Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

Since the publication of the agenda, Mr James Defriend had joined the membership of the Scrutiny Committee to fill a Reform UK vacancy.

There was a general declaration of interest noted from all Committee Members who were also Parish, District, City or Borough Councillors in relation to item C2 on the agenda.

1.    The Chairman agreed that a representation from a Committee Member be appended onto item C2 of the minutes of the meeting held 17 September 2025.

2.    The addition to the minutes, at item C2, end of paragraph 4 was as following:
“A Member posed the following:
Transparency of Public Information
Ensure that all information suitable for the public domain is published and not withheld under exempt papers.
Asset Management and Utilisation
Review the timeframe for asset sales versus purchases. Assess whether assets scheduled for disposal could instead be repurposed for service delivery, reducing the need for ‘new purchases’. Implement horizon scanning to maximize asset value and usage.
Interdepartmental Communication Disclosure
Require publication of communications between departments concerning asset disposals, operational proposals, and business cases submitted by directors. This includes cases where assets marked for disposal might have been requested for service delivery.
These proposals were not agreed by the Committee.”

3.    RESOLVED that subject to the above amendment being made, the minutes of the meetings held 17 September and 02 October 2025 were a correct record and they be signed by the Chairman.

In accordance with Section 100B 4 (b) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Chairman approved consideration of this item as agenda item B1 as a matter of urgency to avoid further delay of implementation.

1. The Chairman invited Antony Hook, one of the call-in members, to provide the reasons for the call-in. Mr Hook outlined his primary concern as the financial implications of withdrawing the sale of Sessions House and instead disposing of Invicta House. He argued that Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) was an insufficient justification for the decision and questioned the administration’s prioritisation of short- term savings in light of the long- term financial risks of retaining Sessions House as KCC’s permanent strategic headquarters. These risks included the heightened financial burden on any future strategic authority, the costs of red and amber rated repairs to Sessions House and the abortive costs arising from withdrawing the sale.

2. Alister Brady, one of the other call- in members, raised accessibility concerns for staff and visitors at Sessions House, highlighting the cost required to achieve the necessary standards possibly exceeding £2.5 million. He also emphasised the contrast between the spend required to ensure KCC meets accessibility and maintenance standards for a temporary 2-year period and the greater potential costs of ensuring Sessions House as a safe and sustainable working environment in the long term. He referred to the Bidwells survey carried out on Sessions House and requested further information to be provided on where funding would be allocated to carry out necessary repairs. 

3. The Deputy Leader, Brian Collins, assured the Committee that the decision had been taken after careful consideration of both advantages and disadvantages. He emphasised that delays in implementing the decision would result in continued holding costs for Invicta House, estimated at £700 per day. A key consideration was the uncertainty posed by LGR to long-term planning, which led to a strategic re-direction to achieve immediate savings. He also confirmed that £4 million had been allocated to address repairs required for a historic building such as Sessions House and stated that referring the decision to full Council would incur an additional cost of approximately £21,000 per month.

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

a)    Rebecca Spore, Director of Infrastructure, confirmed that the Bidwells condition surveys, that had independently estimated £20 million cost for red and amber repairs to Sessions House were conducted in 2023. She established many elements were subject to change and that several factors relating to day-to-day operations had influenced the figures within the report. Work to achieve these repairs would be required to go through the traditional procurement process.

b)    Considering the uncertainty surrounding the impact of LGR and future pricing parameters, Mr Collins stressed the need for short- term decision- making pending further clarification on these issues.

c)    According to the Bidwells survey rating system, a red rating indicated an item had failed or was in immediate danger of failing within the next year; an amber rating indicated a risk of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

1. Mr Collins introduced the report, which set out the revenue and capital budget forecast monitoring position at the end of September 2025-26.

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

a)    Mark Mulvihill, Deputy Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health, reported the £50.9 million overspend inherited by the new administration in the Adult Social Care (ASC) division and outlined the further challenges ahead. He explained the immediate and longer- term actions being taken to address the overspend, including the introduction of a brokerage service to ensure patients receive the correct care and timely discharges at an appropriate cost for KCC which should yield results within weeks.

b)    Mr Collins emphasised the need for increased central government funding for the ASC division due to rising national demand. He also confirmed the administration’s intention to achieve savings and stated that ongoing discussions and reporting arrangements would depend on Quarter 3 figures and feasibility assessments on their current plans.

c)    The following key areas of focus for the administration were outlined: procurement and contracts, ceilings and caps, training, responsibilities between organisations and seeking value on spend.

d)    The Committee would receive written responses from officers to Members’ questions, which were circulated prior to the meeting, outside the meeting and Mr Collins acknowledged an additional request for assurances on actions taken to address the unprecedented financial pressures on the ASC budget.

e)    Members discussed whether external factors, including the extent of the inherited ASC overspend and delayed announcement of the central government budget, could impact the timeline for the administration to address the budgetary issues.

f)     Mr Mulvihill reminded the Committee that savings required a multi- agency approach supported by central government funding, as challenges in ASC were compounded by pressures on the NHS and other community services.

