Cabinet

_________________________________________________________________________ - Page 1 - Minutes & Decisions CABINET 7pm, Tuesday, 23 December 2025 Meeting held at Committee Room 6 - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW Decisions Published on: 24 December 2025 Decisions come into effect from: 5pm, 5 January 2026 as stated and unless called-in Cabinet Members Present: Jonathan Bianco (Vice-Chair, in the Chair) Susan O'Brien Jane Palmer Eddie Lavery Steve Tuckwell Wayne Bridges Other Members Present: Sital Punja Scott Farley Before the start of the meeting, the Vice -Chair, Councillor Jonathan Bianco wished those present and watching a Merry Christmas and a happy healthy New Year. 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies were received from Councillor Ian Edwards and the Vice -Chair, Councillor Jonathan Bianco, chaired the meeting. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS BEFORE THIS MEETING No interests were declared by Members present. 3. TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE LAST CABINET MEETING The minutes and decisions of the Cabinet meeting held on 20 November 2025 were agreed as a correct record. 4. TO CONFIRM THAT THE ITEMS OF BUSINESS MARKED PART 1 WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC AND THAT THE ITEMS OF BUSINESS MARKED PART 2 IN PRIVATE It was confirmed that items of business marked Part 1 would be considered in public and those marked Part 2 in private. The Vice-Chair welcomed to the Cabinet Councillor Wayne Bridges in his new role as Cabinet Member for Community & Environment. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 2 - 5. 2026/27 BUDGET AND FUTURE MEDIUM-TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY RESOLVED: That the Cabinet: 1. Notes the circumstances that have led to the council’s current financial position and the assumptions used in producing the medium -term financial strategy (MTFS) as set out in this report; 2. Notes the key risks and mitigations associated with this budget strategy as set out in this report; 3. Approves the draft General Fund and Housing Revenue Account budgets, including growth and savings proposals, fees and c harges, and Capital Programme proposals for 2026/27 and beyond (as detailed in Appendices B to F) as the basis for consultation with Select Committees and other stakeholders; 4. Authorises officers to commence consultation on the budget and notes that this will commence on 2 4th December for a period of 6 weeks, with the results to be reported for consideration by Cabinet at the February 2026 Cabinet meeting; 5. Notes that the final General Fund Revenue Budget, Capital Strategy, Capital Programme, HRA 2026/27 Budg et and Business Plan and Treasury Management Strategy Statement will be presented to Cabinet on 19 February 2026 to be recommended for approval to the Full Council meeting taking place on 26 February 2026. Furthermore: 6. Authorises officers to action where possible any efficiency and invest to save proposals at the earliest opportunity in 2025/26 where operational savings are not public facing and so not subject to formal consultation and where assessed not to have any equality impacts. All other proposals subject to publi c consultation and equality impact assessment will only be implemented after Cabinet considers the consultation feedback, and subject to Full Council approval; 7. Notes that the Final Local Government Finance Settlement (LGFS) is awaited from HM Government an d that officers will continue to review and update the 2026/27 MTFS up until the point that EFS is confirmed and the final budget setting report is submitted to Cabinet in February 2026; 8. Notes the material scale of the increase in rateable values for Hillingdon businesses and that officers are taking proactive and urgent communication with relevant parties to determine the veracity of those increases and risks to future income and cashflow of the council if those increases are successfully appealed; 9. Authorises the Corporate Director of Finance, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance & Transformation, to respond on behalf of the council to the consultation on the Provisional LGFS and to the Mayor of London’s budget consultation; _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 3 - 10. Notes that suppor t will be required from government in the form of Exceptional Financial Support in order to set a balanced budget for 2026/27, and indicatively for later years in the MTFS period, and authorises officers to continue to work with MHCLG representatives to make the appropriate arrangements to get this in place. In respect of the 2025/26 budget: 11. Approves the new fees and charges for the council’s leisure centres operated by GLL with effect December 2025, as set out within Appendix F. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Finance and Transformation introduced the Cabinet’s budget proposals for 2026/27 and future years. It was proposed to release the consultation budget for a six -week period, after which it would return in February before being presented to full Council for approval. The proposals included a three - year revenue forecast and a five -year capital programme. The 2026/27 c apital programme totalled £75 million following a review to reduce borrowing, while the HRA programme of £1 33 million inclu ded major works to improve social housing stock. The Cabinet Member highlighted the continuing financial challenges caused by years of underfunding, recognised in the Fair Funding Review, and explained that transitional relief would leave the Council unde rfunded until 2028/29 at a net cost of £44 million. Exceptional financial support would be required in later years to achieve a fully balanced budget by 2028/29. Inflationary pressures, rising costs in adult social care, children’s services and homelessness, and additional responsibilities as a Port Authority were noted as key drivers of demand. The proposed Council Tax increase was 4.99%, including the social care precept, and fees and charges were assumed to rise by 10% with resident discounts retained. T he current gap for 2026/27 was £59 million, largely due to transitional funding arrangements. The Cabinet Member confirmed that service modelling and new delivery models were being developed to contain costs, including changes in adult soc ial care, children’s homes and temporary accommodation. The HRA was forecast to maintain £15 million in reserves and continue major works programmes, including the significant housing regeneration project in Hayes. Business rates revaluation for Heathrow Airport was highlighted as a potential risk by the Cabinet Member, requiring further engagement with Government and the airport operator. The Cabinet Member thanked the Corporate Director of Finance and his team for their extensive work on the proposals . The Vice -Chair supported the proposals, acknowledging the ongoing pressures in adult social care, SEND and homelessness, and thanked officers and Members for their work in producing a robust consultation budget. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 4 - Cabinet, therefore, agreed the proposed 2026/27 budget for consultation. Alternative options considered and rejected Alternative proposals considered but rejected by the Cabinet were set out in the public report. Relevant Select Committee All Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Those Cabinet decisions related to the 2026/27 Budget and MTFS are not subject to call -in as a budget and policy framework document. This will be considered by select committees and ultimately by full Council as the decision-maker. These decisions take immediate effect to enable the budget consultation to commence. Officer(s) to action Steve Muldoon Directorate Finance Classification Public - The report and any background papers relating to this decision by the Cabi net are availabl e to view on the Council's website or by visiting the Civic Centre, Uxbridge 6. MONTHLY COUNCIL BUDGET MONITORING REPORT: MONTH 7 RESOLVED: That the Cabinet: 1) Note the revenue and capital budget monitoring positions and treasury management update as at October 2025 (Month 7) as set out in Part A of the report, furthermore, noting the actions proposed by officers. 2) Approve the financial recommendations as set out in Part B of this report below: a. Approve acceptance of £166,583 o f grant funding from the Department for Education (DfE) under the Building Stronger Independent Lives (BSiL) programme. b. Approve acceptance of £25,000 grant funding to support the EBSNA Response and Enhanced Rehabilitation Outreach Service (EROS). Reason for decision The Cabinet Member for Finance and Transformation introduced the Month 7 budget monitoring report, confirming that the overall position remained unchanged from Month 6, with an in -year deficit of £36 million. Minor movements had occurred, but service pressures continued to stem from adult social care, children’s services and homelessness. The 2025/26 savings programme faced £14 million of pressure, with 37% of savings rated red, 48% banked or on track, and £4.8 million in amber, _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 5 - expected to deliver in future y ears. The savings tracker was being fully reviewed as part of the budget-setting process. Discussions with Government on Exceptional Financial Support were ongoing, and the Corporate Director of Finance confirmed that a Section 114 notice was not being considered at this stage. A decision on the 2024/25 support request was expected soon, while the 2025/26 outcome was anticipated in February. The Dedicated Schools Grant position improved to a £10.6 million deficit, representing a £4.4 million improvement on the previous year, with measures taken by the Council beginning to show positive impact. The statutory override remained in place until March 2028, and government had indicated it would assume responsibility for DSG from 2028/29, though details were unclear. The Cabinet Member advised that the capital programme for 2025/26 had 83% expected to be spent this year and the remainder rephased into 2026/27, subject to review. The Vice-Chair welcomed the improved stability of the budget position. Alternative options considered and rejected None. Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Cabinet’s decisions (2 a & b) on this matter c an be called in by a majority of the select committee by 5pm, Monday 5 January 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Steve Muldoon Directorate Finance Classification Public - The report and any background papers relating to this decision by the Cabinet are available to view on the Council's website or by visiting the Civic Centre, Uxbridge 7. SIX-MONTH PERFORMANCE REPORT, FIRST HALF 2025/26 - APRIL TO OCTOBER RESOLVED: That Cabinet: 1. Note the Six-month performance report for 2025/26, as attached in Appendix 1; 2. Note that it will also be presented to Select Committees in discharging their overview and scrutiny role, and also full Council; _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 6 - Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Finance and T ransformation introduced the six -monthly performance report, which would be considered further by the Select Committee and presented to full Council in January. The Cabinet Member highlighted that the overall message was strong outcomes del ivered at low co st, reflecting the long -standing policy of the Administration. Key points included Hillingdon having the fourth lowest expenditure in London per 100,000 residents despite additional pressures from asylum responsibilities and its role as a Port Authority at Heathrow. Adult social care expenditure was the second lowest among comparable boroughs, with a good CQC rating placing the Council in the top quartile nationally. Children’s services had the third lowest expenditure and retained an outs tanding rating. Resident services demonstrated strong value for money, and general fund spending on housing ranked eighth lowest in London, with temporary accommodation costs mitigated by interventions. Rough sleeping remained a challenge, largely due to Heathrow’s presence within the Borough. The Vice-Chair commented that the report demonstrated the efficiency and value for money of Council services, noting that financial pressures were driven by demand factors beyond the Council’s control rather than poor performance. Alternative options considered and rejected None. Relevant Select Committee All Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Not for call-in. Officer(s) to action Ian Kavanagh Directorate Corporate Services Classification Public - The report and any background papers relating to this decision by the Cabinet are available to view on the Council's website or by visiting the Civic Centre, Uxbridge 8. OLDER PEOPLE'S PLAN UPDATE RESOLVED: That the Cabinet: 1) Notes the activities undertaken to support older people in Hillingdon. 2) Endorses the proposed approach for the development of a Hillingdon Age Friendly Plan from 2026/27 as described in the report. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 7 - Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care provided an update on the wide range of activities undertaken over the past year to support older residents. Highlights included 8,097 visits to Warm Welcome Centres between December and March, dementia-friendly physical activity sessions attended by 95 residents weekly, and over 2,200 health and well -being events hosted by libraries, attracting thousands of attendees aged over 65. It was advised that Telecare continued to help residents live independently, with 74% of users aged ov er 75. A new 70 -bed care home had been purchased to expand provision, and public health initiatives included frailty awareness campaigns resulting in 265 referrals. The Hillingdon Advice Partnership secured funding for additional benefits for older residents, with further awards expected. An Age-Friendly Festival was held in October, offering health checks, vaccinations and advice. The Cabinet Member noted that the second part of the report proposed adopting the World Health Organisation’s Age -Friendly fra mework to deliver the “Ageing Well” priority within the draft Health and Wellbeing Strategy. This system -wide approach would involve the Council and health partners and focus on eight key areas, including housing, transport, social participation and health services. Consultation on the longer-term plan was scheduled for 2026/27, with annual updates to Cabinet. The Vice-Chair commended the report as a clear demonstration of strong outcomes delivered efficiently and praised the work undertaken to support older residents. Alternative options considered and rejected Cabinet could have decided that it did not wish to pursue the proposed Age Friendly Plan approach. Relevant Select Committee Health and Social Care Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Cabinet’s decision (2) on this matter can be called in by a majority of the select committee by 5pm, Monday 5 January 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Sarah Durner / Gary Collier Directorate Adult Social Care and Health Classification Public - The report and any background papers relating to this decision by the Cabinet are available to view on the Council's website or by visiting t he Civic Centre, Uxbridge _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 8 - 9. CONSIDERATION OF SETTING A LICENSED DEFICIT BUDGET IN FY 2025-26 FOR CERTAIN SCHOOLS IN THE BOROUGH RESOLVED: That the Cabinet approves the application for a licensed deficit for all schools listed in Appendix 1 for 2025/26. