Maidstone council has set its budget for the forthcoming financial year, increasing the burden on households by the maximum 3%.

It means residents living in the "average" Band D house will pay £284.49 towards the services which the borough provides such as waste collection, recycling, planning, parks, leisure and food safety.

The council could have sought to set a higher amount, but under current legislation any increase over 3% requires support in a public referendum.

However, that is not the end of the story it terms of what people will pay.

Most people live in a parished area and must also give towards the upkeep of their parish councils. These set their own budgets, but the money is collected by the borough.

On average across Maidstone, the parish precepts will add another £40.45 to each Band D bill.

The borough also collects the money for Kent County Council, Kent Police and the Kent and Medway Fire Authority.

These have already set their budgets.

KCC increased its demand by the maximum 4.99% (including special provision towards adult social care) bringing its requirement to £1,534.23 for a Band D house. KCC supplies services such as roads, education and social care.

The Kent Police contribution was decided by the Kent Police and Crime Commissioner Matthew Scott, who opted for a 6.57% increase to £243.15 for each Band D house.

Finally, there is funding for the Kent Fire and Rescue Authority, which is increasing by 6.01% to £87.30 for a Band D home.

It total, it means that the "average" household in Maidstone will be asked to a pay £2,189.62.

What households actually pay depends on the valuation of their house. While households in the lowest Band A category, who do not live in a parished area, will pay £1,432.78, those who live in the highest category – Band H – and who also live in the highest charging parish of Headcorn, will pay £4,622.64 – over three times as much.

There was little dissent when council leader Cllr David Burton (Con) presented the budget to a meeting of the full council for approval on Wednesday.

He described it as "well crafted" – an accolade repeated throughout the evening by his supporters.

Cllr Clive English, leader of the largest opposition group, the Liberal Democrats, seconded the motion, saying he had been deeply involved in the discussion leading up the the budget setting.

He said: "We should not be seeking to under-provide in terms of a council tax rise (ie go for less than the maximum), because a cut is not a cut for one year, but will be carried forward ad infinitum."

However, Cllr English was concerned about one aspect of the budget. The Conservative administration is to use £400,000 from an unringfenced government funding support grant to increase council staff salaries – on top of the normal budgetary position.

Usually staff costs are funded from the revenue budget. Because the support grant is a one-off for this year and there is no guarantee that it will be available next year, it means that the council is building in a potential £400k deficit (actually £424k once the cumulative effect is taken into account) into the next year's budget (and all subsequent years), since the increase cannot be clawed back.

The £400,000 will enable the council to pay its staff an extra 2%, which on top of the existing allocation of a 5% inflation pay rise plus a further 1% to accommodate incremental pay grade increases, means that staff will see their wages rise on average by around 8%.

Cllr English described this as "a significant extension to the pay pot" and said "revenue expenditure shouldn't be funded from the capital budget or one-off funds. This is a bad principle."

Curiously that was also the advice of the council's finance director, Mark Green, who even though he will benefit from the extra cash, said the move was not recommended by officers.

The issue also worried Cllr Tom Cannon, who was the only Conservative member not to support the budget. He abstained.

He said: "I do not agree with this measure. There is already quite a significant pay award for staff and an additional amount I do not agree with.

"I am here for Maidstone's taxpayers and this rise is across the board and I'm deeply concerned.

"I do want to see staff at MBC well remunerated - particularly I want to see lower rate taxpayers who are working for MBC well remunerated, but we have lots of pay grades at MBC, including some salaries at over £100k.

"I do not want to see any extra increase while residents are suffering and the cost of living is so high and I do not agree that we should be adding an additional £400,00 to our budget which is going to create a budget gap next year."

Cllr Cannon said: "The direction of this council will suffer because of that decision. and I cannot support it."

Had the money not been allocated to staff pay, it would have gone to the council's housing investment fund to provide more affordable housing in the borough.

Cllr Stuart Jeffery, the council's only Green party member, made three attempts to amend the budget.

He first proposed the council set aside £10,000 to establish a sustainable transport strategy for the borough, saying: "Transport around the borough remains far from sustainable and the current strategy and plans neither meet current needs nor the needs of the future."

This amendment was seconded by Cllr Paul Harper (Lab).

Cllr Jeffery said: "We have an 'Integrated Transport Policy' but that is an oxymoron. It is all about how to squeeze more cars on the road, usually at great expense.

"We are subsiding drivers to park in the town rather than investing in alternatives such as buses, park and ride, cycling and walking."

His second amendment concerned fly-tipping. He said: "I hate fly-tipping and fly-tippers.

"The ease at which these people seem to think that the rest of us can clean up their mess is beyond me.

"While the core fine for fly tipping is fixed, the additional costs that the council incurs in removing the waste can be added to the penalty."

The council currently spends £31,000 a year on this, and Cllr Jeffery suggested that adding the cost of collection to the penalties, assuming only a 50% success rate, could actually save the council £15,000 a year.

The motion was seconded by Cllr Tom Sams (Ind).

His third motion was in respect of energy costs in rented properties.

He said: "I am worried about tenants. They often have the least ability to insulate their homes while they often pay the most to live there. We need to do all we can to protect them."

He urged enforcing the minimum insulation standards on landlords and using the revenue raised - which he estimated at £40k net - to train further insulators

This motion was seconded by Cllr Maureen Cleator (Lab).

The answer from the council leader David Burton was almost identical on all three points: that there was already money in the budget for these functions, and no amendment was necessary.

He also accused Cllr Jeffery in the case of fly-tipping, of "plucking a number out of the air."

But there was sympathy for the points Cllr Jeffery was making.

Cllr Paul Cooper (Con) said: "I agree with Cllr Jeffery, there are many areas of the Integrated Transport Strategy that are out of date."

On fly-tipping, Cllr English agreed with the principle, but thought there were better ways of addressing the matter than at a budget meeting.

He suggested putting it on the executive's agenda for consideration.

On insulation, even Cllr Burton agreed: "This is an important area," while Cllr Simon Webb (Con) suggested it could be placed on the agenda of the communities, health and leisure advisory committee for consideration.

But Cllr Webb also said that a recent survey had shown that in Maidstone only 30 landlords were not meeting the minimum insulation standard.

When it came to the vote, all three amendments were heavily defeated.

But Cllr Louise Brice (Con) said: "I want to make it clear, I am opposing these motions on budgetary reasons. I don't want to read in the press that I am against taking action against fly-tippers."

Subsequent to the budget meeting, on Friday, Cllr English formally wrote to the council leader asking that two items be placed on the executive agenda: namely the further enhancement of enforcement activity against fly-tipping including an investigation of whether further recovery of costs could be sought. and secondly, consideration of further action against landlords failing to meet environmental standards; he said: "Not just for energy efficiency, but also for damp, mould, fire safety and other issues."

Cllr English said: "The proposals brought forward by Cllr Jeffery were not fully thought-out and certainly his financial calculations were entirely speculative, but nevertheless there are issues here worth pursuing."

Cllr English also asked the leader "for an update on the timetable for reviewing the integrated transport strategy and any plans to make this more sustainable."