3. The Chaiman proposed and Mr Eustace seconded, the Scrutiny Committee note the report and the comments made during the debate. This was agreed by the Committee.

4. RESOLVED that the Committee note the report and the comments made during debate.

1. The item was introduced by Dave Shipton, Head of Finance, Policy, Planning and Strategy, who provided an overview of the previous’s administration’s decision to cease the discretionary subsidies towards District Council’s local Council Tax Reduction Schemes (CTRS). He also outlined the report’s findings surrounding a more generous future CTRS, including the tax base assumptions for 2025-26.  

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

a)    John Betts, Interim Corporate Director of Finance, clarified that if KCC were to reverse its decision and reinstate payments, District Councils would need to be informed promptly as they would be reviewing consultation responses as part of their upcoming decision- making processes.

b)    District Councils were not required to disclose their tax base until 31 January, by which time it would be too late to reverse the decision. Therefore, it remained unclear if the proposed net savings of the decision would be achieved.

3. The Chairman proposed and Mr Eustace seconded, that the Scrutiny Committee note the report and that the current administration make efforts to confirm the as yet unknown impacts of the decision taken by the previous administration prior to the Budget. This was agreed by the Committee.

4. RESOLVED that the Committee note the report and that the current administration make efforts to confirm the as yet unknown impacts of the decision taken by the previous administration prior to the Budget.

The Chairman, in consultation with the group spokespeople suggested that this item be deferred, this was agreed by the Committee.

This item was taken after item B1.

1. The item was introduced by Christopher Hespe, Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Cross- Cabinet Activity, who presented KCC’s Business Case for LGR in Kent and Medway. Mr Hespe outlined Option 1a as the chosen plan, which proposed a single Kent unitary authority with three area assemblies, and provided an overview of the timeline and key factors that led to this decision being proposed.

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

a)    Mr Hespe elaborated on the administration’s proposal by referencing the central government’s 2024 White Paper, which referenced devolution flexibly, committed to regular reviews of the devolution framework, and introduced a legal duty to respond to LGR proposals.

b)    It was highlighted that the Labour Government’s intention to create a new pattern of strategic authorities opened the opportunity for local authorities without Mayors to be designated under that model. It was explained that, based on government guidance and the size of existing strategic authorities, a single Kent unitary could effectively double as a strategic Mayoral authority.

c)    Mr Hespe explained his view that the proposal did not present a hurdle to devolved powers and that in the absence of a clear Government pathway, Kent County Council would be the appropriate strategic authority leading up to LGR.

d)    Option 1a was proposed at the first meeting of the Devolution and LGR Cabinet Committee, following an initial options appraisal by officers that included a single unitary authority model as a benchmark. It was subsequently presented to Kent Leaders and confirmed at the next meeting of the Cabinet Committee as the preferred proposal. The approach aimed to deliver benefits highlighted in the internal and KPMG options appraisals whilst avoiding the disaggregation challenges of a multi- unitary option, particularly for the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and Adult Social Care (ASC) sectors.

e)    Ben Watts, Deputy Chief Executive, clarified that comments made by both County Council and the Devolution and LGR Cabinet Committee were documented on the proposal’s Record of Decision (RoD). However, the decision did not require formal approval by County Council in order to be taken.

3. Following the questions, the Chairman welcomed comments and views from the Committee about the item. These included:

a)    A Member questioned the bureaucratic and democratic implications of Kent acting as a strategic Mayoral authority, given that existing authorities of this type had Councils layered beneath them to provide local governance, which was absent in Kent’s LGR proposal.

b)    It was raised by Members that Councillors’ views should have been sought on the progression of LGR and that Full Council should have been given the opportunity to vote on the proposed option. This view was informed by the approach taken by other local Councils and the likelihood that central government would reject the current proposal on the grounds of size, service delivery and future devolution pathways.

c)    A Member argued that, considering current financial constraints would not be immediately solved from devolution, the administration should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

1.    The report was introduced by Wayne Chapman, Chair of the Kent Flood Risk and Water Management Committee, who provided a brief overview of the work of the Committee for the period November 2024 - November 2025.

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

a)    It was clarified that the Kent Flood Risk and Water Management Committee’s remit was to scrutinise water management and other related bodies to ensure accountability for their work. 

b)    Mr Chapman explained that the Water Summit group was not yet formed and still in the planning phase but could be advantageous if it were to materialise.

3.    The Chairman proposed the Scrutiny Committee note the report. This was agreed by the Committee.

4.    RESOLVED the Committee note the report.

RESOLVED to note the Work Programme.