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education presented a report seeking approval to set licensed deficit budgets for maintained schools. At the start of the academic year, 15 schools reported deficits for 2025/26, an notable increase. It was explained that maintained schools were required to submit balanced budgets annually, but in exceptional circumstances where all alternatives have been explored, a governing body may request a licensed deficit for a defined period, usually one year. Renewing licences enable d schools to continue operating while working towards financial recovery. The Cabinet Member explained that education finance officers and advisers would meet with headteachers, business managers and, where necess ary, chairs of governors to monitor, support and review financial plans. The rise in deficits reflected wider challenges, including declining pupil numbers due to historically low birth rates, high staffing costs and increased operational expenses. These p ressures were impacting the Dedicated Schools Grant, although there was no direct effect on the Council’s General Fund. However, cash advances to schools created interest costs and financial risk for the Council. The Vice -Chair noted that falling pupil n umbers were a sign ificant issue for many schools and that resolving these financial challenges would not be easy. Alternative options considered and rejected Cabinet could have decided to write off the deficits, which would have needed to be agreed by Sc hools Forum, or withdraw n the governor delegated powers over the schools’ budgets. Relevant Select Committee Children, Families & Education Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Cabinet’s decisions on thi s matter can be ca lled in by a majority of the select committee by 5pm, Monday 5 January 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Ndenko Asong / Luisa Hansen Directorate Finance Classification Public - The report and any background papers relating to this decision by the Cabinet are available to view on the Council's website or by visiting the Civic Centre, Uxbridge _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 9 - 10. INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING STATEMENT 2024/25 RESOLVED: That the Cab inet notes the sel ect committee’s comments and the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) 2024/25, to be published on the Council’s website by 31 December 2025. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Growth introduced the statu tory Infrastructure Funding Statement under the Community Infrastructure Levy regulations, outlining how the Council had collected, allocated and spent developer contributions over the past year. The report aimed to ensure transparency and accountability in funding that sup ports sustainable growth and benefits residents. It had been reviewed by the Residents’ Services Select Committee, which commended strong monitoring arrangements, proactive compliance and timely collection, and noted that no Section 106 f unds had lapsed in recent years. The committee also highlighted the need to improve transparency through a clearer and more accessible Section 106 database, a priority for the Council. The Cabinet Member highlighted k ey figures which included £736,000 col lected through Hil lingdon CIL, supporting projects such as the Platinum Jubilee Leisure Centre and the Chrysalis programme, and £5.3 million received via Section 106, with £5 million spent on affordable housing, air quality, parks, community facilities, an d skills and training. A further £3 million was received as a carbon offset contribution from a data centre development in Hayes. The Cabinet Member warned that the Mayor of London’s proposal to reduce CIL contributions by 50% would significantly impact local infrastructure funding, and confirmed that the Council would continue to make the case for investment. The Vice-Chair welcomed the report as a clear explanation of funding sources and expenditure, while expressing concern about the potential reductio n in CIL contributions. Alternative options considered and rejected None, as publication is a legal requirement. Relevant Select Committee Residents’ Services Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Not for call-in. Officer(s) to action Andrew Tebbutt Directorate Residents Services Classification Public - The report and any background papers relating to this decision by the Cabinet are available to view on the Council's website or by visiting the Civic Centre, Uxbridge _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 10 - 11. HILLINGDON DIGITAL STRATEGY: ANNUAL REPORT RESOLVED: That Cabinet: 1) Notes the annual update, as set out in the report; 2) Agrees to continue delivery of the Digital Strategy 2024 -27, and endorses the next steps set out in paragraphs 59 - 62; 3) Agrees to extend the existing delegated authority from Cabinet on 10 October 2024 into 2026/2027, which provides for the Chief Operating Officer to implement the Digital Strategy, agree project variations, incur capital expenditure with in approved budget and make all necessary procurement decisions, in consultation with the Corporate Director of Finance and Cabinet Member for Finance & Transformation; 4) Agrees to a further annual report in a year’s time, setting out progress on the Strate gy and delivery of savings targets, seeking agreement to the programmes and projects for the upcoming financial year and seeking further delegated authority if required. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Finance and Transformation presented an update on the Council’s digital strategy, highlighting significant progress in modernising systems within a large and complex organisation with many legacy platforms. A key public outcome was the launch of the new Council website, offering improved naviga tion and accessibility. Work was also underway to integrate back-office processes so that digital service requests were actioned seamlessly, reducing manual handling and improving efficiency. This transformation was expected to deliver cost savings and faster services for residents. The Cabinet Member noted that a Local Government Association peer review had praised strong leadership and solid policy foundations, and Government recognition of good practice was recorded in the report. Next steps included ac celerating digital transformation, strengthening digital inclusion, embedding technology into adult care services to support independence, and enhancing collaboration with technology partners to achieve better integration and value. It was explained that t he ultimate goal w as a single, unified view of each resident’s information to improve service delivery. The Vice-Chair commended the comprehensive report, noting that it clearly set out achievements and future ambitions to modernise the Council’s operati ons and praised officers for their work. Alternative options considered / risk management None. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 11 - Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Cabinet’s decisions (2, 3 & 4) on this matter can be called in by a majority of the select committee by 5pm, Monday 5 January 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Darren Persaud Directorate Corporate Services Classification Public - The report and any background papers relating to this decision by the Cabinet are available to view on the Council's website or by visiting the Civic Centre, Uxbridge 12. STATEMENT OF LICENSING POLICY RESOLVED: That Cabine t, following due consideration of the consultation outcomes and committee comments, recommends to Full Council the adoption of the updated Statement of Licensing Policy 2026-2031. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Community an d Environment introduced a report following consultation on the review of the Statement of Licensing Policy, which was updated every five years. Members were asked to recommend adoption of the revised policy for the period 2026–2030 by full Council. The Cabinet Member exp lained that the document formed part of the Council’s policy framework and that, since the last review in 2021, there had been only minor changes to legislation and guidance. Updates were , therefore, limited, focusing on keeping the pol icy current and strengthening sections on environmental best practice, public safety and the protection of children from harm. The review had been informed by consultation and aimed to support resident -focused service delivery. Cabinet noted the report and agreed to recommend the updated policy to full Council. Alternative options considered and rejected None. Relevant Select Committee Residents’ Services Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) This matter is not for call -in as a budget and policy framework document, ultimately considered by full Council as the decision -maker. This matter will now be referred to the full Council for decision. Officer(s) to action Daniel Ferrer Directorate Residents Services _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 12 - Classification Public - The report and any background papers relating to this decision by the Cabinet are available to view on the Council's website or by visiting the Civic Centre, Uxbridge 13. PUBLIC PREVIEW OF CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS RESOLVED: That Cabinet note the reports to be considered later in private and Part 2 of the Cabinet agenda and comment on them as appropriate for public information purposes. Reasons for decision The Vice-Chair introduced the public preview report outlinin g items to be cons idered in private later in the meeting. Alternative options considered and rejected As set out in the public Cabinet report and also within the private report. Relevant Select Committee N/A Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) This matter is not for call-in, as noting only. Officer(s) to action Mark Braddock Directorate Corporate Services Classification Public - The report and any background papers relating to this decision by the C abinet are availab le to view on the Council's website or by visiting the Civic Centre, Uxbridge. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 13 - 14. LAND AT TOWNFIELD SQUARE, HAYES RESOLVED: That the Cabinet: 1) Authorises the site to be declared surplus to the Council’s op erational requirements and to approve its disposal on the open market; 2) Notes that an offer has been received from the company outlined in the report for the unconditional purchase of the freehold interest in land at Townfield Road Hayes UB3 2EL for the sum set out in the report; 3) Agrees to put the property on the open market for a minimum period of 8 weeks to establis h best value in accordance with S123 of the Local Government Act 1972 and; 4) Delegates authority to the Corporate Director of Residents Servic es, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property, to make all necessary decisions to complete a sale. Reasons for decision The Vice-Chair and Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property introduced a report, with recomme ndations which Cabinet agreed, to dispose of a site surplus to requirements as part of the Council’s disposals prog ramme for the financial year, and to sell it on the open market. Alternative options considered / risk management Options rejected by Cabin et, based on securing best value and financial reasons were leasing the site, re-developing the site or a direct sale. Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Cabinet’s decisions on this matter can be called in by a majority of the select committee by 5pm, Monday 5 January 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Richard Mortimer Directorate Residents Services Classification Private - Whilst the Cabinet's decisions above are always made public, the officer report relating to this matter is not because it was considered in the private part of the meeting and contained information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Authority holding that information) a nd the public interest in withholding the information outweighed the public interest in disclosing it in accordance with Section 100(A) and p aragraph 3 _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 14 - of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). 15. HAYDON DRIVE, NORTHWOOD HILLS: RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT RESOLVED: That the Cabinet: 1) Agree the demolition of 16 Studio Bungalows and the development of 15 x 4 bedroomed houses and 6 x 3 bedroomed Houses for the use of social houses at Haydon Drive as set out on t he attached plan for expected completion by 30 January 2028 at an estimated cost of £12.7m. 2) Agree to progress the Section 80 Notice of Intent ion to demolish the bungalows providing the required six-week notice. 3) Note that planning consent was received from the Hillingdon Planning Committee and Grant of Permissions was achieved on the 2 October 2025. 4) Note that Officers have progressed the pr oject to tender (tender closed 2 December 2025). 5) Agree to accept £5,597,296 grant funding from the GLA for the project. 6) Note the GLA requirement to be in contract with the contractor and the required start on site in February 2026 for necessary works pro gressed during March 2026. 7) Approve the release of £191k to facilitate start on site February / early March to secure the GLA Funding of £5,597,296, as set out in Appendix A. 8) Delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Resident Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property, to make any further necessary decisions with regard to the project’s implementation. Reasons for decision Cabinet agreed to progress ahead with a scheme to develop 21 family sized- houses and associated works. The Vice -Chair and Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property welcomed the external funding for the project. Alternative options considered and rejected Due to the housing needs requirement in the Borough for larger family sized hom es, Cabinet considered that development was the only option to progress. Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Cabinet’s decisions on this ma tter can be called in by a majority of the select committee by 5pm, Monday 5 January 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Michael Naughton / Carmel Hynes Directorate Residents Services _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 15 - Classification Private - Whilst the Cabinet's decisions above are always made public, the officer report relating to this matter is not because it was considered in the private part of the meeting and contained information relating to the financial or business af fairs of any particular person (including the Authority holding that information) and the public interest in withholding the information outweighed the public interest in disclosing it in accordance with Section 100(A) and paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). 16. AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTIES AND INTEGRATED STATUTORY ADVOCACY SERVICES RESOLVED: That the Cabinet: 1) Accepts the tender from Reed Specialist Recruitment Limited fo r the provision of Lot 1 Deprivation of Liberties Services to the London Borough of Hillingdon at a total cost of £3,330k over a five -year period from 1st April 2026 and with the option to extend for a further one year at a minimum cost of £666k. Furthermo re, agrees that this option to extend be delegated to the Corporate Director of Adult Social Care & Health, in consultation with the relevant portfolio Cabinet Member. 2) Accepts the tender from The Advocacy People for the provision of Lot 2 Integrated Statu tory Advocacy Services to the London Borough of Hillingdon at a total cost of £1,441k over a five-year period from 1st April 2026 and with the option to extend for a further one year at a minimum cost of £288,254.81. Furthermore, agrees that this option to extend be delegated to the Corporate Director of Adult Social Care & Health, in consultation with the relevant portfolio Cabinet Member. 3) Notes the hybrid approach to Best Interest Assessments through a combination of an external provider and internal Bes t Interest Assessors. