Home Decisions Meetings News
← Back to Cabinet

Cabinet

Thursday 25th June 2026 • View on LB Hillingdon’s website
Meeting documents
👥 Attendance details📄 Agenda frontsheet PDF 415 KB📦 Public reports pack PDF 25 MB📦 Agenda reports pack - Cabinet Agenda B - Budget Outturn 25/26 PDF 2 MB📝 Printed minutes PDF 397 KB
Read the text of: Agenda frontsheet PDF 415 KB (3 pages)
Education and Children’s Services Policy Overview Committee report PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2010/11 WORK PROGRAMME Contact Officer: Nadia Williams/Gill Brice Telephone: 01895 277655 & 250693 REASON FOR REPORT This report is to enable the Committee to review meeting dates and forward plans. This is a standard item at the end of each agenda. OPTIONS OPEN TO THE COMMITTEE 1. To confirm dates for meetings 2. To make suggestions for future working practices and re views. INFORMATION Meeting Dates and Rooms - Meetings start at 7pm unless indicated below Meetings Room 7 July 2010 CR5 8 September 2010 CR5 21 October 2010 CR5 25 November 2010 CR5 26 January 2011 CR5 10 February 2011 CR5 22 March 2011 CR5 26 April 2011 CR5 Education and Children’s Services Policy Overview Committee report PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS EDUCATION AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES POLICY OVERVIEW COMMITTEE 2010/11 WORK PROGRAMME Meeting Date Item HSACRE Draft Annual Report 2009 Cabinet Forward Plan Work Programme First Review – To receive Presentation on: • 14 -19 Education and Training • Fostering Recruitment & Retention of Foster Carers First Review – Receive Scoping Report Review 2 – receive various scoping reports and agree second review topic for 2010/11. Quarterly Child Social Care Audit Update 2010/11 Work Programme 8th September 2010 Cabinet Forward Plan Witness Session 1 Cabinet Forward Plan 21st October 2010 Work Programme 25 th November 2010 Witness Session 2 Formulate Conclusions and Recommendation Draft Final Report Preliminary Budget Reports and Group Plans 2010 Cabinet Forward Plan Quarterly Child Social Care Audit Update 2010/11 Work Programme Education and Children’s Services Policy Overview Committee report PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 26 th January 2011 Review 1 – conclusions and recommendations Second Review – Witness Session Quarterly Child Social Care Audit Update 2011/10 Education Attainment Report 2009/10 Cabinet Forward Plan Work Programme Review 2 – Witness Session 2 Cabinet Forward Plan Budget Reports and Group Plans 2010 10 th February 2011 Work Programme Review 2 – conclusions and recommendations 22 March 2011 Cabinet Forward Plan Work Programme 26 th April 2011 Agree Final Report for Second Review Cabinet Forward Plan Work Programme

Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.

Read the text of: Printed minutes PDF 397 KB (3 pages)
Education and Children’s Services Policy Overview Committee report PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2010/11 WORK PROGRAMME Contact Officer: Nadia Williams/Gill Brice Telephone: 01895 277655 & 250693 REASON FOR REPORT This report is to enable the Committee to review meeting dates and forward plans. This is a standard item at the end of each agenda. OPTIONS OPEN TO THE COMMITTEE 1. To confirm dates for meetings 2. To make suggestions for future working practices and re views. INFORMATION Meeting Dates and Rooms - Meetings start at 7pm unless indicated below Meetings Room 7 July 2010 CR5 8 September 2010 CR5 21 October 2010 CR5 25 November 2010 CR5 26 January 2011 CR5 10 February 2011 CR5 22 March 2011 CR5 26 April 2011 CR5 Education and Children’s Services Policy Overview Committee report PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS EDUCATION AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES POLICY OVERVIEW COMMITTEE 2010/11 WORK PROGRAMME Meeting Date Item HSACRE Draft Annual Report 2009 Cabinet Forward Plan Work Programme First Review – To receive Presentation on: • 14 -19 Education and Training • Fostering Recruitment & Retention of Foster Carers First Review – Receive Scoping Report Review 2 – receive various scoping reports and agree second review topic for 2010/11. Quarterly Child Social Care Audit Update 2010/11 Work Programme 8th September 2010 Cabinet Forward Plan Witness Session 1 Cabinet Forward Plan 21st October 2010 Work Programme 25 th November 2010 Witness Session 2 Formulate Conclusions and Recommendation Draft Final Report Preliminary Budget Reports and Group Plans 2010 Cabinet Forward Plan Quarterly Child Social Care Audit Update 2010/11 Work Programme Education and Children’s Services Policy Overview Committee report PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 26 th January 2011 Review 1 – conclusions and recommendations Second Review – Witness Session Quarterly Child Social Care Audit Update 2011/10 Education Attainment Report 2009/10 Cabinet Forward Plan Work Programme Review 2 – Witness Session 2 Cabinet Forward Plan Budget Reports and Group Plans 2010 10 th February 2011 Work Programme Review 2 – conclusions and recommendations 22 March 2011 Cabinet Forward Plan Work Programme 26 th April 2011 Agree Final Report for Second Review Cabinet Forward Plan Work Programme

Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.

Attendance
Present: Councillor Steve Tuckwell, Councillor Richard Mills, Councillor Susan O'Brien, Councillor Wayne Bridges, Councillor Nick Denys, Councillor Adam Bennett, Councillor Douglas Mills, Tony Zaman, Pete Carpenter, Julie Kelly, Sandra Taylor, Matthew Wallbridge, Dan Kennedy, Daniel Toohey, Mark Braddock
Apologies: Councillor Eddie Lavery

Agenda

1. Apologies for Absence PDF 4 KB
Apologies were received from Councillor Eddie Lavery – Cabinet Member for Finance.
2. Declarations of Interest in matters before this meeting PDF 4 KB
No interests were declared by Members present.
3. To approve the minutes of the last Cabinet meeting PDF 469 KB
The minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 23 April 2026 were agreed as a correct record.
