even when using a third- party waste carrier. He therefore agreed that any educational campaign should target not only businesses, but also residents to raise awareness of their waste responsibilities.

e)    Mr Smyth acknowledged inconsistencies within a table in the report and assured the Committee the source would be reviewed and a correct table reissued.

f)     Lucy Miller, Business Innovation Manager, confirmed that there was currently no assistance available from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) for farmers or landowners affected by mass fly- tipping. However, this issue of clear up costs for farmers and private landowners was being considered as part of the ongoing House of Lords Inquiry, and Members would be kept updated as further information became available.

g)    Ms Miller elaborated that fly- tipping and enforcement was being widely considered at national level, through the House of Lords Inquiry. She outlined that the Environment Agency had published a 10-point action plan to address fly- tipping and illegal waste sites, including measures such as improved intelligence handling, greater transparency and community engagements. Further relevant links could be shared with Members outside of the Committee.

h)    Mr Henderson also encouraged Borough Councils to apply maximum penalties available to ensure a consistent approach across Kent and help prevent displacements of offenders between areas.

i)     Ms Miller reported that the Council had strengthened its working relationship with the Environment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

RESOLVED to note the Work Programme.