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Health & Social Care introduced a report and recommendations, which Cabinet agreed, to award two contracts following a tendering exercise, the first being for the provision of Deprivation of Liberties Services providing Independent Best Interests Assessors and Section 12 -approved doctor assessments to help meet the Council’s legal duties, and the second relating to advocacy support so individuals have their voices heard, rights respected, a nd needs met especially when navigating complex health and social care systems. Alternative options considered and rejected _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 16 - Options rejected for relevant business and financial reasons were an in -house team, using multiple providers for such services or a separate provider for out -of-borough and mental health advocacy services. Relevant Select Committee Health & Social Care Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Cabinet’s decisions on this matter can be c alled in by a majority of the select committee by 5pm, Monday 5 January 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Sarah Baker / Graham Puckering Directorate Adult Social Care & Health Classification Private - Whilst the Cabinet's decisions above are always made public, the officer report relating to this matter is not because it was considered in the private part of the meeting and contained information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Authority holding that information) and the public interest in withholding the information outweighed the public interest in disclosing it in accordance with Section 100(A) and paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 ( A) to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). 17. COWLEY MEETING HALL, COWLEY RESOLVED: That: 1) Cowley Meeting Hall be declared surplus to operational requirements and disposed of as set out on the site plan. 2) Officers be authorised to pr oceed with a statutory public consultation on the intention to dispose of a property within an open space, in accordance with section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, with consideration of consultation responses delegated to the Corporate Director of Residents Services, in consultation with Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Property. 3) Authority be delegated to the Corporate Director of Residents Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Property, to agree the m ethod of sale and make all other necessary decisions regarding the property transaction, including final sale. Reasons for decision The Vice-Chair and Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property introduced a report to dispose of a site surplus to r equirements. The Vice -Chair explained the background to the matter and moved an amendment to the report’s recommendations, to provide for further discussion to take place with officers on the method of sale, before final decisions were made. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 17 - Alternative options considered and rejected Other property options considered and rejected were as set out in the confidenti al report. Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Cabinet’s decisions on this matter can be called in by a majority of the select committee by 5pm, Monday 5 January 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Jessica Shepherd Directorate Residents Services Classification Private - Whilst the Cabinet's decisions above are always made public , the officer report relating to this matter is not because it was considered in the private part of the meeting and contained information relat ing to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Authority holding that information) and the public interest in withholding the information outweighed the public interest in disclosing it in accordance with Section 100(A) an d paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). 18. KEY HOUSE, YIEWSLEY RESOLVED: That the Cabinet: 1) Approves the release of the two restrictive covenants in place on Key House providing 30% of the sale price is paid to the Council. 2) Agree to hold the funds as ring fenced funds for the charity's use in buying a replacement property in the London Borough of Hillingdon, in the following 36 months, should this be required. 3) Agree to place a new restrictiv e covenant on the new property when acquired to protect the Council’s future interest. 4) Delegate all future decis ions concerning the sale or future purchase transaction to the Corporate Director of Residents Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Property. Reasons for decision The Vice-Chair and Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property introduced a report, with recommendations which Cabinet agreed, in relation to releasing restrictive covenants the Council had previously put in place when it sold the property in 2002, following discussions with the current freehold owner , a charitable organisation. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 18 - Alternative options considered and rejected Other property options, set out in the confidential report were rejec ted in order to ensure financial interests and best value obligations were met. Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Cabinet’s decisions on this matter can be called in by a majority of the select committee by 5pm, Monday 5 January 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Andrew Low Directorate Residents Services Classification Private - Whilst the Cabinet's decisions above are always made public, the officer report relating to this matter is not because it was considered in the private part of the meeting and contained information relating to the financial or business affairs of any p articular person (including the Authority holding that information) and the public interest in withholding the information outweighed the public interest in disclosing it in accordance with Section 100(A) and paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). 19. ANY OTHER ITEMS THE CHAIRMAN AGREES ARE RELEVANT OR URGENT Item 5, the Cabinet’s budget proposals was taken as an urgent item. No further items were considered. The meeting closed at 7.46pm Internal Use only* Implementation of decisions & scrutiny call-in When can these decisions be implemented by officers? Officers can implement Cabinet’s decisions in these minutes only from the expiry of the scrutiny call -in period, unless otherwise stated in the minutes above, which is: 5pm, Monday 5 January 2026 However, this is subject to the decision not being called in by Councillors on the relevant Select Committee. Upon receipt of a valid call -in request, Democratic Services will immediately advise the relevant officer(s) and the Cabinet decision must then be put on hold. Councillor scrutiny call-in of these decisions Councillors on the relevant Select Committee shown in these minutes for the relevant decision made may request to call-in that decision. The call-in request must be before the expiry of the scrutiny call-in period above. Councillors should use the Scrutiny Call-in App (link below) _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 19 - on their devices to initiate any call -in request. Further advice can be sought from Democratic Services if required: Scrutiny Call-In - Power Apps (secure) Notice These decisions have been taken under The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012. This Cabinet meeting was also broadcast live on the Council’s YouTube channel here for wider resident engagement. Please note that these minutes and decisions are the definitive record of proceedings by the Council of this meeting. If you would like further information about the decisions of the Cabinet, please contact the Council below: democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk Democratic Services: 01895 250636 Media enquiries: 01895 250403

Cabinet Report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) REVISED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME Cabinet Member & Portfolio Cllr Steve Tuckwell – Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Growth Responsible Officer Daniel Kennedy – Corporate Director Residents Services Report Author & Directorate Gavin Polkinghorn, Team Leader Planning Policy, Planning and Sustainable Growth Papers with report Appendix 1: Local Development Scheme HEADLINES Summary In accordance with Section 15 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011) the London Borough of Hillingdon (‘Hillingdon’) must prepare and maintain a Local Development Scheme (LDS). The LDS is a three- year project plan for the preparation of new planning policy documents. The Council is updating its LDS to reflect an updated programme for the Local Plan. Putting our Residents First Delivering on the Council Strategy 2022-2026 This report supports our ambition for residents / the Council of: An efficient, well-run, digital-enabled council working with partners to deliver services to improve the lives of all our residents This report supports all our ambition for residents. This report supports our commitments to residents. Financial Cost The cost of the Local Plan Review will be met from existing service budgets and an established earmarked reserve. Select Committee Residents’ Services Ward(s) N/A Cabinet Report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) RECOMMENDATION That Cabinet: 1) Endorse and recommend the revised draft Local Development Scheme (LDS) (Appendix 1) for adoption by Full Council. 2) Note that following adoption of the LDS the Planning Policy team will notify stakeholders, including updating the Planning Policy pages of the Hillingdon website, and emailing contacts on the Local Plan mailing list. 3) Note that if new planning regulations are introduced prior to Full Council, that the LDS would be adopted as a Local Plan timetable under the new plan -making system. Reasons for recommendations The Cabinet is asked to make this decision to take account of a revised Local Plan programme. The delivery of a sound plan in accordance with the current programme is considered undeliverable due to changes to the planning policy context which are beyond the council’s control. Consequently, this report proposes a revised programme that shifts the main stages of production and consultation for the Local Plan into 2026 and beyond. Alternative options considered / risk management Officers considered progressing a Local Plan comprising Strategic and D evelopment Management policies and brownfield site allocations on the current programme. This would be accompanied by a commitment to undertake an early-stage review under the emerging plan system to identify Green Belt sites to meet the housing shortfall. Officers do not consider this to be a viable alternative for the following reasons:  There is significant risk that this would not be found sound due to the housing shortfall, failure to consider impacts of the Heathrow Airport expansion and incompatibility with national Development Management policies.  The Local Plan would not address ke y issues of meeting housing needs or provide a plan - led approach to development in the Green Belt to guide Development Management decisions.  It would require two sets of public engagement and examination, leading to additional cost and resource use, whilst diverting resources from the tasks of identifying the most suitable additional housing sites and putting in place protections for other land. Democratic compliance / previous authority The current Local Development Scheme was adopted by Full Council on Thursday 27 February 2025. The Local Plan review has been proceeding under this authority to date. As a policy framework document, Cabinet is required to recommend its formal adoption to the full Coun cil, which is scheduled to consider this at its meeting on 22 January 2026. Cabinet Report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) Select Committee comments None at this stage , though the select committee will be engaged as part of the Local Plan’s development as a policy framework document. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Local Development Scheme The English planning system is plan -led, whereby planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Local Plan forms the key component of the Development Plan for a local planning authority and establishes the local planning policies that shape how places evolve over time. The Local Development Scheme (LDS) sets out the documents that the council, as the local planning authority, intends to prepare as part of its Development Plan, together with the programme for their production. Under Section 15 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended), all local planning authorities are required to maintain an up -to-date LDS. Failure to do so may result in the Government or the Mayor of London directing or imposing an LDS on the authority. The council’s current LDS proposes publication of a Draft Local Plan in January 2026, followed by a finalised plan in Summer 20 26 and submission to the Government before the end of 2026. This timetable was originally established to ensure that the council could progress and submit the Plan under the existing plan-making regime, by a nationally set deadline of December 2026. However, the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 introduces a fundamentally new system for preparing Local Plans, including revised legal requirements, new statutory “gateway” assessments, mandatory consultation stages, and a new suite of national Developme nt Management policies. Crucially, any Local Plan submitted from January 2027 onwards must be prepared entirely under this new framework; transitional arrangements do not allow plans part - prepared under the old system to be carried forward. This means that the council can only submit a Local Plan under the current system if it is fully prepared, consulted upon, and submitted before the end of 2026. Current Local Development Scheme and Emerging Issues The council’s Planning Policy team have been working in accordance with the current LDS timeline with the intention of producing a draft Local Plan for consultation in January 2026. However, as the development of the document internally has progressed in a timely manner, officers have become increasingly aware of the need to address a number of external challenges that will impact the emerging policy framework. The three most significant emerging issues can be summarised as follows: 1. New increased housing targets through the London Plan Hillingdon’s housing targets are set by the London Plan, which acts as the Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) for Greater London. Under the NPPF, where a SDS is in place and is less than five years old, it continues to provide the housing requirement for e merging Local Plans. The Cabinet Report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) current London Plan will reach its five-year point in March 2026. Once it is considered out of date, Local Plan housing need will revert to the Standard Method set out in NPPF paragraph 62. Following the updated Standard Method published in December 2024, Hillingdon’s Local Housing Need is now calculated at 2,292 homes per year —more than double the London Plan target of 1,067 homes per year. In addition, the Mayor is expected to consult on a new London Plan in Spring 2026, which is likely to propose new, significantly higher housing targets. Whilst the Mayor has stated that the overall target for London will be based on the Standard Method, each borough’s target will be an apportionment of it based on a methodology set by the Mayor through the SDS. Under the current timetable, these changes would arise after consultation on the Draft Local Plan, potentially requiring substantial revisions and further consultation. Given the imminent timing of these expected changes, and their implications for the borough’s spatial strategy, it is considered prudent to delay publication of the Draft Plan so that the forthcoming externally derived housing targets can be considered. 2. National Planning Reforms The government has announced that it will consult on new national Development Management policies in December 2025. These were originally expected to carry significant weight, although the government has more recently indicated that they may be advisory rather than mandatory. Even so, the Council will need to ensure that Hillingdon’s emerging Local Plan policies operate effectively alongside whatever national policies are ultimately introduced. Publishing the Draft Plan before these national policies creates a risk that parts of the Local Plan are immediately inconsistent and require early review. 