📄 To approve the minutes of the last Cabinet meeting PDF 469 KB
Read the text of this document (14 pages)
_________________________________________________________________________ - Page 1 - Minutes & Decisions CABINET 7pm, Thursday, 23 April 2026 Meeting held at Committee Room 6 - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW Decisions Published on: 24 April 2025 Decisions come into effect from: 5pm, 1 May 2026 or as stated. Cabinet Members Present: Ian Edwards (Chair) Jonathan Bianco (Vice-Chair) Susan O'Brien Jane Palmer Eddie Lavery Steve Tuckwell Wayne Bridges Other Members Present: Heena Makwana 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE All Cabinet Members were present. 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 of the Cabinet meeting held on 19 March 2026 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 consider ed in public and those marked Part 2 in private. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 2 - 5. REPORT FROM CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION SELECT COMMITTEE: CARING FOR OUR CHILDREN - ENHANCING FOSTERING PROVISION AND SUPPORT The Chair of the Children, Families & Education Select Committee, Councillor Heena Makwana, introduced the Committee’s review into fostering, which was warmly welcomed by Cabinet. RESOLVED: That: 1) the Select Committee’s report and recommendations, which seek to support and provide further strategic direction on the Council’s fostering offer, to ensure that young pe ople have a safe place to live be welcomed and; 2) their implementation be taken forward by officers in consultation with the Cabinet Member Portfolio Holder, as set out in the report. SELECT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Enhancing Information and the Voice of Young People 1. Develop an 'Introduction Pack for Children' that provides Cared For Children with clear, age appropriate, and accessible information to help them feel prepared, reassured and supported when starting a new placement and, where possible, during placement moves; 2. Include a 'Voice of the Child' section in the 'All About Me' profiles; 3. Include 'Where Are They Now' stories on the Council's website, where Care Experienced Young People share th eir experiences, if they are comfortable and willing to do so; Developing Specialist Training Pathways for Foster Carers 4. Review and develop the training programme to introduce specialist Foster Carer pathways, including pathways for carers specialising i n supporting young people with complex needs. Include you ng people in co-produced training where appropriate; and Strengthening Peer Support to Sustain Foster Placements 5. Review existing peer support initiatives for both Foster Carers and Cared for Childr en, and develop opportunities to strengthen engagement and increase participation. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 3 - Reasons for decision The Chair of the Select Committee presented the outcome of a review undertaken following the introduction of the new fostering offer. The review exa mined service performance, the experiences of foster carers and care -experienced young people, and areas for further improvement. Evidence was received from senior officers, foster carers and young people, ensuring the review was firmly grounded in lived experience. The Committee welcomed progress in recruitment, training and overall commitment, while identifying opportunities to strengthen the voice of the child, develop specialist training pathways for carers and enhance peer support networks. The Committee’s report set out five practical recommendations aimed at improving outcomes for children in care and aligning with the Council’s corporate parenting responsibilities. It was commended to Cabinet by the Chair. The Cabinet Member for Children, Families a nd Education thanked the Chair and Committee for the review, noting that it came at a timely point following embedding of the fostering offer. The Cabinet Member highlighted the importance of assessing recruitment, retention, placement stability and matchi ng, and confirmed that evidence demonstrated a committed service delivering positive practice, alongside increasing pressures from rising demand and complex needs. Young people’s contributions highlighted the importance of being listened to, involvement in decision-making, and maintaining stable, positive relationships in foster placements. Foster carers spoke positively about fostering while identifying the need for better information, specialist training and stronger peer support. The Leader of the Counc il welcomed the review and praised the Committee’s focus on the child’s experience. The Leader recognised the progress made in supporting foster carers and welcomed the practical and constructive nature of the recommendations, thanking the Chair and committee for their work. Cabinet welcomed and endorsed the review’s report and recommendations. Alternative options considered and rejected The Cabinet could have decided to reject some, or all, of the Committee’s recommendations or have pursued alternative routes by which to progress the objectives of the review. Relevant Select Committee Children, Families & Education Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Whilst the report has previously been approved by the Select Committee, Cabinet’s decisions on this matter can still be called in by a m ajority of the select committee by 5pm, Friday 1 May 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Alex Coman / Ryan Dell Directorate Children’s Services / Democratic 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 4 - 6. HIGHWAYS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME 2026/27 RESOLVED: That: 1) the Highways Improvement Programme for 2026/27 of forthcoming carriageway, footway resurfacing, highway drainage, road marking improvements and condition surveys, be approved, noting this will be undertaken in phases with phase 1 as set out in the report and Appendix A. 2) grant funding from the Department for Transport of £3,207k for Local highways maintenance funding 2026/27 be accepted. 3) the capital release of £8,207k for all phases, to fund the proposed Highways Structural Improvement Programme for 2026/27, be approved. 4) authority be delegated to the Corporate Director of Resident Services (who may sub-delegate) to amend the programme and determine further works to be funded from the draw down funds and any other Government grants received, subject to sign -off by the Cabinet Member Portfolio Holder. 5) It be noted that all schemes will also be published on the Council’s website to ensure transparency as well as the other requirements to publicise details about potholes and roadworks advised by the Government in March 2025 and set out in this report. Reasons for decisions The Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Growth introduced a report seeking approval to launch the Highways Improvemen t Programme for 2026 –27 and to release the associated capital funding to deliver the programme in full and on time. Cabinet was asked to approve an £8.2 million programme to maintain and improve the borough’s highways network, funded through the Council ’s capital programme and supported in part by Department for Transport grant funding. The Cabinet Member highlighted that Hillingdon maintained one of the largest highways networks in London, comprising over 737 kilometres of carriageways and more than 1,200 kilometres of footways, which required sustained investment to prevent deterioration, reduce reactive repair costs and manage safety and insurance risks. The programme was described as evidence -led, based on independent condition surveys, engineering a ssessments, defect reporting and usage data, enabling investment to be targeted at the worst-performing sections of the network. It was noted that Hillingdon had received a green rating from the Department for Transport for highways maintenance performance, d emonstrating effective asset management and a strong preventative approach. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 5 - Phase one schemes were set out in the report, covering carriageway and footway resurfacing across multiple wards, with further schemes to be identified as survey work progressed. Delegated authority was requested to allow efficient delivery and necessary in -year adjustments. The Cabinet Member also confirmed that scheme-level information would be published in line with updated government transparency requirements so residents could clearly see where investment was being made. Cabinet approved the programme and release of funding. The Leader of the Council welcomed the programme, noting that while greater investment would be desirable in future, the proposed programme was well-balanced and commendable for its preventative and responsive approach to maintaining the borough’s highways. Alternative options considered and rejected None. Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastucture 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, Friday 1 May 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Gurmeet Matharu 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 7. PROPOSAL FOR THE AMALGAMATION OF WHITEHALL INFANT SCHOOL AND WHITEHALL JUNIOR SCHOOL RESOLVED That : 1. the responses from the consultation based on the proposals set out, along with the Equalities Impact Assessment, be duly considered; 2. the (t echnical) closure of the Whitehall Infant School on Monday 31 st August 2026 and the extension of the age range of the Whitehall Junior School, to amalgamate both schools to create an all -through primary school from Tuesday 1st September 2026, be approved. Reasons for decisions The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education introduced a report proposing, following consultation, the amalgamation of Whitehall Infant School and Whitehall Junior School into a single three -form-entry maintained primary school for _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 6 - children aged 3 to 11. It was advised that b oth schools were community maintained, located adjacent to one another and share d a single site; no land or buildings would be affected, and all assets would transfer automatically to the new primary sch ool, if approved. The proposal followed the Council’s Infant and Junior School Amalgamation Policy, under which governing bodies are required to consider amalgamation when specific trigger conditions are met. One such trigger arose following confirmati on that the Headteacher of Whitehall Infant School would retire in August 2026. In response, both governing bodies explored the potential for amalgamation and proceeded to formal consultation. The Cabinet Member emphasised that the Council was not proactive ly seeking to amalgamate schools, but ongoing declines in birth rates and pupil numbers, affecting London schools more widely , were placing increasing financial pressure on school sustainability. Both Whitehall schools had already reduced their publishe d admissions numbers from three forms of entry to two from September 2025. During consultation, the proposal was considered by the Children, Families and Education Select Committee, which recognised that amalgamation would support consistent teaching and sup port approaches while delivering efficiencies through economies of scale, building on the existing strengths of both schools. The Leader of the Council supported the proposal, noting the importance of maximising funding directed to frontline teaching r ather than administration. The Leader stated that amalgamation was a necessary and responsible response to falling rolls, ensuring schools remained viable and that resources flowed directly to improving educational outcomes for children. Alternative options considered and rejected Cabinet could have decided not to amalgamate the two schools or consider proposing federating the schools under a single governing body, but discounted these options for the reasons set out in the report. 