The Leader introduced the report which sought Council’s approval of the Council Tax Requirement, Revenue Budget and Capital Programme and Council Tax for the year 2026/27, as set out in the report to the Policy and Resources Committee held on 4 February 2026 and to approve the Council Tax Resolutions set out in Appendix I.

In proposing the recommendations, the Leader said the budget was a very different budget from those presented previously as it was the first truly cross- party Council budget, built not on party lines but on shared commitment to do the best for the community. He said the budget was a result of 12 months of work shaped through monthly cross-party budget meetings where every group around the table was given the opportunity to challenge, contribute and influence the final outcome through the budget working group.  The Leader said the discussions involved compromise on all sides, difficult choices and honest debate, to achieve the best possible outcomes for the residents of Swale within the financial realities faced by the Council.

The Leader said the way the budget was created was significant and that Members across the Chamber had worked constructively, put aside political differences where necessary and focused on what united rather than divided them.

The Leader recorded his personal thanks to Members involved for engaging in the united spirit, and to officers for their professionalism, patience, expertise and tolerance in supporting the process over the weeks and months.  He said that this budget demonstrated that collaboration worked and when Members worked together and listened to each other and accepted that nobody got everything they wanted out of the budget, a balanced and responsible budget that reflected shared priorities and protected the services that Swale residents could rely on every day could be delivered.

Finally, the Leader said he was proud of the way that Members had worked together on this budget and said it belonged to the whole Council.

In seconding the recommendation, the Leader of the Conservative Group reserved his right to speak.

The Leader of the SIA Group said it was interesting when a budget was proposed by the largest group and seconded by the main opposition group, that between them had more than half the Members of the Council, as the outcome was obvious. He said there was strong alignment between the Labour and Conservative groups and it was difficult to come up with anything new, particularly when long-term programmes could not be carried out in a Council whose future would cease to exist. He said that because of the LGR, a five-year strategy could not be planned, and Councils just had to get through the next two years. The Leader of the SIA Group referred to the decision to charge in some car parks on the Isle of Sheppey and said it was unfortunate this could not be discussed via the amendment submitted and he could not support the budget for that reason.

The Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group said creating the budget was not about ticking every box for every group on every wish list, but was about having difficult conversations, making compromises and figuring out what worked for the community. She said everyone involved had to listen and give a little, and the budget presented was balanced, sensible and focused on the residents, despite the difficult financial circumstances that local government faced. The Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group said it had been a transparent process involving trust, honesty and an open door policy, which some chose not to be part of, and which subsequently left their arguments against the budget less convincing. She said that whilst Members in the chamber disagreed on national politics and sometimes core values and priorities, it was important that those views were put aside and Members could work together for the benefit of their residents and show that even when there were disagreements, they could still agree on what mattered most.

The Leader of the Reform UK Group said he appreciated the hard work officers and Members had put into the budget and commented that the Director of Resources and her team were always available to respond to questions and attend meetings on the budget. He acknowledged a balanced budget had been achieved but said the budget had the biggest impact on residents and the budget should reflect their views, and by not accepting Members’ amendments, it was a sad reflection on democracy and he could not support it.

The Councillor Terry Thompson (Green Group), referred to the erosion of funding from central government over many years and said this had led to the Council creating its current budget, and he thanked officers for their work on creating a balanced budget.

The Mayor invited Members to speak and comments made included:

·         The topic of charging for car parks on the Isle of Sheppey had gained much attention from the public before and during the budget consultation;

·         one in eight voters on the Isle of Sheppey had voted against the charge for car parks on the Isle of  Sheppey but had been ignored;

·         was critical that the cost of installing car parking machines matched the income generated to fund them;

·         it would be wrong to support a budget that the residents he represented did not support;

·         did not support introducing car parking charges in areas with so few facilities;

·         the negative impact that car parking charges had on the residents, businesses and road network on the Isle of Sheppey;

·         should be reducing parking charges to encourage people to visit high streets and town centres;

·         acknowledged that historical austerity in local government remained a major influence on the budget setting;

·         welcomed collaborative working through the budget setting process, particularly with LGR looming;

·         due to uncertainty in the LGR process, SBC had to plan for longer;

·         the Council had very little non-statutory spend and had to be responsible as financial instability would cost residents;