3. Proposed Expansion to Heathrow Airport A revised Airport s National Policy Statement (ANPS) for Heathrow Airport is anticipated for publication in Q2 2026. This document will define the Government’s strategic direction for Heathrow, including the proposals for a third runway. As currently framed, the third -runway scheme represents the largest infrastructure project in Europe and would generate profound and far-reaching implications for Hillingdon. These include the loss of at least 750 homes, substantial incursions into designated Green Belt, and major effects on local infrastructure, transport networks, and industrial land. The proposals also carry significant environmental considerations, particularly relating to air quality, noise, and the scale of construction activity. The timing of the ANPS review and any Go vernment decision on Heathrow’s expansion are matters wholly outside the Council’s control. It is, however, unavoidable that the Local Plan will require comprehensive review to respond to the form and extent of development set out in the final ANPS. Procee ding to establish a spatial strategy in advance of clarity on the land -use consequences of the third-runway proposal would therefore be premature and risk undermining the robustness of the Plan. Cabinet Report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) Implications for Local Plan Preparation It has become i ncreasingly apparent that it is neither practical nor possible to continue with the current LDS programme for the production of the Local Plan. The existing timetable is no longer deliverable in the context of substantial, externally driven changes to national, regional and local planning policy that will fundamentally reshape the borough’s development context over the coming years. Emerging Green Belt evidence, significant anticipated increases in housing requirements arising from both the Standard Method and the next London Plan, the introduction of new national Development Management policies, and the far-reaching land-use implications of the revised Heathrow ANPS together create a level of uncertainty that cannot be reconciled within the current programme. Continuing without clarity on these matters would place the Council at a high risk of preparing a Plan that is immediately out of date, unable to meet statutory tests of soundness, and highly vulnerable to challenge. A revised LDS is therefore required to provide a more realistic and robust pathway that aligns the Local Plan with the timing of these external policy changes, ensuring that the emerging Plan is supported by complete evidence, a credible spatial strategy and meaningful engagement with resid ents and stakeholders. In determining the most appropriate course of action, officers have also sought advice from the LGA’s Planning Advisory Service and an Examiner from the Planning Inspectorate, and this professional guidance has informed the recommendations for the revised programme. Finally, as set out in the introduction, the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act introduces a new statutory plan -making system that will apply to any Local Plan submitted from January 2027 onwards. If the current LDS timeta ble cannot be met and submission does not occur before the end of December 2026, the Local Plan will be required to transition to the new system. This has significant implications for the overall work programme, particularly as no transitional arrangements exist to allow plans part -prepared under the current framework to be completed under it. The Planning Advisory Service has indicated that the government have not foreshadowed any plans to extend the deadline for Local Plans submitted under the current system. Should this situation change, for example by the government allowing a one -off 6 month extension to allow Local Plans at a late stage of production through under the current system, then we would reconsider our position, with a view to completing under the current system. Revised LDS Programme The new plan-making legal framework is provided by the Levelling up and Regeneration Act 2023 and is expected to commence toward the end of 2025. The new plan -making system will be underpinned by new primary and secondary legislation. Plans prepared under the new system will need to comply with the new legal requirements from start to finish. Statutory consultation under the existing system cannot be used under the new system.1 We have prepared this revised LDS programme based on the information that has been made available to date . However, we may need to make further changes as the new legislation is published. 1 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68a4873df49bec79d23d29cc/Chief_Planners_Newsletter_19_August_2025.pdf Cabinet Report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) The proposed programme takes into account the Local Plan work undertaken to date. This comprises evidence gathering and plan preparation which includes:  A call for views consultation  A call for sites consultation  Evidence gathering, including: o Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, o Strategic Housing Market Report, o Employment Land and Capacity Study, o A Townscape and Character Study, o Local Infrastructure Study, o Ecology Study, o Open Space Assessment, o Tall Buildings topic paper, and o Integrated Impact Assessment scoping. This preparatory work will reduce the time required between formal stages, compared to councils that would be starting the programme from the beginning. A detailed programme timetable is provided below. This timetable is informed by information provided in the Government consultation: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: consultation on implementation of plan -making reforms2. The LDS (Appendix 1) provides a concise version of this timetable. Indicative timetable Provide notice for the start of plan making January 2026 Prepare P roject Initiation Document (PID) , draft vision, Strategic and Development Management policies, and Site Allocations January 2026 to June 2026 Gateway 1 June 2026 Cabinet to approve first consultation June 2026 First mandatory consultation June to August 2026 Refine vision, Strategic and Development Management Policies and Site Allocations August 2025 to February 2026 Gateway 2 December 2026 Cabinet to approve second consultation February 2027 Full Council to approve second consultation March 2027 Second mandatory consultation March - May 2027 Make modifications May - September 2027 Gateway 3 September 2027 Submission to the Secretary of State September 2027 Examination October to March 2027 Adoption April 2027 2 Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: consultation on implementation of plan-making reforms - GOV.UK Cabinet Report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) Following this decision, if supported officers will:  Progress this decision to Full Council for approval.  If approved, publish a new LDS which sets out that the Council will undertake the Local Plan under the new planning system, commencing in 2026 as soon as practical under the regulations, in accordance with the timetable set out in the LDS.  Continue to develop the Local Plan throughout 2026, with a focus on site selection for housing in the Green Belt, prioritising previously developed land and Grey Belt first.  Inform stakeholders of the revised programme and update the Hillingdon website. The Council has prepared an evidence base for the Local Plan, with many studies completed and others underway. The details of the evidence requirements for the emerging regime are not available. However, the broad scope of Local Plans, including the need to provide for housing, commercial, community and infrastructure needs will continue. It is likely that much of the evidence can be used or adapted under the new regime. If costs are incurred through new evidence requirements, we have sources of funding to cover this, including govern ment funding for Local Plan preparation, remaining funding from the Local Plan earmarked reserve, and the annual Planning Policy evidence budget. Costs for consultation should remain comparable. Both the existing and new plan making systems require two time-bound opportunities for consultation. Progressing under the new system is likely to be a significant cost saving strategy by allowing the Council to prepare a single, thoroughly evidenced plan that goes to examination with key issues resolved as far as possible. This minimises opportunities for legal challenge, the need for further stages of consultation, and reduces the length and complexity of examination. Local Development Scheme changing to Local Plan Timetable under the new plan-making system Ahead of the commencement of the new plan -making system early next year the government prepared this explainer document which describes what they intend to set out in regulations. The government have announced that under the new plan -making system Local Dev elopment Schemes will no longer be required . The Local Development Scheme requirement will be replaced with a requirement to publish a Local Plan timetable, which should be updated live and prepared in a prescribed format. The timetable would be published when notice of plan preparation is given3. This change is anticipated to be set out in regulations in December 2025. If these regulations are in place prior to the next Full Council we propose to adopt th is revised timetable not as a Local Development Scheme but as a Local Plan timetable under the new plan- making rules. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications from the recommendations in this report. However, it is anticipated that all costs incurred from adopting the Local Development Scheme will be covered through secured government grant funding, remaining earmarked reserves and the current consultants’ budget. The grants received carry no published repayment conditions, and the MHCLG has confirmed that this funding is intended to support the timely progression of Local Plans and Green Belt reviews. 3 Plan-making regulations explainer - GOV.UK Cabinet Report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities? 1. As set out in previous decisions, the Local Plan is a key mechanism for delivering for those living, working in and visiting Hillingdon. It provides a strategic vision for development in Hillingdon over the next 15 years. It provides the planning policies to help build homes, provide space for businesses to grow, improve transport, green spaces, infrastructure, and a wide range of other planning benefits. Consultation & Engagement 2. No additional public consultation is required for these decisions. CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance Corporate Finance have reviewed this report and concur with the Financial Implications set out above, noting that there are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendations within this report. Furthermore, it is noted any future impacts arriving from adopting the Local Development Scheme will be met from government grant funding, existing approved budgets and the remaining balance of the Local Plan earmarked reserve, with this being monitored through the regular monthly monitoring cycle and as part of the wider MTFS. Legal Section 15 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA 2004) (as amended) sets out every Local Planning Authority ( LPA) must prepare and maintain a Local Development Scheme (LDS). The LDS plays a vital role in informing the local community and stakeholders about the status of an LPA’s planning policy documents; therefore, LPAs must make available to the public the up - to-date version of the LDS, and the Planning Practice Guidance advocates for publication of the LDS on the LPA’s website. In preparing and adopting the LDS, it is no longer necessary to submit th is document to the Secretary of State or Mayor of London, and in order to effect the LDS, LPAs must ‘resolve’ that the LDS is to have effect from a specific date. BACKGROUND PAPERS NIL

Hillingdon | Local Development Scheme 1 London Borough of Hillingdon Local Development Scheme December 2025 Hillingdon | Local Development Scheme 2 1 Introduction 1.1 The planning system is plan-led whereby planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. A Local Planning Authorities’ Local Plan forms the key part of the Development Plan and sets policies for their area. 1.2 The Local Development Scheme sets out the documents that the Council intends to produce to form its Development Plan and a timetable for production. Local Planning Authorities must produce a Local Development Scheme under Section 15 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). 2 Hillingdon’s existing planning policy framework 2.1 The adopted Development Plan for Hillingdon consists of the following documents: • The Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies (November 2012) • The Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Policies (January 2020) • The Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations (January 2020) • The West London Waste Plan (July 2015) • The London Plan (March 2021) 2.2 The Development Plan is supported by the following Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD): • Planning Obligations SPD (July 2014) • Accessible Hillingdon SPD (September 2017) • RAF Uxbridge SPD (January 2009) 2.3 SPDs do not form part of the statutory Development Plan for Hillingdon. As such, the programme for future SPDs is not identified in this LDS. 3 Hillingdon’s future planning policy framework The Local Plan 3.1 Hillingdon’s Local Plan currently comprises three separate documents: • Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies (November 2012) • Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Policies (January 2020) • Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Designations (January 2020) 3.2 The Council is in the process of updating the Local Plan. The Local Plan applies to the whole of the London Borough of Hillingdon. The review of the Local Plan combines the Strategic Policies and the Development Management Policies documents of the Local Plan into a single document and will produce a new Site Allocations document. All Local Plan Hillingdon | Local Development Scheme 3 documents will be updated to reflect the most recent National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan. The proposed Local Plan will comprise: • Strategic and Development Management Policies • Site Allocations 3.3 The review commenced in 2023 and is programmed to complete in 2028. The timetable is set out in Appendix 1. The West London Waste Plan 3.4 The West London Waste Plan (WLWP) was adopted in July 2015. The WLWP is a joint plan between six London boroughs (Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond upon Thames). The Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) was officially created in April 2015 and also adopted the WLWP. 3.5 Hillingdon Council and the other West London boroughs commenced work on a new West London Waste Plan in 2024. The project is being undertaken with the aid of a technical consultant. 3.6 Regulation 18 consultation will be undertaken in December 2025 to January 2026. 4 Neighbourhood plans 4.1 There are no adopted Neighbourhood Plans or formally registered Neighbourhood Forums in Hillingdon. 5 Monitoring and review 5.1 The Local Development Scheme will be publicised. It will be monitored at least annually and updated, if necessary, with commentary provided on progress in the Authority Monitoring Report. Hillingdon | Local Development Scheme 4 6 Appendix 1: Indicative timetable for Development Plan documents currently being reviewed West London Waste Plan Evidence gathering and preparation Regulation 18 consultation1 Call for Views Regulation 18 consultation2 Draft Plan Regulation 19 consultation3 Proposed Submission Submission to the Secretary of State Examination Adoption August 2024 (complete) n/a December 2025 – January 2026 October 2026 – November 2026 December 2026 March – June 2027 February 2028 1.1 1 Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 2 Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 3 Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 Hillingdon | Local Development Scheme 5 Local Plan Strategic and Development Management Policies and Site Allocations Scoping consultation Gateway 1 First consultation Gateway 2 Second consultation Gateway 3 Submission to the Secretary of State Examination Adoption Q1-Q2, 2026 Q3 2026 Q3-Q4, 2026 Q1, 2027 Q2-Q3, 2027 Q4, 2027 Q4, 2027 Q4 2027-Q2, 2028 Q2, 2028 Note: Quarters used above are calendar quarters starting January 1.

Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) PROPOSAL TO LOWER THE AGE RANGE OF WHITEHEATH INFANT AND NURSERY SCHOOL, RUISLIP Cabinet Member & Portfolio Cllr Susan O’Brien, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education Responsible Officer Abi Preston, Director of Education and SEND Report Author & Directorate Kathryn Angelini, Children’s Services Papers with report Responses from consultation on proposal, carried out from 27 October to 1 December 2025 HEADLINES Summary It is proposed that the age range at Whiteheath Infant and Nursery School be amended from 3–11 years to 2–11 years, enabling the school to offer places for eligible two-year-old children. Subject to approval, this change would be implemented no later than September 2026. The school’s governing body has formally agreed to put forward this proposal. Putting our Residents First Delivering on the Council Strategy 2022-2026 This report supports our ambition for residents / the Council of: Have opportunities to earn an income that supports their families This report supports our commitments to residents of: A Thriving Economy Financial Cost There are no direct costs to the Council associated with approving this proposal. The school may seek early years capital funding from the Department for Education through a separate funding stream. However, approval of this proposal is not contingent upon the allocation of such funding. Select Committee Children, Families and Education Select Committee. Ward(s) This report relates mainly to Ruislip Ward, though children from neighbouring Wards may also benefit from the proposal. Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet: 1) Duly considers the outcome of the consultation and responses received; 2) Agrees that the age range of Whiteheath Infant and Nursery School be changed from 3-11 to 2-11 years. Reasons for recommendation The recommendation to amend the age range at Whiteheath Infant and Nursery School from 3– 11 years to 2 –11 years is being made in response to the growing demand for funded early education and childcare places. This need has increased significantly following the national expansion of eligibility for two-year-olds to access funded provision. By extending the age range, the school will be able to support local families, improve access to high -quality early years education, and contribute to meeting statutory duties around sufficiency of childcare. Alternative options considered / risk management Alternative Options 1. Maintain the Current Age Range (3–11 years): Keep the existing structure without introducing provision for two-year-olds.  Implications: o No additional compliance or statutory processes required. o Avoids potential operational challenges such as staffing for younger age groups. o Does not address the growing demand for funded early education places for two - year-olds. 2. Establish a Separate Early Years Unit: Create a standalone early years provision on or near the school site, managed independently or as part of a federation. Implications: o Allows targeted early years expertise without altering the main school’s age range. o Will require additional funding and governance arrangements. o Offers flexibility for future expansion. Risk Management One potential risk of implementing this proposal is that expanding provision for two -year-olds within schools could negatively impact the sustainability of other local childcare providers. However, this risk is considered minimal for the following reasons:  Limited Scale of Provision: The school will offer only a small number of places for two-year-olds.  Unmet Local Demand: An assessment of parental demand in the area surrounding Whiteheath Infant and Nursery School has identified a shortfall in available childcare places, which is not currently met by existing providers.  Distinctive Childcare Model: The school’s offer differs significantly from that of many local providers. For example: Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) o Places will align with the school day rather than extended hours (e.g., 8:00 am – 6:00 pm). o Provision will be term -time only, whereas many childcare settings operate year-round. These differences significantly reduce the likelihood of direct competition with existing providers. Democratic compliance / previous authority Cabinet authority is required to agree school organisation changes where there are objections. Select Committee comments None at this stage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Early years entitlements for two-year-olds From the term after their second birthday, children can access up to 15 hours of funded childcare, if they meet the following criteria:  Are receiving an eligible benefit e.g. Income Support, Income -based Jobseeker’s Allowance Or  Are looked after by a local authority  Have an Education, Health and Care Plan  Get Disability Living Allowance  Have left care under an adoption order , special guardianship order or a child arrangements order Full eligibility criteria can be found here. This is referred to as the Families Receiving Additional Support (FRAS) eligibility criteria. From April 2024, the ‘working families’ entitlement was also introduced which further expanded the number of two-year-olds who are eligible for funded childcare. The Department for Education projected that, following the expansion of eligibility for funded childcare from April 2024, an addit ional 955 two -year-old children in Hillingdon would access funded hours each term. In practice, demand has exceeded these estimates: in Hillingdon, 1,121 additional two -year-olds accessed funded hours during the Autumn term 2025 alone. This demonstrates a significantly higher uptake than anticipated and highlights the pressing need to increase local capacity for early years provision. Overall, the local childcare market has been able to meet demand for places under the working families entitlement. However , there remain areas within the borough where provision is Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) insufficient, either for the disadvantaged two -year-old entitlement, the working families entitlement, or both. These gaps highlight the need for targeted action to ensure equitable access to funded childcare across all communities. There is a lack of childcare in Ruislip Ward for both of the early years entitlements for two-year- olds, as demonstrated in the ‘Resident benefit and consultation’ section of this report. Financial Implications There are no anticipated financial implications for the local authority arising from this proposal. Prior to recommending the change to the age range at Whiteheath Infant and Nursery School, the school was required to submit a financial forecast outlining projected costs and income associated with providing places for two-year-olds. This exercise ensured that the governing body fully understands the financial responsibilities and sustainability of the proposed provision. RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities? The proposed change will enable Whiteheath Infant and Nursery School to offer additional nursery places for eligible two -year-olds, thereby improving access to funded childcar e for families in Hillingdon. An Equalities Impact Assessment was not considered necessary for this proposal because its purpose is to increase access to early years provision for two -year-olds, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, rather than restrict or reduce access. The change does not alter eligibility criteria or introduce barriers for any group with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Furthermore, as part of the public consultation, respondents were specifically asked whether they believed the proposal would disadvantage any residents. No concerns were raised indicating adverse impacts on individuals with protected characteristics. Analysis of local provision indicates that whilst there are places available for children, families are not taking up these places suggesting the range of provision available is not broad enough in the area surrounding the school. It is important to note that it is not solely a matter of having sufficient places; provision must also be accessible and appropriate. This means locations should be within reasonable walking distance for families and offer a delivery model that aligns with their needs, for example, mirroring the structure of a school day for families with older children attending the school to facilitate easier school pick up/ drop off. Disadvantaged Two-Year-Old Entitlement Data shows significant gaps in provision for disadvantaged families.  In Ruislip Ward, 14 two -year-olds are eligible under this entitlement, yet only fi ve are currently accessing a place.  Across Ruislip, Ruislip Manor, and South Ruislip Wards, 55 children meet the criteria, but only 26 are accessing a place. Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) Historical data for these areas suggest that take up of places by disadvantaged two-year-olds is generally higher than this . Take up is lower now partly because a greater proportion of funded childcare places are being offered to parents eligible for the Working Families entitlement, making it more difficult for disadvantaged children to access a place. Enabling Whiteheath Infant and Nursery School to take disadvantaged two-year-olds will help these children to access social and educational opportunities, which they may otherwise miss out on and supp ort their learning and development. Working Families Entitlement Eligibility for this entitlement requires parents to obtain an HMRC-issued code, which must be validated by a childcare provider when a place is secured. Local authority data highlights further unmet need:  In Ruislip Ward, 83 families are eligible, yet only 64 two-year-olds accessed a place in the Autumn term 2025.  Across Ruislip, Ruislip Manor, and South Ruislip Wards, 284 families are eligible, but only 225 children are accessing a place. Data on potential take-up of places is derived from HMRC eligibility codes provided by the Department for Education to local authorities. This information indicates that among parents confirmed as eligible, the proportion who go on to access childcare is very high. For example, in the Ruislip area last term, over 90% of parents who received a code opted to use funded childcare. This demonstrates strong demand; however, as these families secure places, availability for parents whose children become eligible next term inevitably reduces. These figures indicate that eligible families are struggling to secure funded childcare places which are appropriate to their needs. By lowering its age range, Whiteheath Infant and Nursery School will be able to offer additional places for two -year-olds, increasing childcare options for families in Ruislip and surrounding wards and helping to address the current shortfall and range in provision. Consultation & Engagement carried out Consultation on this proposal was held from 2 7 October to 1 December 2025. There were 59 responses to the consultation and the feedback was as follows: Do you agree with the proposal to lower the age range of Whiteheath Infant and Nursery School from 3-11 to 2-11 years of age? Yes 31 (53%) No 25 (43%) Don’t know 1 (2%) Blank 1 (2%) Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) Of parents at the school, the response to the question: Do you agree with the proposal to lower the age range of Whiteheath Infant and Nursery School from 3 -11 to 2 -11 years of age? was: Yes 13 (93%) No 1 (7%) Do you think this proposal will disadvantage any residents in Hillingdon? Yes 17 (29%) No 31 (53%) Don’t know 10 (17%) Whiteheath Infant and Nursery School have assessed the interest from parents with children at the school and 73% have said that they would be interested in using the provision for two -year- olds, if it is available. This showed that most parents who responded would have used the provision. In terms of the comments received from the consultations, the following issues were raised: Ability of schools to provide a suitable environment for two-year-olds  Developmental concerns: Several respondents indicated that children aged two might be too young to begin school. They emphasized the importance of emotional, social, and physical development at this age, which could potentially be hindered by a structured school environment.  Emotional and social well-being - several respondents stressed the emotional and social needs of 2 -year-olds, noting that they require substantial emotional support, consistent nurturing, and a secure environment to flourish. There was concern that schools might not offer the necessary emotional care, potentially leading to stress and anxiety for the children.  Reduced specialisation in early years care: Nurseries and childminders provide environments specifically designed for the developmental needs of 2-year-olds. Placing two-year-olds in primary schools that are not tailored to their developmental stage might result in developmental delays and challenges for families relying on specialised early years education.  The care needs of two-year-olds: Respondents noted that primary schools might lack the necessary resources and trained personnel to address the specific needs of toddlers, including toilet training and sleep schedules.  Impact on existing early years education: There were concerns about possible disruptions to the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) system, designed for children under 5. Respondents felt that integrating two-year-olds into a more formal primary school setting might interfere with this critical period focused on learning through play. Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) Local authority response to the consultation: 1. Overall Support and Parental Interest The consultation shows a majority of respondents (53%) support the proposal, with particularly strong support from parents at the school (93%). Additionally, 73% of parents expressed interest in using provision for two-year-olds. This indicates clear demand and alignment with the Council’s objective to expand access to funded early education. 2. Addressing Developmental and Emotional Concerns We acknowledge concerns about the suitability of a school environment for two-year-olds. The proposed provision will be delivered in line with the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) framework, ensuring a play-based, nurturing approach. Dedicated early years practitioners will provide consistent emotional support and care tailored to the developmental needs of younger children. 3. Specialist Early Years Care The school will adapt its environment to meet the needs of two-year-olds, including age- appropriate resources and spaces. Staff will receive specialist training in early years pedagogy and care, ensuring continuity with best practice standards found in nurseries and childminder settings. 4. Care Needs and Practical Arrangements Provision will include facilities and routines suitable for two-year-olds, such as toilet training support and rest areas. Staffing ratios will comply with statutory requirements, and the school will work closely with families to accommodate individual needs. 5. Impact on EYFS and Quality of Education The proposal will strengthen EYFS delivery by integrating two-year-olds into a high-quality early years setting within the school, maintaining the emphasis on learning through play. This approach is consistent with national guidance and will not compromise the developmental priorities of the EYFS stage. 6. Mitigating Disadvantage While 29% of respondents expressed concern about potential disadvantage, the Council will ensure equitable access by prioritising local families and maintaining transparent admissions criteria. Provision will be designed to complement existing early years services rather than displace them. In meeting its statutory duties to ensure sufficiency of childcare, as far as is reasonably practicable, the local authority wants there to be a range of different childcare options available. This gives parents choice for childcare that meets their needs. With the expansion of funded childcare since April 2024, there has been a large increase in the number of children who are eligible to receive funded childcare. Though many parents in Hillingdon have been able to find a childcare place, a smaller proportion of disadvantaged two- year-olds are taking up a place, compared to the last few years. Take up by these children in the Ward in which this school is located, and other Wards in Ruislip, is relatively low, suggesting that it may be difficult for these parents to find funded childcare. Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) For the ‘working parents’ entitlement’ for two -year-olds, in Ruislip, Ruislip Manor and South Ruislip Wards, there are a significant number of parents who have been confirmed as eligible to use funded childcare but are not accessing funded hours. This suggests that these parents may not have been able to find funded childcare which is appropriate for their circumstances. From September 2025, the ‘working parents’ entitlement’ expanded further, so that the numb er of funded hours that eligible children can receive has increased from 15 to 30 hours a week, from the term after they are nine months old. The expansion of the eligibility for the early years entitlement has led to an increase in the demand for childcare from parents. Enabling the school to offer childcare for two-year-olds will help to address a potential shortfall in places, when more parents wish to use funded childcare. Existing childcare provision plays an important role in ensuring that parents have choices to use a range of different types of childcare. Though it is understandable that existing childcare settings would be concerned about additional competition, the school is offering a different model of childcare to most other group childcare settings e.g. open for term time only. In terms of primary schools not offering flexible hours, they do offer parents a different choice than most other childcare provisions in the borough. With the reduction in the number of playgroups, there are fewer settings that are set up to offer part time, term time only places and this is the type of childcare that schools can provide. School nursery provision is not statutory and so parents have a choice about whether they use it or not. Where parents need full daycare, they can receive additional support from registered childminders, many of whom already drop off and pick up from schools in Hillingdon. Impact of these proposals on existing childcare settings We recognise that introducing provision for two-year-olds within the school may raise concerns among local nurseries and childminders regarding potential reductions in demand. However, the proposal is designed to complement existing early years provision rather than replace it. The school will offer a limited number of places targeted at families who would benefit from a school- based model, such as those with older siblings already attending the setting. This approach helps meet specific needs without undermining the wider childcare market. Parents will continue to have the option to use local nurseries, childminders, or other early years settings. The Council remains committed to supporting a diverse childcare sector to ensure families can choose the setting that best suits their circumstances. We will monitor the impact on local providers through regular engagement and data analysis. If evidence suggests significant disruption, the Council will work with providers to mitigate effects, including signposting families to alternative settings and supporting business sustainability initiatives. Additional comments received highlighted the following: Parental Support: Numerous comments highlight the advantages of the proposal for parents, including children being able to start school nursery earlier, in a safe and nurturing environment. There was also feedback that this proposal would support working parents and provide continuity of care for children from ages two to seven, at the same school. There was some feedback that the proposal would be beneficial for the local community. Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance Corporate Finance have reviewed this report and concur with the Financial Implications set out above, noting there are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendation within this report. Legal The process for making prescribed alterations is governed by the School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2013 as well as the statutory guidance, Making significant changes (‘prescribed alterations’) to maintained schools August 2025. Local authorities and governing bodies must adhere to this guidance unless there is a compelling reason not to do so . There are no legal impediments to the recommendations within the report. BACKGROUND PAPERS NIL