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 this matter can be called in by a majority of the select committee by 5pm, Friday 1 May 2026. If not called -in b y then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Gary Binstead / Abi Preston / James Rogers Directorate Children’s 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 7 - 8. TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION ACTION PLAN MONITORING RESOLVED: That the quarterly update report be noted. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Pla nning, Housing and Growth presented the fourth quarterly update on delivery of the Temporary Accommodation Strategy and Action Plan, first approved by Cabinet in February 2025. Continued and measurable progress was reported across all key workstreams. The Council had achieved its maximum ceiling target for new temporary accommodation placements o ver the year, supported by stronger prevention activity and improved early intervention. Move-on into the private rented sector had increased and exceeded annual ta rgets, helping households access more stable accommodation outside the temporary accommodation system. The Cabinet Member advised that strong cost control had also been maintained. The rent cap programme was now fully embedded, with the second phase succe ssfully reducing remaining high-cost placements to a small residual cohort. This had played a key role in limiting cost inflation and stabilising expenditure. Governance and performance management had further strengthened through enhanced dashboards and cl oser operational oversight, enabling earlier intervention where pressures emerged. Despite this progress, it was advised that demand pressures remained high, driven by private sector evictions, family breakdowns, regeneration -related decants and Hillingdon’s role as a Port Authority for Heathrow Airport, which continued to place additional strai n on the temporary accommodation system. Looking ahead, Medium-Term Financial Strategy targets for 2026/27 marked a shift from stabilisation to consolidation, susta ining improvements while further strengthening supply and move-on capacity. Overall, the report demonstrated continued progress in managing demand, improving system flow and controlling costs despite ongoing external pressures. The Leader of the Council w elcomed the update and noted early signs of reduction in temporary accommodation use over ti me. He commended the focus, leadership and drive applied to this work and thanked the Cabinet Member for the progress achieved. Alternative options considered / risk management 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 noting only. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 8 - Officer(s) to action Debbie Weller 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 9. 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 Leader of the Council introduced the public preview report outlining items to be considered 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 Cabinet are available to view on the Council's website or by visiting the Civic Centre, Uxbridge. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 9 - 10. COMMERCIAL GAS CONTRACT TENDER RESOLVED: That: 1) The award of the contract, to BSW Heating Ltd, for the pr ovision of the Servicing, Repairs and Maintenance of Communal and Corporate Commercial Gas fired heating installations to the London Borough of Hillingdon for a period of 3 years, with potential extension options up to a further 4 years at an estimated val ue of £490k per annum, be approved. 2) Delegated authority be granted to the Corporate Director of Residents Services, in consultation w ith the Cabinet Member portfolio holder, to agree any extensions of this contract subject to satisfactory performance. Reasons for decisions The Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property introduced a report and recommendations, which Cabinet agreed, to award a contract for the Servicing, Repairs and Maintenance of Communal and Corporate Commercial Gas fired heating i nstallations enabling systems to be in good working order for heating and hot water in properties. Alternative options considered / risk management None, given statutory requirements. 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, Friday 1 May 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Nick Green / Gary Penticost 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 conside red 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 Governme nt Act 1972 (as amended). _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 10 - 11. HIGHWAYS TERM SERVICE CONTRACT RESOLVED: That: 1. The tender submitted by O’H ara Bros. Surfacing Ltd for the provision of a Highways Term Service Contract on behalf of the London Borough of Hillingdon for a period of seven (7) years, commencing 1 July 2026 and expiring 30 June 2033, at an estimated value of up to £99.4 million, exclusive of annual inflationary uplifts, be accepted. 2. It be agreed that the contract includes an option to extend for a further five (5) years, at an estimated valu e of up to £71 million (£14.2 million per annum, exclusive of annual inflationary uplifts). Approval of any such extension shall be reported back to Cabinet for decision, subject to satisfactory contractor performance and agreement of appropriate commercial terms. 3. Officers are instructed to actively pursue, secure and maximise every social value and commercial opportunity throughout the life of key contracts, including sponsorship for community initiatives across the Borough, reflecting the scale and long -term nature of the contract, reporting back to the relevant Cabinet Member portfolio holder on progress. Reasons for decisions The Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth introduced a report and recommendations, which Cabinet agreed, to award a term contract for the Council’s highways maintenance following a duly undertaken competitive pr ocurement process. Cabinet noted the significant long -term value of the proposed contractual arrangements and the provision of social value within. Alternative options considered and rejected Cabinet considered other alternative service delivery models including bringing the service in -house or using multiple or geographical area contracts, but discounted these for operational reasons, as set out in the confidential 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 b y 5pm, Friday 1 May 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Gurmeet Matharu / Chris Wheeler 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 _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 11 - part of the meeting and contained information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Authority holding t hat 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). This item was also circulated less than 5 clear working days before the Cabinet meeting and it was considered by the Chairman to be urgent, and therefore, considered. 12. CONTRACT FOR FURNITURE WITHIN SHORT-TERM LET PROPERTIES RESOLVED: That: 1) the tender from 4 Front Furniture LTD for the provision of supply and installation of furniture f or void properties to the London Borough of Hillingdon for a 3 -year period (with an option to extend for a further 2 years) at an estimated cost of £685k per year, be accepted. 2) authority be delegated to the Corporate Director of Residents Services, in con sultation with the Cabinet Portfolio holder, to approve any extension, subject to satisfactory performance. Reasons for decisions The Cabinet Member for Corporat e Services & Property introduced a report and recommendations, which Cabinet agreed, to appoi nt a dedicated provider for furniture and white goods to enable the Council to furnish short life properties more efficiently and at a lower cost. Cabinet welcomed the savings provided for as a result of using a single contractor. Alternative options considered and rejected Cabinet considered the continued use of multiple contractors, but discounted this for cost and operational reasons, as set out in the confidential 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, Friday 1 May 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Liam Bently Directorate Residents Services _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 12 - Classification Private - Whilst the Cabinet's decisions above are always made public, the o fficer 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 disclo sing 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). 13. ANY OTHER ITEMS THE CHAIR AGREES ARE RELEVANT OR URGENT An additional report was agreed by the Chair an d considered under urgency provisions by Cabinet on the Development of the Civic Centre Car Park, Uxbridge. 14. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CIVIC CENTRE CAR PARK, UXBRIDGE INTO A RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME RESOLVED: That Cabinet: 1) Notes its previous decis ions of 23 October 2025 regarding the disposal of the Civic Centre Car Park site and the Chief Officer decision of 4 March 2026 to cease negotiations with the proposed purchaser. 2) Agrees to progress the scheme to planning consent stage. 3) Agrees the propose d design and consultancy work – and funding - to support the progression of a planning application as follows: a) the appointment of Hunter and Partners Ltd to provide Architectural Services for RIBA Stages 0 -3 at a cost of £206,760k for the Development of t he Civic Centre Car Park, Cricket Field Road, Uxbridge into a 162 bed residential care home. b) the appointment of Hunter and Partners Ltd to provide Principal Designer Building Safety services for RIBA Stages 0 -3 at a cost of £20,676 for the development of the Civic Centre Car Park, Cricket Field Road, Uxbridge into a 162 bed residential care home. c) the amount of £200,000 for various surveys that will be required to support the planning application, along with £43,775 for planning fees, £2,000 for Principal Designer CDM, £5,000 for Internal Fees and a Contingency of £10,000. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 13 - d) the Capital Release request of £488,211 from the Investment in Care Home Capacity budget 2026/27 budget (Appendix A). 4) Notes the current intention for The Hillingdon Care Company to ente r into a leaseback arrangement once the development is complete. 5) Delegates authority for all decisions on any other preparatory consultancy or survey requirements for this project to the Corporate Director of Residents Services, in consultation with Cabin et portfolio holders. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property introduced a report and recommendations, which Cabinet agreed, to update Cabinet on the project it considered in October 2025 to create a residential care hom e on the current Car Park site in Uxbridge and provide future resilience in social care budgets. Cabinet agreed to progress with design and consultancy work to further progress the matter and in order to enable this important project’s momentum. Alternative Options Considered and Rejected The alternative options to not enable the redevelopment of the site or look for alternative sites was discounted by Cabinet. 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, Friday 1 May 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Michael Naughton, Residents’ Services Directorate Residents Services Classification Private - Whilst the Cabinet's decisions above are always made pu blic, the officer report relating to this matter is not because it was considered in the priv ate 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). Urgency provision s – The Chair agreed the report relating to this decision as an urgent item. This decision wa s taken under special urgency provisions in accordance with the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 14 - The meeting closed at 7.26pm 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 expir y of the scrutiny call -in period, unless otherwise stated in the minutes above, which is: 5pm, Friday 1 May 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 re levant 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) 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 decisi ons 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

Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.

