Four district authorities are at risk of losing out on £1.3m of support each year towards their waste recycling services as Kent County Council seeks to make further budget savings.

At present, KCC gives Gravesham, Ashford, Maidstone and Swale sums of £400k, £272k, £333.9k and £297.9k respectively towards their recycling measures, based on their performance.

But the agreements with those councils expire in March and April.

KCC’s head of waste management services, David Beaver, was very much for extending the arrangement for a further two years, in the expectation that by that time the government would have brought in new legislation on recycling and the whole situation would need to be reviewed.

But the continued payments were opposed by Cllr Harry Rayner (Con), who represents Malling West. He said: “There is no contract after March. We are not obliged to pay them.

“This council is being required to make huge savings and I don’t see why we should continue to pay £1.3m to these second-tier authorities if we don't have to.

“This is an opportunity for these second-tier authorities to also share in the savings that we have to make.”

He was seconded by Cllr Mike Dendor (Con), who represents Sittingbourne North, who queried whether the district councils were made accountable for the way they spent the money.

Mr Beaver argued strongly against stopping the payments.

He said that if the reaction of the boroughs to the loss of financial support was to stop separately collecting food waste, for example – which they are not legally obliged to do – then that food waste would end up going into general waste and being burnt at Allington incinerator by KCC, at huge extra costs to the county council.

He said the cost of burning waste at Allington was around £44m a year, but if it also had to deal with materials that could have been recycled, that could rise by £15m.

He urged councillors to regard “the comparatively small sum” of £1.3m to be seen as “investing to save”.

But Cllr Mike Whiting (Con), who represents Sheppey, said he could not envisage that there would be an immediate reaction by the districts just because they lost the financial support.

They would have already drawn up contracts with their waste collectors, he said, and so would be obliged to stick with them.

Cllr Mark Hood (Green), who represents Tonbridge, was aghast at this suggestion to cut the payments. He said: “Our environmental credibility would be in tatters.”

Describing the payments as “the carrot to improved recycling performance,” he said: “We must behave like gentlemen and honour these agreements or we run the real risk of reputational damage.”

Nevertheless, members of the environment and transport cabinet committee voted by eight votes to seven, with one abstention, to recommend to the cabinet that the payments be ended.

The move has angered borough councillors.

Cllr Stuart Jeffery (Green), from Maidstone Borough Council, said: “Maidstone’s high recycling rate saves KCC millions each year

“Until now, KCC has shared those savings with us.

“The environment committee’s vote to end this agreement is counterproductive and will come back to haunt them.

“This is a retrograde step.

“In these times of ecological crisis, we need to be promoting a circular economy, not sending more material to the incinerator.”

Cllr Jeffery warned: “We don’t need to send our waste via KCC, we can do this directly and we can benefit from the whole saving.

“KCC thinks it is playing Russian roulette with us, but they are about to shoot themselves in the foot.”

KCC has similar agreements in place with Dover, Folkestone and Hythe, Canterbury, Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells councils, but the existing agreements with them are not yet due to expire.

A spokesman for Gravesham council said: “We only became aware of this proposal when it went through the KCC cabinet committee.

“We are disappointed that having previously been assured the payments would be made, this stance has changed so late in the budget setting cycle.

“We are making strong representations to KCC about the need for the payments to continue, while reviewing what it might mean for our service delivery should the proposal be ratified by KCC’s cabinet.”

A spokesman for Maidstone council said: “Funding for waste collections is very complex. These payments are a small but vital element that ensures the county’s transfer service is coordinated with district collections to minimise cost.

“We want to work closely with KCC to reduce costs, while continuing to improve on our excellent recycling rates across all three councils.

“Following the recommendation from the committee, Mid Kent councils have provided further information to KCC to help demonstrate the role this funding has and how the partnership between the districts and Kent County Council is essential to deliver the best value services for Kent residents.”

A spokesman for Swale said: “We’re aware of the proposal from the cabinet advisory committee and have, along with partner councils, written to KCC to set out the implications of the proposal.

“If KCC go ahead with the cut to funding, it will leave us with a considerable budget gap which will mean further savings would need to be found. This could have a damaging effect on the work we are doing to increase the levels of recycling and food waste that we collect."