Appendix A - Responses to the consultation on lowering the age range at Whiteheath Infant and Nursery School If you answered 'No' or 'Don't know' to the proposal to lower the age range at Whiteheath Infant and Nursery School, please tell us why Response 1: I don't believe that putting 2-year-olds and children aged nearly 5 together in the same setting will be a positive experience for either unless the nursery is drastically changed, with more space added for naps, changing rooms, difficult play areas outdoors (separate for young and older) and many more learning activities added that target older children. We specifically moved our child from another nursery to Whiteheath to increase her learning since we felt that the previous one, which did accept 2 year olds, was focused more on care than on learning. To then retrospectively add two year olds to the setting would drastically shift the dynamic. We may look to put her in a preschool should this happen. Response 2: I am very concerned about the impact of placing children in mainstream schooling during such a sensitive stage of their development. At these early ages, children are still forming socially, emotionally, and cognitively, and the pressure of a mainstream academic environment can be inappropriate and even harmful. It feels unethical to push children into systems that may not meet their developmental needs. Many children in this country are already behind in their development, and this approach risks widening that gap rather than supporting them effectively. I strongly urge the government to consider age- appropriate, nurturing, and flexible educational alternatives that truly prioritise children’s well- being and developmental readiness. Response 3: Children do not need to be in a school environment from 2 years old. How will it help parents as its term time only? If government funded childcare properly, nurseries and preschools wouldn't be closing their doors. My son’s preschool closed after 36 years in the community because they could afford to keep it open with the poor funding rate. Response 4: As a local Early Years provider, I believe that lower the age range in our local schools will affect our business going forward Response 5: It’s too young for children to be in a school Setting and it’s open all year for working parents so has a lot of issue around holiday care Response 6: 2 year olds need more attention and all nursery like them out of nappies because from my experience they don’t even like 3 year old in them. But on a bigger note you are taking away childminders work who do an amazing job! We do all the hard work until they go to nursery at 3 years old you will drive childminders away. Response 7: It will have a negative impact on childminders which means we will end up having to close our businesses Response 8: It will make private preschools close. The ratio per children we have in private preschools is higher than school nursery’s too Response 9: Two-year-olds are far too young to be in a school environment Response 10: Children are in school long enough - do they have nappy changing facilities, nap areas as they are still babies. Response 11: 3 years is ideal age for this school. under three's should be part of PVI's Response 12: 2-year-olds should not be going to school. They need more informal setting. Response 13: I don’t think a school environment for children is appropriate for 2-year-olds. Response 14: This will have a detrimental effect on childminders in the area. Response 15: 2-year-olds are not ready for a school environment, most 2-year-olds are still in nappies and teachers /TA’s Complain now about some 3-year-olds that are still in nappies. Also 2-year-olds are still needing a sleep. How will the “school adapt for on this “ , the whole classroom environment will need to be adapted including resources. Response 16: Now with primary schools taking 2-year-olds it is damaging for local nurseries and child minders. they should increase the capacity to take on more 3-year-olds. Response 17: I believe it will have a negative impact on Early year settings in the area, many of which are already struggling. Response 18: I work at a private charity run preschool and it will affect us Response 19: I don’t feel it’s a nurturing environment for a two-year-old and it will be disruptive to my child’s education. Response 20: This will affect the PVI sector and many businesses who are already struggling to stay afloat with limited funding. Response 21: We are concerned that lowering the starting age to 2 years could have a significant impact on local nurseries that provide early years care from birth to foundation stage. Many families rely on these nurseries for children under 3, and a shift towards school provision for 2-year-olds could reduce nursery enrolment and threaten their sustainability. Furthermore, while some parents may see it as convenient to start their children in school earlier, school admissions are managed by the local authority, and priority is given to children living nearby or with siblings already at the school. Expanding the age range may not necessarily make the process easier for parents but could have unintended consequences for the local childcare ecosystem. It is important to consider how this change might affect the availability and diversity of early years provision in the community Response 22: I don't believe schools are the right place for two-year-old children. Response 23: I have operated a day care nursery in the local area and a large proportion of our children are in the two-year age bracket, as previously, a child would join a school nursery class at around 3 years old. Should Whiteheath drop their entrance age to 2 years old I believe this will impact local businesses (pvi settings) and the likelihood is other schools will follow in order to secure children for their schools. Response 24: I feel this will impact the private day nurseries in the Ruislip area Response 25: I feel 2 years olds don't belong in a school environment/classroom. When I have previously seen two-year-olds in school the daily routine has been quite stringent and not always accommodating to individual children. I understand that this may be different in Whitehall Response 26: Two-year-old can go to day nurseries If you answered ‘Yes’ to the question ‘Do you think the proposal to lower the age range at Whiteheath Infant and Nursery School disadvantages any residents, please tell us why? Response 1: As for reasons above Response 2: I am deeply concerned that the government’s decision already extending the 30-hour childcare funding from 9 months old will disadvantage younger children and put unnecessary pressure on families. This scheme risks encouraging parents to place their babies in formal childcare at an age when they need close, consistent attachment and nurturing at home. Early institutional care can have negative effects on emotional and social development, especially for very young children. It also feels as though parents are being trapped into this system due to financial pressures, rather than being given genuine choice about what is best for their child. The focus should be on supporting families to care for their children in the way that best suits their individual needs, not on pushing them into schemes that may undermine healthy development. Response 3: Local childminders as they will end up losing these children to schools. Response 4: As a long-term owner of a private preschool and a Hillingdon resident my business will have to close. Response 5: Pressure to potty train children too early and become independent, Response 6: 3 year and above should be at school nursery any children under 3 should be with PVI's where the ratios are better maintained Response 7: This will reduce the amount of potential two-year-olds that will use childminders for childcare. Response 8: Childminders will be affected, by this Response 9: Disadvantage to local residents that have nursery settings or childminding Response 10: Same reason above Response 11: You are profiting and concentrating on making money not educating so all the children are being disadvantaged. Response 12: The proposed change could disadvantage residents who rely on local nurseries for children under 3. Reducing nursery enrolment options may limit choice, increase pressure on remaining early years providers, and affect families who prefer or need nursery-based care before school age. Response 13: Because I know the stuff and everyone who is working, they will try the best that will very successful. Response 14: As the schools start to lower the age of intake to 2 years old many nurseries will not be able to function and close, leaving the demand for nursery places (pre 2 years old) outweighing the supply of suitable PVI places. Response 15: Nursery services are already available in Hillingdon for children aged two Any other comments on the proposal: Response 1: Whiteheath infant is a fantastic school I love working there all the staff are very caring so younger children will feel happy and safe at Whiteheath thank you Response 2: This would be a benefit to the parents in our local community having access to a school nursery from the age of 2 knowing that their children can progress through the same school flowing through to the Infants and Juniors Response 3: My daughter turns 3 in February 2026, to be able to have her in the nursery before then would be fantastic Response 4: Beneficial for parents who already have children in school, works in line with school holidays and same schedules Response 5: This proposal is completely unnecessary and places additional pressure on parents. Extending government-funded childcare in this way could have serious negative impacts on the private childcare sector, which currently provides flexible, high-quality care that meets families’ individual needs. The private sector plays a vital role in supporting working families and maintaining high standards of early years care, and government overreach risks destabilising that balance. Rather than introducing blanket policies that may not suit all families, the government should focus on supporting existing providers and ensuring parents have genuine choice. For many, private childcare arrangements already work well and these should be protected, not undermined. Response 6: Will the provision be school hours only, term time only? Children needs at 2 differs from the needs of three-year-old? What qualifications will the staff have? Has the council considered the impact it will have on local childminders? Response 7: Additional two-year-old spaces in Hillingdon will ensure the demand for spaces for two-year-olds accessing additional funding can be met. Response 8: Fully support this. It will be great of Ruislip. Response 9: Schools should follow the training and ratios that PVI's follow then they should also be vetted and inspected like PVI's before enrolling children under 3 years of age Response 10: Pls don't mix two- and three-year-olds. Pls don't send two-year-olds to schools. They need to be in informal setting like nursery or childminder Response 11: The school would also need to provide more staff to cover ratios and how will the “three-year-olds “learning be considered when they have two-year-olds that will not yet have learnt the same skills as 3 would learnt Response 12: With lower birth rates for the last few years more settings opening we need to be sustainable for everyone Response 13: It is important to consider how this change might affect the availability and diversity of early years provision in the community Response 14: I have a nearly two-year-old and this would benefit us immensely Response 15: My understanding is that you have a supportive environment for children with SEN and there are very limited options at the two-year-old range in the area, it has been very difficult to find a nursery with adequate knowledge and understanding. Response 16: I believe this decision would be very positive because it gives children the chance to start learning earlier in a safe and nurturing environment. It also supports working parents, provides continuity from age 2 to 7 within the same school, and helps the community by expanding access to funded childcare and nigh-quality early education. Response 17: Nurseries in schools do not get an in-depth Ofsted inspection that private day care providers do. Response 18: I would personally benefit from this change

Cabinet addendum sheet – 15 January 2026 Part 1 - Public Cabinet Addendum Sheet 15 January 2026 Classification: Public ITEM 6 – PROPOSAL TO LOWER THE AGE RANGE OF WHITEHEATH INFANT AND NURSERY SCHOOL Additional information The Children, Families and Education Select Committee met on 7 January 2026, after the Cabinet agenda was published, and agreed to delegate the submission of comments to Cabinet. The Chair, in consultation with the Opposition Lead, has agreed the following comments for Cabinet to consider when making its decision: “The Children, Families and Education Select Committee note that by proposing to lower its age range, Whiteheath Infant and Nursery School will be able to offer additional places for two-year-olds, thus increasing childcare options for families in Ruislip and surrounding wards as well as helping to address the current shortfall in provision. Though it is understandable that existing childcare settings would be concerned about additional competition, the school is offering a different model of childcare to m ost other group childcare settings e.g. open for term time only.” Published 13 January 2026

Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION ACTION PLAN MONITORING Cabinet Member & Portfolio Cllr Steve Tuckwell – Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Growth Responsible Officer Dan Kennedy, Corporate Director, Residents Services Report Author & Directorate Debby Weller, Residents Services Papers with report None HEADLINES Executive Summary This report provides the third quarterly update on progress against the delivery of the Temporary Accommodation Strategy and Action Plan presented to Cabinet in February 2025. Continued progress is being made and is on track to increase the supply of new housing to either prevent or resolve homelessness, in line with the strategy. This includes delivering the agreed programme to acquire and build new social rented housing. The actions to secure price negotiations to reduce the nightly cost of temporary accommodation have been delivered at pace earlier in the year in line with agreed targets. Phase 1 of price negotiations has been completed, and an additional phase 2 of price negotiations are underway to deliver further cost reductions from quarter 3. It should be noted that like many London boroughs, demand from homeless households remains high given the significa nt challenges in securing suitable, affordable accommodation. The situation is particularly challenging in Hillingdon given the presence of Heathrow Airport, with high demand from the arrival of UK and other nationals during quarter 3, the cost of which is not fully funded by the Government. There is a growing number of homeless households, many placed in temporary accommodation, whose only realistic housing solution is to access the private rented sector. Access to a sufficient supply of private rented sector accommodation at an acceptable price to meet the growing need of homelessness is continuing to prove challenging. Therefore, more families are staying in temporary accommodation for longer, placing the homelessness budget under significant pressure contributing to a forecast overspend by year end. New innovative models of accessing additional private rented accommodation are being explored to increase supply over the next 6- 12 months and secure more leased accommodation, where this proves to be a financially viable option for the council. Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) Putting our Residents First Delivering on the Council Strategy 2022-2026 This report supports our ambition for residents / the Council of: Live in good quality, affordable homes in connected communities This report supports our commitments to residents of: Safe and Strong Communities This report supports the Hillingdon Housing Strategy Financial Cost The Temporary Accommodation Strategy and Action Plan aligns with and supports the delivery of the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS). Select Committee Residents’ Services Select Committee Ward(s) N/A RECOMMENDATION That Cabinet notes the content of the quarterly update report. Reasons for recommendation(s) The Temporary Accommodation (TA) Strategy and Action Plan was approved by Cabinet in February 2025 and it was agreed that quarterly updates would be provided to Cabinet, or less frequently as required, and that these would include impact on the Medium -Term Financial Strategy (MTFS). This is the third update. Alternative options considered / risk management No other options were considered as the report is required by Cabinet. Risks associated with the delivery of the TA Strategy and Action Plan are covered in the body of the report. Democratic compliance / previous authority In February 2025, Cabinet noted the homelessness pressures in Hillingdon and the increasing cost and use of temporary accommodation: noted the TA Strategy and Action Plan; and resolved to receive quarterly or less frequent updates regarding delivery of the Strategy and Action Plan. Select Committee comments None at this stage. Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. In February 2025 Cabinet noted the Temporary Accommodation (TA) Strategy and agreed to receive a quarterly update or at a frequency as determined by the Cabinet Member. This is the third of those updates. The TA Strategy contains the following four objectives:  Manage homelessness demand and increase rates of successful homelessness prevention;  Increase rates of move-on from temporary to settled accommodation;  Reduce total expenditure on temporary accommodation;  Increase the supply of additional social rented housing and temporary accommodation through acquisition and new build programmes. Key elements of progress 2. The Temporary Accommodation Strategy is operationalised through an MTFS action plan with the following four workstreams: Workstream 1: Increase prevention and reduce new temporary accommodation placements Workstream 2: Increase access to alternative housing options Workstream 3: Reduce the cost of temporary accommodation Workstream 4: Increase move-on into social housing 3. Governance arrangements for the MTFS action plan include a monthly review of progress involving the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Growth and the Corporate Director, Residents Services and the four workstream leads and Assistant Director, Housing Needs & Hom elessness. At an officer level weekly meetings are held to track progress and keep delivery on target. Key indicator dashboards have been established for the MTFS action plan and further development of the dashboards continues to improve the richness and integrity of the data. 4. Whilst good progress in delivering the action plan has been made in a number of areas to date, it should be noted that managing demand from homeless households continues to be challenging. The risk of further overspend against homelessness costs remains hi gh, like many London boroughs, given the rising levels of homeless presentations and the challenges in securing suitable alternative accommodation to prevent homelessness, particularly in the private rented sector. The Council is also seeing exceptional co sts as a result of being a port authority. This includes the arrival of a high number of UK and other nationals, which remains an unknown quantum at this time, given the costs incurred by the Council are not fully funded by the Government. It should furthe r be noted that a review commissioned by London Councils has identified a “Funding Gap” of £740m for London Councils Cabinet – 23 October 2025 (Part 1 Public) between homelessness costs incurred and funding provided by Central Government in 2024/25. Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) Workstream 1: Increase prevention and reduce new temporary accommodation placements 5. The key target for workstream 1 is for less than 50 new placements per month into temporary accommodation. For the first eight months of 2025/26 to the end of November, there have been an average of 48 placements per month, which is within the target set. 6. The main drivers of homelessness approaches during the period April to November were:  Family and friend evictions 1,012  End of PRS tenancy 990  Cessation of Home Office accommodation 934 7. These reasons account for 61% of the 4,799 approaches during this period. The main reason for new bookings into nightly paid accommodation April to end of November 2025 were as follows:  End of private rented tenancy 209  Family and friend evictions 45  Left prison 73  Domestic abuse 72 8. The high and sustained levels of homelessness demand represent a risk to achieving the prevention targets for this workstream. This is being managed through weekly performance management reviews and targeted interventions. Workstream 2: Increase access to alternative housing options 9. A key aim of workstream 2 is to increase residents access to the private rented sector. The target for 2025/26 is to secure access to 350 private sector tenancies for General Fund homeless households. At the end of November 2025, the target is on track to be met with 290 placements having been secured in this period , representing an average of 36 per month. 10. However, new homeless demand presenting to the council remains high and a growing number of households presenting to the council and placed into temporary accommodation increasingly require private rented housing to meet their need, either to prevent homelessness or move-on from temporary accommodation. Action taken to increase the supply of private rented accommodation over the remainder of 2025/26 and into 2026/27 is continuing. 11. The additional demand for private rented accommodation includes needing to move homeless households on to settled accommodation from short -term temporary accommodation which will need to be vacated to enable regeneration activity in the Hayes area. Hilling don continues to see high levels of presentation from UK and non-UK nationals, including Chagossians. Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) Workstream 3: Reduce cost of temporary accommodation 12. The priority for workstream 3 is to reduce the unit cost and therefore overall expenditure on the highest cost temporary accommodation. A price cap has been applied to all spot purchased temporary accommodation and providers of these properties have been subject to negotiation to reduce costs to or below the cap. Overall, this workstream has been delivered at pace, with most negotiations completed and applied by the end of quarter 1. There were 326 active tenancies above the price cap at the start of the workstream, which is now delivered. An additional phase of the workstream has been introduced with 393 active tenancies above a new revised, lower rent cap. By the end of November, this number has decreased to 138 tenancies, a reduction of 255 tenancies (65%). Further work is underway to achieve the full delivery of the price cap programme. 13. Linked to this workstream is a consistent enforcement process for temporary accommodation with regular review meetings having been established with fraud and private sector housing teams. 14. A key plank of workstream 3 is to transition from an expensive nightly charged portfolio of temporary accommodation to a more cost-effective leased portfolio. This workstream had an initial target to secure an additional 100 leased properties for use as temporary accommodation by March 2026. Most of the original target h as been met by 87 units secured at Frayswater Place and negotiations are underway to secure a further 17 units from an existing supplier. Additional options to increase the leasing portfolio continue to be considered where these meet the requirements of th e Council and offer value for money to residents. Workstream 4: Increase move-on into social housing 15. The key indicator for this workstream is for a minimum of 36 social housing lettings to be made to homeless households per month. Between April and the end of November 2025, the total number of social housing lettings made which went to homeless households was 186, representing approximately 6 0.8% of all social housing lettings in this period. A number of properties ava ilable for re -letting in this p eriod were smaller units and not suitable for larger bed size need homeless families. As the delivery of new increased housing supply from acquisitions takes effect, move on of homeless families from temporary accommodation will also increase. 16. The council is on track to deliver an ambitious programme of new additional social rented housing to meet the needs of local families. This includes working with a partner to purchase additional properties. A successful bid for grant funding to support the purchases (subject to the individual properties meeting their criteria) has been approved by the Greater London Authority. Additional acquisitions are being made by our in -house teams. During April to the end of November 2025 there have been a total of 165 acquisitions and 100 new build properties for low-cost rent including 68 housing association properties. Empty Homes 17. In relation to empty homes, our cross departmental working group continues to meet on a monthly basis. An Empty Homes Officer is now in post and is leading on this area of work Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) and is engaging with landlords, property owners and solicitors where properties are in probate. Priorities over the next quarter 18. Priorities include action to reduce the cost and usage of temporary accommodation by increasing the supply of private rented sector homes available to prevent homelessness and move-on families from temporary accommodation. Work to secure additional leased properties is ongoing and will help to reduce overall expenditure. Officers are continuing to press for price reductions with landlords for the cost of temporary accommodation per night. The acquisition of new homes by the Council remains a firm priority. Measures of success 19. The table below provides an update on the measures of success. The measures indicate positive progress including avoiding the use of shared accommodation for homeless families with children and a currently positive trajectory in reducing the overall expenditure on temporary accommodation. Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) Measure Target Baseline Apr 25 May 25 Jun 25 Jul 25 Aug 25 Sep 25 Oct 25 Nov 25 1.Higher % Households whose homelessness is prevented London Average 54% (Oct - Dec 2024) 31%* 19% 33% 31% 38% 39% 59% 50% 48% 2.Families with children/pregnant women in non-self-con B&B > 6 wks 0 0** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.Fewer Hshlds homeless and needing TA 50 max (per month) 62*** 52 39 58 62 23 36 58 54 4.Fewer Hshlds in nightly charged TA Zero by 31/03/2026 736** 780 792 808 828 817 807 818 793 5.Lower overall cost of TA (Gross) Balanced budget by year end £1,987,313** £2,007,305 £2,110,797 £1,924,718 £2,003,068 £2,023,660 £1,961,019 £2,105,583 £2,038,995 6.Lower cost per TA unit (Gross monthly and per night) Zero over caps set by bedsize £2,330**** £2,255 £2,356 £2,365 £2,348 £2,392 £2,251 £2,269 £2,322 £75.15**** £75.18 £75.99 £78.82 £75.75 £77.16 £72.63 £73.19 £74.91 7.Implementation of acquisition and new build development programme (LBH) 300 acquisition 100 new build 19*** 15*** 9 0 12 4 25 2 24 0 25 0 33 64 33 30 4 0 8.Fewer households threatened with homelessness (approaches) 600 609*** 568 607 604 616 514 568 722 645 9.Private rented sector placements 30 19*** 27 39 31 33 32 44 34 50 Of which let to homeless out of TA 20 5 3 4 12 2 5 3 10 10.Lettings to homeless households in TA 36 Revised target 32*** 9 15 14 29 23 33 28 35 *Average 2024/25 ** @ 31/3/2025 *** Monthly average 2024/25 **** March 2025 Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) Financial Implications The Temporary Accommodation Strategy and Action Plan outlines initiatives to reduce homelessness spend on temporary accommodation. A wide range of measures are detailed in the plan including preventative measures, more efficient service delivery and new wa ys of working, as well as supply measures such as procuring properties at lower cost, acquisitions and new build. Some of these measures will have initial cost implications which have been factored in the budget setting process as part of the MTFS and ul timately aim to drive the total cost of homelessness down. The report outlines progress that has been made in taking forward actions in the strategy. The impact of these actions has begun to show some positive results especially with procuring properties at lower cost through the rent cap initiative. Changes in Rates between April 2025 and October 2025 are shown below. Category April Rates/Unit/day (£) October Rates/unit/Day (£) Difference (£) 1 Bed 64.49 59.42 (5.07) 2 Bed 86.73 79.10 (7.63) 3 Bed 99.86 89.15 (10.71) 4 Bed 108.04 100.17 (7.87) 5+ Bed 126.44 110.42 (16.02) Weighted average rates show a reduction of £ 7.72 per unit per day from April 2025 to October 2025. This will generate an estimated full year effect of £2.13m cost reduction based on estimated average annual volumes in October 2025. RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities? Those residents affected by homelessness will benefit from the increased focus on fast and effective case handling and on securing sustainable accommodation solutions. All residents of the borough will benefit from the concerted effort to address the budge tary risk related to temporary accommodation expenditure. Sound financial management is a fundamental part of “putting residents first”. Consultation & Engagement carried out (or required) This report has not been subject to consultation. The report provides an update on a previously agreed action plan that covers a range of management actions that are necessary to bring high risk expenditure in line with budgetary constraints. Rapid impleme ntation is critical. The strategy covers a wide range of actions, some of which will or have already been subject to consultation, i.e. the recent amendments to the Social Housing Allocation Policy being an example. Cabinet – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance Corporate Finance have reviewed this report and not e the Financial Implications set out above and the progress on taking forward the Temporary Accommodation and Action Plan, which includes a range of measures to reduce the significant financial pr essure to the Council on Temporary Accommodation, noting that these actions are beginning to yield positive outcomes, notably through the rent cap initi ative, which is expect to deliver a full year cost reduction of £2.13m based on average annual volumes in October. The Council’s budget strategy approved in February 2025, contains an increase in the budget strategy effectively aiming to fund the additional growth that is in the system, which proposed saving measures included within the Strategy and Action Plan to mitigate the rising Homelessness Support, totalling £3.63m for 2025/26 rising to £5.1m by 2027/28. These measures will be monitored through the demand led financial and activity-based model as part of the wider MTFS refresh for 2026/27 and beyond. As at Month 7, the Housing Service were reporting a pressure of £5.6m lar gely driven by Temporary Accommodation and Homelessness Support, with this being a national pressure, but with Hillingdon particularly impacted by having Heathrow within its boundaries having a material impact on supply and demand. Legal This report provides an update to Cabinet and outlines the progress mad e in respect of the Temporary Accommodation Strategy and Action Plan approved by them in February 2025. The recommendation is for Cabinet to note the contents of this report and as such Legal Services confirms there are no legal impediments. BACKGROUND PAPERS Cabinet report 13 February 2025: Temporary Accommodation Strategy & Action Plan Appendix - Hillingdon Temporary Accommodation Strategy and Action Plan Cabinet report 26th June 2025: Temporary Accommodation Action Plan Monitoring Cabinet report 23 October 2025: Temporary Accommodation Action Plan Monitoring