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 PDF 4 KB
It was confirmed that items of business marked Part 1 would be considered in public and those marked Part 2 in private.
5. Annual Performance Report 2025/26 PDF 332 KB
RESOLVED: That Cabinet: 1) Note the Annual Performance Report for 2025/26, as attached in Appendix 1 2) Note that it will also be presented to the Audit, Finance & Performance Committee in discharging its overview and scrutiny role. Reasons for decision The Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Digital and Transformation introduced the 2025/26 annual performance report, which provided a transparent overview of the Council’s performance and reinforced its commitment to putting residents first and scrutiny. The Cabinet Member advised the report highlighted strong outcomes across a range of services, with Hillingdon continuing to outperform London averages in key areas including highways maintenance, recycling, early years provision and adult social care. It was noted that the Council maintained low council tax and fees, while delivering good value for money, and had achieved significant results in areas such as counter fraud activity, housing repairs and planning performance. The report also acknowledged ongoing challenges, particularly in relation to homelessness, SEND demand, adult social care and anti?social behaviour. The Cabinet Member emphasised that the report would help shape future priorities and support continuous improvement. The Leader of the Council welcomed the report, noting the balance between strong performance and recognition of challenges, and congratulated the Deputy Leader on presenting his first report in the role. The Chief Operating Officer added that performance was subject to regular and detailed monitoring through the Council’s framework, using real?time data alongside financial performance to ensure focus on priority areas and to support future planning. Cabinet noted the report and agreed the recommendations. Alternative options considered and rejected None, as it was good business practice to report performance to decision-makers. Relevant Committee Audit, Finance & Performance Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Not for call-in. This report will be considered by the Committee shortly Officer(s) to action Matthew Wallbridge / 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
📄 Annual Performance Report 2025/26 PDF 332 KB
Read the text of this document (8 pages)
Cabinet report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 Public) ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT, 2025/26 Cabinet Member & Portfolio Cllr Richard Mills – Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Digital and Transformation / All Cabinet Members Responsible Officer Matthew Wallbridge, Chief Operating Officer Report Author & Directorate Ian Kavanagh, Head of Business Intelligence, Corporate Services Papers with report Annual Performance Report 2025/26 HEADLINES Summary This report presents Council’s Annual Performance for 2025/26. It outlines the performance cycle and shows corporate performance for 2025/26 across all current Cabinet portfolios, which have been updated following the local elections. Putting our Residents First Delivering on the Council Strategy 2022-2026 This report supports the Council’s ambition 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:  Safe and strong communities  A thriving economy  A digital-enabled, modern, well-run council  Thriving, healthy households  A green and sustainable borough Financial Cost None Relevant Committee All Ward(s) All RECOMMENDATIONS That Cabinet: 1. Note the Annual Performance Report for 2025/26, as attached in Appendix 1 2. Note that it will also be presented to the Audit, Finance & Performance Committee in discharging its overview and scrutiny role. Cabinet report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 Public) Reasons for recommendation(s) Performance management is a critical function in local government, enabling councils to use data-driven insights to improve outcomes for residents. It supports accountability—both internally and externally—by demonstrating how public services respond to local needs and ensure value for money. The Council’s performance framework is aligned with the current Council Strategy and incorporates a suite of reports accessible to services, senior management, the Corporate Management Team, and Cabinet. This annual report draws on key performance indicators and monitoring data to assess progress against strategic objectives. Where applicable, it includes the most recent data available, including pre-2025/26 benchmarks. Notably, the report integrates indicators from the governments newly updated Local Outcomes Framework (LOF), which defines 16 priority outcomes and 100+ measures—most of which are statutory and allow for regional and national comparison. Hillingdon will contribute to the development of the LOF and will assimilate its measures into the Council’s performance management framework. Alternative options considered / risk management None, as it is good business practice to report performance to decision-makers. Overview & Scrutiny consideration Following Cabinet’s consideration of this Annual Report, the Audit, Finance & Performance Committee have scheduled prompt consideration of this on their work programme to enable the monitoring of the performance of services within their respective remits. This ensures the Council can discharge its overview and scrutiny responsibilities effectively. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. Performance management is about using data to drive evidence-based decision making to challenge current ways of working and service delivery models. It is an important tool for local government to take responsibility for its own performance and for the public and national governments to hold local service providers to account, ensuring they respond to local needs and that public money is being spent wisely. 2. Performance management includes a range of processes and methods to identify shared goals and various measurements of progress towards these. Closely aligned to the concept of governance it ensures arrangements are in place so an authority’s objectives can be achieved. 3. Within Hillingdon, performance is aligned to the Council Strategy, where a suite of performance reports is available to services, senior management teams, our Corporate Management Team, and the Leader and Cabinet. Cabinet report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 Public) 4. This report uses key performance indicators and benchmarking data to show performance and value on key services for financial year 2025/26 (or in some cases, the latest data available). 5. The Annual Performance Report for 2025/26 presents a detailed and transparent account of how Hillingdon council is performing across its core service areas, with a clear emphasis on putting residents first. The report reflects a council that is actively responding to significant challenges—rising demand, financial pressures, and evolving community needs—while maintaining a strong commitment to service quality, accountability, and resident wellbeing. Residents Services (Planning, Housing & Property; Residents Services; Community, Environment & Enforcement Portfolios) 6. Along with most of London, demand from homeless households in Hillingdon is high which has increased the use of temporary accommodation. Longer stays are compounding the issue with more households remaining in temporary accommodation for more than six months. This is caused by challenges in accessing affordable settled housing to move on from temporary accommodation. 7. The service is facing both a rising inflow and a slower outflow, which suggests structural pressure in housing supply rather than short-term spikes. We have seen rising homelessness presentations, with new approaches from homeless households consistently above 600 each month, meaning the growth in new cases is feeding directly into higher temporary accommodation use and associated costs. 8. Paid accommodation costs increased through 2024/25, with rising demand and higher private rental costs pushing up spending, coupled with an increase in high-cost placements. Using more council-owned properties for temporary accommodation appears to have mitigated the financial impact. Proactive market management has achieved results; after a nightly cost cap was introduced at the start of 2025/26, tenancies above the cap reduced significantly during the year. 9. Hillingdon has a lower than average number of children placed in temporary accommodation with their family – our plans to reduce the use of temporary accommodation will secure more settled accommodation for more families with children. 10. The Repairs Service continues to show clear improvement momentum — both completion levels and on-time delivery are presented as improving, with sustained target achievement since September 2024. 11. Repair demand is high and steady — 3,000 repair requests per month are logged, with emergency volumes stable and routine repairs fluctuating modestly. Completion performance is improving — overall repair completion rates are steadily rising, indicating stronger operational delivery despite sustained demand. 12. The volume of planning applications has remained consistently strong, with approximately 3,250 applications received during 2025/26. The Development Management Service has maintained a high level of performance, continuing to meet all statutory targets for the timely determination of applications. While the proportion of appeals allowed at 42% is currently Cabinet report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 Public) above the London average and represents an increase on the previous year, this is being actively addressed. 13. Ongoing work to systematically review appeal outcomes is helping to refine decision-making processes, strengthen policy application, and drive continuous improvement in performance. The Building Control Service has taken a proactive approach to safeguarding residents by increasing enforcement activity, ensuring that poor construction practices are identified and addressed more effectively, and contributing to higher standards across developments. 