·         the wider impacts on town centre footfall, noting factors beyond car park charges, such as online shopping and related trends, and welcomed the opportunity for Members to discuss the issue and submit ideas to the Economy and Property Committee;

·         reminded Members that there had been six years of warnings about potential cessation of entire non-statutory services, mitigated by the recent uplift in Government funding;

·         projects which had received Government funding paying particular attention to £21million being put aside for social housing in Swale;

·         nobody wanted to increase Council Tax and parking charges or have to spend more money on homelessness, but there had to be compromises to protect services;

·         the long term vision to deliver social housing in the borough;

·         expressed concern that many areas of the Isle of Sheppey including Minster, Queenborough and Halfway had not received investment from the Pride and Place funding, and questioned what benefit the Isle of Sheppey would receive from the proposed budget?

·         was critical that Chairs and Vice-Chairs had not been involved or involved in the budget setting work;

·         amendments had not been allowed at the Environmental Services and Climate Change Committee, and the amendments proposed for the Council budget had been rejected;

·         questioned why revenue from parking charges was included in the budget to be used for projects yet to be decided;

·         critical of including a budget for postal costs in a digital age;

·         critical of including budget for security for meetings where public attendance was low;

·         critical of retaining free parking for those attending the Hop Festival in Faversham;

·         charging for parking in the Isle of Sheppey car parks put off tourists and others using the outdoor facilities;

·         suggested Members should not support the budget and parking charges on the Isle of Sheppey be removed;

·         with an increase in the amount of new development in the area and resultant increase in income from Council Tax and Section 106 Agreement, residents wanted to know what it was being spent on;

·         only 9% of the Council Tax income was allocated to SBC;

·         questioned what services residents got from KCC in return for the high proportion of Council Tax income allocated to them;

·         compromises needed to be made to balance the budget, and said that when parking charges were introduced in Faversham, the town had to adapt and continued to thrive;

·         referring to the decrease in footfall, there were measures Members could take to encourage and support shopping in the High Streets;

·         reminded Members that the budget was for the whole of Swale and said that the fight against parking charges on the Isle of Sheppey had been fought and lost, and it was time to move on; and

·         the budget was testament to what could be achieved when working together and focused on what mattered most to residents, and as a collective, priority had been given to sensible local investment and key frontline services had been ringfenced.

The seconder of the motion, Councillor Bowen, referred to the question, and associated criticism about why funding had been allocated for potential appeals on planning applications that had not yet been determined, and reminded Members that previously there had been criticism that no provision had been made for unexpected appeal costs. He acknowledged that nobody wanted to increase the Council Tax, but it was necessary in order to keep services running and he reminded Members that they were debating the budget for all SBC residents and the interests of the borough, not solely for those in their wards.

Councillor Bowen spoke about the cross-party discussions that had taken place over many months and the compromises that had been made to reach a balanced budget, for the benefit of the whole borough. He paid tribute to the officers and to the budget working group.  Finally, Councillor Bowen said it was a good workable budget and there was no need to use the reserve date to return to discuss alternatives.

In summing up, the Leader reminded those Members who had been critical that the Isle of Sheppey did not receive any funding, that millions of pounds had been spent, highlighting improvements in Sheerness and £20 million earmarked to be spent at the eastern end of the Isle of Sheppey.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules 3.1.19(5) a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For: Councillors Harrison, Tim Gibson, Noe, Cavanagh, Bowen, Goulding, Last, Booth, Speed, Wooster, Wise, Cheesman, Watson, Thompson, Jackson, Charles Gibson, Ben J Martin, Perkin, Simone Clark, Brawn, Hunt, Winckless and Miller. Total equals 23.

Against: Councillors Chris Palmer, Mishchuk, Pollard, Jayes, Bonney, Paul Stephen, Nundy, Whiting, S Stephen, Carnell, Baldock, Richard Palmer. Total equals 12.

Abstain: Councillors Moore and Marchington. Total equals 2.

Resolved:

(1)  That Members note the Director of Resources opinion on the robustness of the budget estimates and the adequacy of reserves.

(2)  That the report to the Policy and Resources Committee of 4 February 2026 on the Medium Term Financial Plan and the 2026/27 revenue budgets be approved.

(3)  That the resolutions contained in Appendix I be approved.

(4)  That in accordance with the proposals contained within AI 2014 No. 165 that a recorded vote be taken on the 2026/27 Budget and Council Tax and the Budget be approved including the agreed amendments.