Cabinet report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) PUBLIC PREVIEW: MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED LATER IN PRIVATE Cabinet Member(s) As appropriate Cabinet Portfolio(s) As appropriate Officer Contact(s) Mark Braddock – Democratic Services Papers with report None HEADLINES Summary A report to Cabinet to provide maximum transparency to residents on the private matters to be considered later in Part 2 of the Cabinet meeting and agenda. This will enable Cabinet Members to openly discuss such matters generally in public, and via the Council’s live broadcast of the meeting, without prejudicing their later consideration in private. Putting our Residents First Delivering on the Council Strategy 2022-2026 This report supports our ambition for residents / the Council of: An efficient, well-run, digital-enabled council working with partners to deliver services to improve the lives of all our residents This report supports our commitments to residents of: A Digital-Enabled, Modern, Well-Run Council Financial Cost As set out in the report. Relevant Select Committee As set out in this report under each item – however, this item is not for scrutiny call-in as it is information only. Ward(s) As set out in the report RECOMMENDATION That Cabinet note the reports to be considered later in private and Part 2 of the Cabinet agenda and comment on them as appropriate for public information purposes. Cabinet report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) Reasons for recommendation Why are certain reports considered in private? As a transparent, democratic organisation, the Council’s Cabinet will consider matters in public on Part 1 of this Cabinet agenda. However, there will inevitably be some reports that will need to be considered in private. T hese would generally relate to contracts , property transactions or commercially sensitive information , for example, tender bids from commercial organisations , which if made public, could prejudice the Council’s ability secure value -for-money for resident taxpayers. This information is also called ‘exempt’ information and is considered in Part 2 of any Cabinet agenda by applying the relevant section of the Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), in that the report contains certain information and that the public interest in withholding that information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. How can the public find out more about the private reports? To ensure maximum transparency when the Cabinet considers such private reports: 1) They are first given advance notice on the Cabinet’s Forward Plan in summary form setting out the reason why they will be considered in private . The Forward Plan is a public document setting out all the expected decisions the Cabinet will make over the coming year, except those that are urgent, and is available on the Council’s website to view; 2) This report provides a fuller public preview of the matters to be discussed in Part 2 of this Cabinet meeting and gives an opportunity for Cabinet Members t o highlight issues of significance within and for public information purposes, without prejudicing their later fuller consideration in private. It also sets out the recommendations in general terms that are being proposed for a decision on. 3) Consideration of this report will also be broadcast live on the Council’s YouTube channel: Hillingdon London, and available for viewing afterwards, for wider democratic engagement. 4) After these private reports are considered in Part 2 of this Cabinet meeting, Cabinet’s full decisions on them will then be published on the Council’s website the day after the Cabinet meeting, along with the decisions on the other matters already considered in public. Alternative options considered Cabinet could resolve to release any private report into the public domain in extraordinary or highly exceptional cases , where it considers the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in withholding it. However, to ensure greater transparency on all private matters considered, this public preview item is advised as the most suitable way forward. Legal comments Such private matters are considered in accordance with Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) Access to Information provisions and also The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012. This report enables such matters to be discussed in public as far as is possible under the relevant legislation. Cabinet report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) SUPPORTING INFORMATION ITEM 9 – VOID CONTRACT VARIATIONS AND STRATEGIC RESPONSE TO HOUSING TARGETS Relevant Cabinet Members Cllr Bianco - Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property Cllr Tuckwell - Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth Relevant Ward(s) N/A Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Information The Council is proposing changes to its contracts for repairing and refurbishing empty council homes (“voids”) to meet higher standards and address increased demand. This is part of a broader effort to improve the quality and safety of council-owned housing across the borough. Why are Changes Needed?  Rising Demand: More properties are becoming vacant and require significant upgrades before new tenants can move in.  Higher Standards: The Council is committed to meeting the Regulator of Social Housing’s target—reducing the number of homes that don’t meet “decent” standards to just 4% by March 2028.  Comprehensive Upgrades: Many homes now need full refurbishments, including new kitchens, bathrooms, windows, and doors, not just basic repairs. Who Benefits?  Residents: Improved housing quality and safety, with faster access to upgraded homes.  Vulnerable Groups: Support for residents who need to move due to serious property issues (like damp, mould, or fire damage).  Community: More affordable housing becomes available, reducing the need for temporary accommodation and supporting the Council’s buy-back program. Cabinet report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) ITEM 10 – PROVISION OF VOUCHERS INCLUDING FOOD AND ESSENTIAL GOODS SUPPORT SCHEME Relevant Cabinet Members Cllr Susan O’Brien, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education Relevant Ward(s) N/A Relevant Select Committee Children, Families & Education Information The Council is proposing to continue the Government-backed voucher scheme to support residents in need. This report seeks to award a commercial contract to provide this. This initiative provides vouchers for food and essential goods to eligible households, helping families, pensioners, unpaid carers, care leavers, and people with disabilities. The scheme is fully funded by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), meaning there is no cost to the Council or local taxpayers. How does it work?  Vouchers are distributed to low-income households, including those with children eligible for free school meals and those identified through Council services.  Families with children receive meal vouchers during school holidays, while other eligible households can apply online or be referred by Council teams.  The scheme is managed through a secure online portal, making it easy for residents to access support. Why is this important?  The scheme helps residents live active and healthy lives by ensuring access to nutritious food and essential goods.  It supports thriving, healthy households and aims to reduce the impact of rising living costs, especially for vulnerable groups. Who is eligible?  All wards in Hillingdon are covered.  Eligibility is based on household income, benefit status, and referrals fr om Council services.  There is a focus on supporting those most affected by financial hardship, including people with disabilities. Cabinet report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) ITEM 11 – DOMESTIC GAS SERVICING AND BOILER INSTALLATIONS CONTRACTS Relevant Cabinet Members Councillor Jonathan Bianco, Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property Relevant Ward(s) N/A Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Information The Council is proposing to align the end dates of its two main contracts for domestic gas servicing and boiler installations , allowing for a single, unified procurement process in the future. The Council is legally required to maintain safe gas installations in its housing. This proposal ensures compliance with safety regulations while deliveri ng better value and service for residents. Key Benefits for Residents and the Community:  Financial Savings: By combining the contracts and extending the current agreement, the Council expects to save money, with the potential for even greater savings if more boilers are installed.  Operational Efficiency: In the future, managing one contract instead of two will streamline processes, reduce administrative work, and make it easier to deliver services.  Improved Service Continuity: Any agreed realignment wil l ensure there is no gap in essential gas servicing and boiler replacement services, supporting the Council’s commitment to safe, reliable, and energy-efficient homes.  Resident Wellbeing: The programme will help residents live in warmer, safer homes with lower energy bills and reduced carbon emissions, supporting both household wellbeing and environmental goals. Cabinet report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) ITEM 12 – CLEAN & WASTEWATER SERVICES CONTRACT Relevant Cabinet Members Councillor Jonathan Bianco, Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property Relevant Ward(s) N/A Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Information The Council is proposing to award a new four-year contract for clean and wastewater services for its corporate (non-household) sites, following a competitive process. Why is this contract important?  Continued Service: The current contract ends in April 2026. Without a new contract, the Council would face higher costs and lose added-value services.  Cost Efficiency: The proposed new contract is projected to reduce supplier margins and improve efficiency through consolidated billing and better contract management.  Ensures use of M arket Competition: Since 2017, councils can choose their water supplier, encouraging better value and innovation. How was the proposed contract procured?  A working group of several London boroughs and Hertfordshire County Council collaborated to develop the tender.  The procurement was managed by LASER Energy Buying Group, ensuring compliance with public sector regulations.  Tenders were evaluated on quality of service, added value, pricing, and social value. What are the benefits for residents?  Clean water: available at council premises  Better Value for Money: The proposed contract aims to keep water costs low for the Council, which helps protect public funds.  Active Water Management: The proposed contract includes measures to use water more efficiently.  Environmental Focus: The proposed contract supports the Council’s environmental goals, including carbon reduction and improved leak detection. Cabinet report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) ITEM 13 – PLANNING, BUILDING CONTROL AND LAND CHARGES IT SYSTEM Relevant Cabinet Members Cllr Eddie Lavery - Finance and Transformation Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing and Growth Relevant Ward(s) N/A Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Information Hillingdon Council is proposing to upgrade its core IT system for planning, building control, and land charges. The current system needs to be replaced because the supplier is ceasing to trade, and the legacy system will soon be unsupported. The proposed new system, if approved, is expected to provide:  Modern, Digital Services: a fully digital, 24/7 platform for residents, businesses, and professionals to access planning, building control, and land search services.  Improved Accessibility: Residents can view and comment on planning applications, access supporting documents, and track decisions online—anytime, from any device.  Faster, Transparent Processes: Enhanced search tools and interactive maps make it easier to see what’s happening locally. Weekly lists of new applications, decisions, and appeals will be available, keeping residents informed.  Streamlined Building Control: Applications, payments, and inspection requests can be submitted and tracked online, reducing delays and improving service consistency.  Clear Enforcement & Appeals: Residents can submit enforcement complaints, track progress, and view appeals directly through the portal.  Environmental Information: Tree Preservation Orders and land charge information will be accessible online, speeding up property transactions and supporting env ironmental awareness.  Empowering Communities: Open data and interactive features allow residents to participate more easily in local planning and stay engaged with neighbourhood developments. This proposed upgrade supports Hillingdon Council’s ambition to be a digital-enabled, well-run council that puts residents first. It aligns with the Council’s Digital Strategy to improve service delivery, efficiency, and accessibility for all. Cabinet report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) ITEM 14 – CORPORATE DISPOSALS PROGRAMME 2025/2026: GARAGES DISPOSALS STRATEGY Relevant Cabinet Members Councillor Jonathan Bianco, Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property Relevant Ward(s) Borough-wide Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Information The Council is proposing to sell thirty -nine underused garage sites across the Borough or transfer them to the Housing Revenue Account for creating additional social housing. Many of these garages are vacant or no longer suitable for modern vehicles, and m aintaining them would require significant investment. By selling these sites, the Council aims to:  Generate Capital for Community Investment: The sales will raise funds to help meet the Council’s financial targets. These funds can be used to support essen tial services and reduce the need for borrowing.  Support New Housing Opportunities: The sites have strong potential for residential development. Selling them could lead to the creation of new homes, helping to address local housing needs and reduce the demand for temporary accommodation.  Improve Council Efficiency: By focusing resources on better -performing assets and reducing the number of vacant or unlettable garages, the Council can operate more efficiently and deliver better value for residents.  Minimal Impact on Residents: Most of the garages are already empty or not fit for use, so the impact on current residents and communities is expected to be minimal. Any proposals for development would require the usual planning consent and consultation. This refreshed garage disposal strategy supports the Council’s commitment to being a modern, well-run organisation. It ensures public assets are used in ways that best serve the community, both now and in the future. The approach also aligns with the Counc il’s legal obligations to achieve best value for public property. Cabinet report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) ITEM 15 – CORPORATE DISPOSALS PROGRAMME 2025/26 - FORMER SOUTH RUISLIP YOUNG PERSONS CENTRE, SOUTH RUISLIP Relevant Cabinet Members Councillor Jonathan Bianco, Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property Relevant Ward(s) South Ruislip Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Information The Council is considering the sale of the former South Ruislip Young Persons Centre, located on Victoria Road, South Ruislip. This building, previously used for youth services, is now vacant after services were relocated to more accessible locations as part of the Council’s updated Youth Delivery Strategy in 2023. No other Council service has expressed interest in using the property, so it is proposed to be declared surplus to requirements. Key Points:  Purpose of proposed sale: The property is no longer needed for youth or other Council services. The proposal to sell will allow the Council to focus resources on facilities that better serve current needs.  Open Market Disposal: It is proposed the site will be sold on the open market, aiming to ensure the Council achieves the best possible value for residents. The money raised from the sale would help m eet the Council’s capital receipts target for 2025/26, supporting investment in local services and reducing the need for borrowing.  Minimal Impact: As the building is already vacant, any sale will have minimal impact on local residents and service users. Cabinet report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) ITEM 16 – CO-MINGLED DRY MIXED RECYCLING CONTRACT Relevant Cabinet Members Cllr Wayne Bridges – Cabinet Member for Community & Environment Relevant Ward(s) N/A Relevant Select Committee Residents’ Services Information The London Borough of Hillingdon requires a contract for the collection, sorting, processing, and marketing of recyclable materials. Following a competitive procurement process, a new contact is proposed to be awarded for this function, which takes place at a Materials Recycling Facility. The Council itself provides weekly recycling collections to approximately 120,000 households and 1,400 businesses, handling an estimated 17,652 tonnes of recyclable materials per annum which varies year on year depending on recycling performance. The proposed contract supports Hillingdon’s ambition to be a carbon -neutral, sustainable borough and by improving recycling rates and reducing waste sent to landfill. It is also designed to meet upcoming national waste and recycling reforms, ensuring Hillingdon remains compliant with new regulations and can adapt to future changes in recycling requirements. Cabinet report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) ITEM 17 – CORPORATE DISPOSALS PROGRAMME 2025/26 - LAND AT MICAWBER AVENUE, UXBRIDGE Relevant Cabinet Members Councillor Jonathan Bianco, Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property Relevant Ward(s) Colham and Cowley Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Information The Council is proposing to sell the freehold of the land and buildings at Micawber Avenue, Uxbridge. The site, previously leased to The Scout Association, is now vacant and in poor condition. Key points:  The property is not currently in use and is recommended to be considered surplus to the Council’s requirements.  The buildings are in disrepair and not suitable for letting without significant investment.  The proposed sale of the site will help the Council meet its financial targets and support local services.  The property’s sale, if agreed, will have minimal impact on residents, as it is currently vacant and unused. The proposal to sell the land ensures unused assets are put to better use, potentially continuing to serve the community, while helping to fund essential local services. Cabinet report – 15 January 2026 (Part 1 Public) ITEM 18 – CORPORATE DISPOSALS PROGRAMME 2025/26 - FORMER SKILLS HUB SITE, PROVIDENCE ROAD, YIEWSLEY Relevant Cabinet Members Councillor Jonathan Bianco, Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property Relevant Ward(s) Yiewsley Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Information The Council is proposing to sell the former Skills Hub site at Providence Road, Yiewsley. This site was previously used as a secondary school for students unable to attend mainstream education. The main school operations moved to a larger, improved facility at Falling Lane in December 2022, and the remaining workshop is no longer required on the site and the premises is expected to be fully vacant by early 2026. Key points:  The site is no longer needed for educational purposes. If agreed, there will be no loss of educational provision for young people, as services have already been relocated to a better facility.  Selling the property will generate a capital receipt, which will support the Council’s budget and help fund essential services for residents.  Any sale will eliminate ongoing costs for security, maintenance, and reduce risks such as vandalism or squatting. It would also have minimal impact on local community activities, as the site has been mostly vacant since 2022.  If agreed, t he Council will market the property openly, ensuring a fair and competitive process that achieves the best value for taxpayers.  Any future redevelopment or reuse by the new owner could bring new housing, jobs, or community facilities, depending on planning outcomes.