14. Significant progress has been made in advancing the council’s place-shaping priorities. This includes the adoption of the Uxbridge Vision, the development of a regeneration framework for Hayes, the preparation of the council’s first Growth Plan, and continued progress on the Local Plan review. The planning authority is also proactively preparing to respond to the government’s proposals for the expansion of Heathrow Airport, including a third runway. 15. These proposals present far-reaching place-shaping implications extending well beyond the airport boundary. In parallel, changes to national planning policy, particularly in relation to the green belt, are being carefully considered. Considering these evolving factors, the decision has been taken to delay the stage of the Local Plan. This will ensure that a robust, comprehensive and coordinated response can be developed, positioning the borough to effectively manage future growth and respond to strategic challenges and opportunities. 16. Classified roads are performing better than the wider benchmark — for A roads and motorways, Hillingdon is shown at 4% requiring maintenance versus a London average of 8%. B and C roads also compare well — Hillingdon records 2% requiring maintenance against a London average of 10%. Unclassified roads remain relatively strong — 5% versus a London average of 12%. 17. Department for Transport Road Maintenance Ratings – Hillingdon is one of only two London boroughs ranked green on the DfT ratings map (released January 2026) demonstrating how effective Hillingdon is at tackling potholes and resurfacing roads. 18. EV infrastructure is currently behind but has a credible expansion plan — current provision is low relative to London, but the funding and installation pipeline imply a meaningful future uplift . 19. Public charging availability is still behind London overall — Hillingdon is shown at 75.3 chargers per 100,000 population in Q4 2025, versus a London mean of 338.6. 20. Strategic investment is underway — the slide notes a £7.5 million funding award through the Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure programme. The borough is set to receive 1,673 new charging points, which suggests a major improvement programme rather than incremental change. 21. Both green spaces and trees service requests show a year-on-year reduction, suggesting maintenance activity is starting to reduce the volume of issues reported. For green spaces, the main request categories remain overgrowth and weeds; for trees, the dominant issues are branches and tree health, with fewer requests about roots. The decline suggests more effective maintenance, better targeting of common issues, and, in the case of trees, support Cabinet report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 Public) from an updated tree policy. 22. Anti-social behaviour remains persistently high — monthly ASB cases average over 600 per month, with seasonal variation but no real sign of a sustained drop. Relative performance is better than London overall — despite the high absolute numbers, Hillingdon has consistently lower rates than the London average. Crime levels are also high and fairly stable — recorded crime averages around 2,600 incidents per month, fluctuating month to month but without a major directional shift. 23. Residual household waste is worse than average — Hillingdon collected 532 kg per household in 2024/25, above the London average of 487 kg. Recycling and composting performance is a stronger area — Hillingdon records 37% of household waste sent for recycling and composting, ahead of the London average of 32%. 24. Food waste separation is only slightly ahead of average at 4.5% (just above the London average of 4%), with improvement efforts focused on trials in flat blocks and resident education. 25. Fly-tipping enforcement activity is exceptionally low relative to London — Hillingdon records 24 enforcement actions per 1,000 incidents, compared with a London average of 638.9. Data coverage is part of the caveat — the incidents shown are only those reported to the local authority and exclude incidents reported directly to the Environment Agency. Children’s Services (Children, Families, Health and Care Portfolio) 26. Referrals into children’s social care are a key indicator of safeguarding demand, reflecting the volume of concerns reaching the threshold for statutory intervention and providing an important measure of both system pressure and the effectiveness of prevention and early help. 27. The number of children subject to Child Protection Plans has reduced over the year, which may indicate early impact from the revised social care delivery model. The number of Cared for Children has also fallen. However, this trend should be interpreted with caution, as 26% of the Cared for Children cohort are unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, where demand is externally driven and cannot be mitigated through prevention or early intervention. 28. Placement costs remain a major budget pressure. Although the number of external residential placements has reduced, the cost of those placements has continued to rise at rates significantly above inflation, reflecting sustained market instability and increasing complexity of need. Hillingdon also continues to carry a disproportionate level of responsibility for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. 29. Year-end figures alone do not fully capture this pressure, as once the borough reaches the 0.1% threshold, young people transfer to other authorities through the National Transfer Scheme. This sustained flow has a longer-term consequence for care leaver services, as the borough supports a disproportionately large care leaver cohort linked to previous asylum demand and to earlier years when the transfer scheme operated less effectively. Cabinet report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 Public) 30. Hillingdon recorded 34 first-time entrants to the youth justice system in 2024, below the London average of 42, indicating comparatively stronger performance in preventing initial entry into the system. In the 12 months to Q1 2024, 28.8% of young people who had offended went on to reoffend, broadly in line with the London average of 28.9%. This suggests that while first-time entry is relatively well controlled, reducing reoffending remains a persistent challenge. The strategic response therefore rightly emphasises multi-agency intervention, recognising the links between offending, trauma, deprivation, discrimination, and unmet health needs. 31. Demand for SEND assessments continues to rise, both locally and nationally. This appears to reflect not only increasing levels of need, but also system uncertainty following delays to recent SEND reform announcements, which have contributed to anxiety among families and professionals. The resulting growth in demand is placing additional pressure on the DSG High Needs Block and has implications for the robustness of financial forecasting. 32. Funded early education uptake is a clear area of relative strength. In 2025, 87.3% of 3- and 4-year-olds in Hillingdon accessed funded early education, above the London average of 85.4%, suggesting strong engagement with universal early years provision. 33. Post-16 engagement presents a more mixed picture. In 2025, 2.5% of 16–17-year-olds were not in education, employment or training, slightly above the London average of 2.0%. However, this should be understood in the context of Hillingdon’s comparatively low rate of unknown destinations. This suggests that the higher NEET figure is more likely to reflect stronger tracking and identification than materially weaker participation. Adult Social Care and Health (Children, Families, Health and Care Portfolio) 34. Referrals into Adult Social Care are relatively steady, averaging 665 per month. Home- based support is becoming more complex — the number of unique clients receiving home care has fallen gradually, while the number of active services has increased, indicating more people are receiving multiple forms of support at once. Reablement is a key response — the council is using more short-term reablement support to help residents regain independence and reduce escalation into longer-term, higher-cost care. 35. Independent living remains a relative strength — 81.1% of adults aged 18–64 receiving long- term support were living in their own home or with family in 2024/25, slightly above the London average of 78.8%. 36. Residential and nursing support placements average 740 per month, while average support hours per resident on an adult support plan have stayed broadly stable, with an increase throughout the year from 58.1 to 66.1 hours of support given. The age profile of new entrants is consistent each month — an average of 42 in those aged 18–64, and 82 years in those aged 65+. 37. Assessment speed is a clear challenge — Adult Social Care has an internal target to complete 80% of new client assessments within 28 days, but this has been missed consistently during the last two financial years. The service explicitly balances speed with quality — delays are partly attributed to complex needs, multi-agency coordination, and planned reviews, with the narrative emphasising triage and professional judgement rather Cabinet report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 Public) than simple throughput. 38. Completed assessment volume remains substantial — monthly assessment totals demonstrate sustained operational effort by social workers despite the timeliness gap. Overall implication — this is a capacity-and-complexity story rather than a collapse in delivery; the team is completing large volumes, but not always within the intended timeframe. 39. Quality of life scores are comparatively positive — in 2024/25, Hillingdon scored 19.1 out of 24 on the adult social care quality-of-life measure, above the London average of 18.6. Overall satisfaction is broadly in line with London — the borough scored 62% for satisfaction with care and support, close to the London average of 61.2%. 40. Perceived control over daily life is another strong area — 75.2% of surveyed service users reported having adequate or as much control over daily life as they wanted, compared with 72.5% across London. Taken together, these measures suggest decent lived experience — despite pressure on assessments and increasing complexity, users report good outcomes and a sense of autonomy. 41. Carer quality-of-life outcomes are weaker than peers — Hillingdon scored 6.8 out of 12 for carer-related quality of life in 2024/25, below the London average of 7.2. Carer satisfaction with services is stronger — 36.3% of carers were extremely or very satisfied with support and services, above the London average of 33.0%. Workforce turnover is a positive signal — staff turnover in the formal care workforce was 14.9% in 2024/25, well below the London average of 20.1%, which the presentation links to stronger continuity and better outcomes. 42. 19.9% of children in Reception were overweight or living with obesity in 2024/25, lower than both London and England. The picture worsens by Year 6 — prevalence rises to 36.2% by Year 6, a gap of 16.3 percentage points from Reception, which is similar to London but higher than the England gap. 43. Childhood obesity as a major long-term health risk and notes it as a priority for the local health and wellbeing strategy through 2025–28. 44. 30.8% of adults were physically inactive in 2024/25, significantly worse than the London average of 21.9%. Corporate Services (Corporate Services, Digital & Transformation / Finance Portfolios) 45. Cyber threats remain persistent and volatile — the cyber security slide describes monthly attack attempts rising and falling, with periodic spikes rather than a steady decline, which suggests the council is operating in a constantly changing threat environment. Phishing is the higher-volume risk — phishing attempts are described as much more frequent, at times exceeding 7,000 per month, even if recent months have been lower. Mitigations are in place with learning and development across the organisation, as well as a secure technology infrastructure to block threats. Cabinet report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 Public) 46. Phone demand has fallen compared with the previous year — 2025/26 saw fewer total calls handled by our contact centre. Abandoned call rates remain a pressure point — although total call volumes are down. The transition towards digital channels continues but show that phone-based access still matters and service quality over that channel remains important. 47. Counter fraud performance is well above target — the council recovered £12.8 million in 2025/26, significantly ahead of the £8.8 million target. Operational activity is substantial — the same slide reports 113 fraud recoveries and 36 emergency housing units closed, releasing homes and resources back into use. This is one of the clearest positive performance stories in the section, showing tangible financial value from fraud detection across housing, business rates, and adult social care. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications to the Council associated with the recommendations in this report. RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities? This report enables residents, communities, and service users to understand how well services are performing, ensuring transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement in meeting local needs. Consultation & Engagement carried out (or required) None required. 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 Regular reporting on performance indicators is good governance practice that aids in accountability and openness in the provision of performance-related information and relevant data, and in turn assists Members in relati on to broader dec ision-making. There are no direct legal implications associated with the recommendations within this report. BACKGROUND PAPERS Previous performance reports to Cabinet

Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.

📄 Annual Performance Report 2025-26 , item 5. PDF 4 MB
Read the text of this document (77 pages)
London Borough Of Hillingdon Performance Report 2025/26 Leader of the Council: Cllr Steve Tuckwell For councils, performance management uses data to drive evidence-based decision making, challenging current ways of working and service delivery models. It helps local government take responsibility for its performance and allows our residents to hold us to account, ensuring we are meeting local needs and spending their money wisely. Performance management involves setting shared goals and measuring progress towards them. It ensures governance arrangements are in place to achieve an authority's objectives. In Hillingdon, performance is aligned with the Council Strategy, providing performance reports to services, senior management teams, the Corporate Management T eam, and the Leader and Cabinet. This annual report uses key performance indicators and monitoring data to show the performance of key services for the financial year 2025/26 (it should be noted that 2024/25 is the latest data for some metrics). Where possible, we have benchmarked these against comparable authorities and have used the latest published data. Cabinet Member: Cllr Nick Denys Portfolio: Planning, Housing and Property Safe and strong communities A thriving economy Thriving, healthy households Our commitments to residents Corporate Director: Dan Kennedy, Residents Services Along with most of London, demand from homeless households in Hillingdon is high, in part driven by private sector landlords evicting tenants combined with a shortage of suitable and affordable housing supply, which has in turn increased the use of temporary accommodation. The Housing Service is facing both a rising inflow and a slower outflow from temporary accommodation. We have seen rising homelessness presentations, with new approaches to the Council from homeless households consistently above 600 each month. Expenditure on accommodation increased in 2024/25, with rising demand and higher private rental costs pushing up spending, coupled with an increase in higher-unit cost placements. During 2025/26 a strategy to reduce the use of temporary accommodation and associated expenditure by preventing homelessness, securing more private and social rented accommodation and introducing price controls was actively delivered. Proactive market management has achieved results; after a nightly cost cap was introduced at the start of 2025/26, tenancies above the price cap reduced significantly during the year. Hillingdon has a lower than average number of children placed in temporary accommodation with their family – our plans to reduce the use of temporary accommodation will secure more settled accommodation for more families with children. The Council Housing Landlord Repairs Service continues to show clear improvement momentum— both completion levels and on-time delivery have continued to improve, with sustained achievement since September 2024. Repair demand is high and steady — 3,000 repair requests per month are logged, with emergency volumes stable and routine repairs fluctuating modestly. Completion performance is improving— overall repair completion rates are steadily rising, indicating stronger operational delivery despite sustained demand. Responsive repairs completed per 1,000 properties remains below the target of 295. However, the on-time completion target is consistently above 89%. Repairs performance has shifted from pressure management to more dependable delivery. Turning to the Planning Service, the volume of planning applications has remained consistently strong, with approximately 3,250 applications received during 2025/26. The Development Management Service has maintained a high level of performance for the timely determination of applications. While the proportion of appeals allowed at 42% is currently above the London average and represents an increase on the previous year, this is being actively addressed. Ongoing work to systematically review appeal outcomes is helping to refine decision-making processes, strengthen policy application, and drive continuous improvement in performance. The Building Control Service has taken a proactive approach to safeguarding residents by increasing enforcement activity, ensuring that poor construction practices are identified and addressed more effectively, and contributing to higher standards across developments. Significant progress has been made in advancing the council’s place-shaping priorities. This includes the adoption of the Uxbridge Vision, the development of a regeneration framework for Hayes, the preparation of the council’s first Growth Plan, and continued progress on the Local Plan review. The planning authority is also proactively preparing to respond to the government’s proposals for the expansion of Heathrow Airport, including a third runway. These proposals present far-reaching place-shaping implications extending well beyond the airport boundary. In parallel, changes to national planning policy, particularly in relation to the green belt, are being carefully considered. In light of these evolving factors, the decision has been taken to allow more time to consider the currentthe stage of the Local Plan. This will ensure that a robust, comprehensive and coordinated response can be developed, positioning the borough to effectively manage future growth and respond to strategic challenges and opportunities. The number of households in temporary accommodation has continued to rise steadily since mid-2023, peaking at 1,839 in October 2025. 1,753 households were living in temporary accommodation in March 2026. Alongside this, the number of households staying in temporary accommodation for over six months (lower slide) has increased, reflecting the challenges in securing suitable affordable alternative housing. The continued rise in both overall usage and duration reflects sustained pressure on housing supply and limited exit pathways from temporary accommodation. Housing Needs and Homelessness In line with the rest of London, Hillingdon is experiencing increased demand from homeless families for assistance, given the shortage of affordable suitable accommodation. High demand is coming from private tenants experiencing evictions by their landlord in a market where there is strong demand for private rented homes, including from those living in inner London. When a household approaches us at risk of homelessness, we have a duty to help them. If attempts to prevent homelessness are unsuccessful, we place the household into temporary accommodation, if they are eligible. This is the number of new residents who are asking for support that are at risk of being homeless leading to increases in temporary accommodation usage and spend. The number of new homelessness presentations each month has shown a significant increase during the last three years. In April 2023, there were 297 new cases, rising sharply to a peak of 722 in October 2025, indicating a year-on-year upward trend. This suggests increasing pressure on housing and support services, particularly during the winter months, where figures were consistently above 600. Housing Needs and Homelessness The cost of paid accommodation and the number of high-cost tenancies continued to increase in 2024/25 - largely due to increasing demand, the rising cost of renting accommodation from private landlords, the cost of which was offset by the council using more of its own properties for temporary accommodation. With the introduction of a new policy to capping nightly costs (introduced at the beginning of 2025/26), high-cost tenancies over the price cap have reduced considerably throughout the financial year. Housing Needs and Homelessness The London comparison chart shows a very wide variation for the number of children living in temporary accommodation across boroughs, with a small number of boroughs much higher than the rest; the horizontal line is the London average (not a target). Hillingdon has a lower than average number of children placed in temporary accommodation with their family – our plans to reduce the use of temporary accommodation will secure more settled accommodation for more families with children. Housing Needs and Homelessness People sleeping rough are defined as those sleeping or about to bed down in open air locations and other places including tents and make-shift shelters. The snapshot does not include people in hostels or shelters, sofa surfers or those in recreational or organised protest, squatter or traveller campsites. The snapshot records only those people seen, or thought to be, sleeping rough on a single night. The snapshot does not include everyone in an area with a history of sleeping rough, or everyone sleeping rough in areas across the October to November period. The count includes Heathrow Airport which does attract additional rough sleepers to Hillingdon. The Council works closely with partner organisations in Hillingdon and London including Heathrow Airport Limited to provide supportive pathways to end rough sleeping. The annual snapshot takes place in the autumn (between 1/10 and 30/11), rather than summer where numbers are likely to be higher due to warmer temperatures, or winter, where numbers may be lower as there are more temporary night shelters set up to ensure people do not sleep on the streets in very cold weather. Local authorities across England take an annual autumn snapshot of rough sleeping using either a count-based estimate of visible rough sleeping, an evidence-based estimate meeting with local partners, or an evidence-based estimate meeting including a spotlight count in specific areas. Hillingdon’s value is 40, just above the London average of 37. Housing Needs and Homelessness This is the percentage of all minor development planning applications (PAs) whether or not they have a Planning Performance Agreement (PPAs), Extension of Time (EoT) and/or Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), determined in a timely manner. A timely manner is statutorily defined as within eight weeks or unless an application is subject to Environmental Impact Assessment, in which case a 16- week period applies, for all minor applications. Minor includes: dwellings, general industry / storage and warehousing, offices, light industry, retail and services, traveller caravan pitches and other developments. Building Control and Planning This is the percentage of all major development planning applications (PAs) whether or not they have a Planning Performance Agreement (PPAs), Extension of Time (EoT) and/or Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), determined in a timely manner, each financial year. A timely manner is statutorily defined as within 13 weeks or unless an application is subject to Environmental Impact Assessment, in which case a 16-week period applies, for all major applications. Major includes the same categories as minor but also public service infrastructure developments. Building Control and Planning Each month, typically more than 3,000 repair requests are logged. Emergency job volumes have remained stable, while routine repairs have fluctuated slightly. Despite this, overall repair completion rates have steadily improved, meaning more issues are being resolved on time. This improvement helps ensure that homes remain safe, functional, and comfortable. A more reliable Repairs Service also means residents experience fewer delays, with reduced need for repeated follow-ups. The significant capital investment programme being delivered to improve homes for Hillingdon tenants will over time reduce the number of repairs required each month. This is already showing success, for example with the reduction in jobs for boiler repairs following the programme to replace boilers in domestic properties. Operational Assets – Housing Repairs The top graph looks at the number of jobs that have been logged that are either classed as emergency or routine. Emergency jobs require either next day or out of hours attendance. Routine jobs are up to 90 working days depending on the severity. The bottom graph looks at overall jobs completed. The top graph shows the number of responsive repairs completed for every 1,000 properties. This is used to measure the average core demand (target line) placed on the sector. Based on this, the sector's average is 295. The bottom graph also looks at responsive repairs completed on time but as a percentage and the target for this is 89%. Since September 2024, Hillingdon has consistently achieved the target of responsive repairs completed within the required timescales each month which means most residents can now expect a more dependable and timely repairs service. Operational Assets – Repairs Cabinet Member: Cllr Wayne Bridges Portfolio: Residents Services Safe and strong communities A digital-enabled, modern, well-run council Our commitments to residents yr Corporate Director: Dan Kennedy, Residents Services Green spaces and trees - Both the green spaces and trees slides describe a year-on-year reduction in resident service requests, suggesting maintenance activity is starting to reduce the volume of issues being reported. For green spaces, the main request categories remainovergrowth and weeds; for trees, the dominant issues are branches and tree health, with fewer requests about roots. The reduction in enquiries is due to better targeting of common issues, and, in the case of trees, support from an updated tree policy. Residual waste and recycling performance - Residual household waste rates are higher than average when lower rates are preferred — Hillingdon collected 532 kg per household in 2024/25, above the London average of 487 kg. Recycling and composting performance is a stronger area— Hillingdon records 37% of household waste sent for recycling and composting, ahead of the London average of 32%. Food waste separation is slightly ahead of average — the food composting slide reports 4.5%, just above the London average of 4%, with improvement efforts focused on trials in blocks of flats and resident education campaigns. In summary, the borough appears to be doing better on selected recovery streams like recycling and composting, but produces a higher level of residual waste overall. Road condition performance The condition of roads in Hillingdon is better than average. Classified roads are performing better than the wider benchmark— for A roads and motorways, Hillingdon is shown at 4% requiring maintenance versus a London average of 8%. B and C classified roads also compare well — Hillingdon records 2% requiring maintenance against a London average of 10%. Unclassified roads remain relatively strong — 5% versus a London average of 12%. Department for Transport (DfT) Road Maintenance Ratings – Hillingdon is one of only two London boroughs ranked green on the DfT ratings map (released January 2026) demonstrating how effective Hillingdon is at tackling potholes and resurfacing roads. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure EV infrastructure has a strong and credible expansion plan in Hillingdon — current provision is low relative to London, but the funding and installation pipeline imply a meaningful future uplift. Public charging availability in Hillingdon is behind London overall — Hillingdon is shown at 75.3 chargers per 100,000 population in Q4 2025, versus a London mean of 338.6. Strategic investment is underway — a £7.5 million funding has been awarded through the Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure programme. The borough is set to receive 1,673 new charging points, as part of a major expansion programme rather than incremental change. Community, Environment and Enforcement – Green Spaces Fewer service requests about green spaces suggest improvements are making a real impact. This chart shows a year-on-year reduction in service requests related to green spaces - such as overgrowth, weeds, grass cutting, and parks. Most requests in 2025/26 focused on overgrowth and weeds, but the overall decline points to more effective maintenance and positive outcomes for residents. By targeting the most common issues and listening to community feedback, the council has reduced new reports and helped keep parks and green areas cleaner, better maintained, and more enjoyable for everyone. Community, Environment and Enforcement – Trees Fewer tree-related service requests suggest positive progress in local tree management. This chart shows the trend in service requests regarding trees - covering issues like branches, tree health, and roots. Most requests in 2025/26 focused on branches and health, with fewer concerns about roots. The overall reduction in reports indicates that the council’s proactive approach is working assisted by an updated tree policy. By targeting the most common issues, the council has improved response and maintenance - helping to keep Hillingdon’s trees healthy, safe, and enjoyable for all. This approach is being actively applied in 2026/27. Household waste levels impact both the environment and local services. This chart shows residual household waste per household (kg) collected by each London borough in 2024/25. Hillingdon collected 532 kg per household, above the London average of 487 kg per household. Higher waste volumes suggest greater environmental pressure and increased demand on local infrastructure. Reducing waste through recycling, reusing, and mindful consumption is key to keeping Hillingdon cleaner, greener, and more sustainable. Community, Environment and Enforcement – Household waste (kg per household) Our reuse, recycling and composting performance is helping reduce emissions and protecting natural resources. This top chart shows the percentage of household waste sent for reuse, recycling and composting—such as food and garden waste—across London boroughs in 2024/25. Hillingdon’s value of 37% is above the London average (32%). Hillingdon’s strong performance in this area supports a cleaner, greener borough by cutting emissions and making better use of natural resources. Community, Environment and Enforcement – Household waste sent for reuse, recycling and composting Recycling performance is key to reducing environmental impact and waste disposal costs. This chart shows the percentage of household waste collected separately as food waste in 2024/25. Hillingdon, marked in red collected 4.5%, just above the London average of 4%. T o improve recycling rates and reduce contamination, Hillingdon is trialling new recycling bins in selected flat blocks, supported by targeted education to encourage correct usage. This initiative, alongside community events, features inHillingdon People magazine, marketing campaigns, and direct communications, aims to raise awareness, foster better habits, and boost both the quality and quantity of recyclable materials collected. Community, Environment and Enforcement – Food composting Highways – Classified Roads This is the percentage of the local authority’s A roads and motorways (owned principal roads) where maintenance should be considered. This represents the percentage of road that is in the worst condition measured in 10 metre sections. In 2024/25, the percentage of Hillingdon’s A roads and motorways where maintenance should be considered was 4%, which is below the London average (8%). Highways – Classified Roads This is the percentage of the local authority’s B and C roads (non-principal roads) where maintenance should be considered. This represents the percentage of road that is in the worst condition measured in 10 metre sections. In 2024/25, the percentage of Hillingdon’s B and C roads where maintenance should be considered was 2%, which is below the London average (10%). As the graph demonstrates, some authorities have not submitted data to the Department for Transport. Highways - Unclassified Roads This is the percentage of the local authority's unclassified roads (U roads) where maintenance should be considered. There is no mandated method for collection of U road condition, hence a variety of road condition monitoring techniques are used by local authorities. In 2024/25, the percentage of Hillingdon’s unclassified roads where maintenance should be considered is 5%, which is below the London average (12%). As the graph demonstrates, some authorities have not submitted data to the Department for Transport. This chart shows the number of potholes reported each month during the past two financial years. Potholes are a common concern for many residents as they affect road safety and can damage vehicles. Looking at the data, you can see that the number of reported potholes can change a lot from month to month, often spiking in winter and early spring, when cold and wet weather causes the most damage to road surfaces. Compared to last year, this year has seen fewer reports in several months, especially in April and October, which shows improvement. The very wet period from January 2026 to March 2026 contributed to a spike in pot holes being reported. By tracking these numbers, the council can better understand when and where road repairs are needed most and focus resources to keep roads safer and smoother for everyone in Hillingdon. Highways - Potholes Department for Transport Road Maintenance Map In January 2026, Hillingdon was one of only two London boroughs ranked green on the Department for Transport Road Maintenance Ratings map, showing how effective Hillingdon is at tackling potholes, resurfacing roads and restoring pride to a local area.​ Highways – Electric vehicle (EV) charging Public EV charging devices per 100,000 population In Q4 (Oct-Dec) 2025, the number of publicly available electric vehicle charging devices (all speeds) per 100,000 population in Hillingdon was 75.3, which is below the London mean of 338.6 (based on charging devices at all speeds). The council has joined forces with Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham, Haringey and Harrow to secure £7.5 million from the government's Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (LEVI) fund. The partnershipis in the process of procuring a supplier to install and manage the new EV charge points across all five boroughs, with1,673 new EV charging points set to be installed across Hillingdon. Cabinet Member: Cllr Susan O'Brien Portfolio: Children, Families, Health and Care Our commitments to residents Thriving, healthy households Corporate Director: Julie Kelly, Children’s Services Referrals into children’s social care are a key indicator of safeguarding demand, reflecting the volume of concerns reaching the threshold for statutory intervention and providing an important measure of both system pressure and the effectiveness of prevention and early help. The number of children subject to Child Protection Plans has reduced over the year, which may indicate early impact from the revised social care delivery model. The number of Cared for Children has also fallen. However, this trend should be interpreted with caution, as 26% of the Cared for Children cohort are unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, where demand is externally driven and cannot be mitigated through prevention or early intervention. Placement costs remain a major budget pressure. Although the number of external residential placements has reduced, the cost of those placements has continued to rise at rates significantly above inflation, reflecting sustained market instability and increasing complexity of need. Hillingdon also continues to carry a disproportionate level of responsibility for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Year-end figures alone do not fully capture this pressure, as once the borough reaches the 0.1% threshold, young people transfer to other authorities through the National Transfer Scheme. This sustained flow has a longer-term consequence for care leaver services, as the borough supports a disproportionately large care leaver cohort linked to previous asylum demand and to earlier years when the transfer scheme operated less effectively. Hillingdon recorded 34 first-time entrants to the youth justice system in 2024, below the London average of 42, indicating comparatively stronger performance in preventing initial entry into the system. In the 12 months to Q1 2024, 28.8% of young people who had offended went on to reoffend, broadly in line with the London average of 28.9%. This suggests that while first-time entry is relatively well controlled, reducing reoffending remains a persistent challenge. The strategic response therefore rightly emphasises multi- agency intervention, recognising the links between offending, trauma, deprivation, discrimination, and unmet health needs. Demand for SEND assessments continues to rise, both locally and nationally. This appears to reflect not only increasing levels of need, but also system uncertainty following delays to recent SEND reform announcements, which have contributed to anxiety among families and professionals. The resulting growth in demand is placing additional pressure on the DSG High Needs Block and has implications for the robustness of financial forecasting. Funded early education uptake is a clear area of relative strength. In 2025, 87.3% of 3- and 4-year-olds in Hillingdon accessed funded early education, above the London average of 85.4%, suggesting strong engagement with universal early years provision. Post-16 engagement presents a more mixed picture. In 2025, 2.5% of 16–17-year-olds were not in education, employment or training, slightly above the London average of 2.0%. However, this should be understood in the context of Hillingdon’s comparatively low rate of unknown destinations. This suggests that the higher NEET figure is more likely to reflect stronger tracking and identification than materially weaker participation. A referral to children’s social services happens when someone is concerned that a child may be at risk of harm. This prompts the local authority to assess whether the child or family needs support or protection. All referrals require statutory intervention. The graph shows the number of referrals received each month during the past two financial years. This helps us understand demand for services, spot emerging concerns, and evaluate the impact of early help and prevention work. Referrals can come from many sources, including residents, schools, health professionals, or the police. Children, Families, Health and Care – Social Care Demand - Referrals Our children are those cared for by the local authority. This includes children seeking asylum who have no parent or guardian in the UK. The council and elected members hold parental responsibility and corporate parenting duties for most of these children. The top graph shows the total number of cared for children at the end of each month. This helps us track long-term demand and plan the right level of support and resources. Higher numbers generally mean increased pressure on council services and budgets. Hillingdon had corporate parenting duties to 305 children at the end of March 2026. The figure has remained relatively consistent throughout the year. The bottom graph shows how many children came into our care each month. Spikes in this data highlight pressure points in safeguarding and a growing need for placements, especially during times of increased family breakdown or risk to children. Children, Families, Health and Care – Looked After Children (Our Cared for Children) High-cost residential placements are often used in emergency situations or for children with high-risk needs. Monitoring these placements helps us plan more effectively, manage costs, and explore more local, sustainable options. It also highlights the number of children placed in external residential settings, those not managed by Hillingdon which are significantly more expensive than in-house alternatives. To address and disrupt the market we have invested in increased local capacity, impact of which is being seen from February 2026 and expectation is for further improvement and reduction over the next financial year. By tracking this data, we aim to meet children’s needs while maintaining financial sustainability. Children, Families, Health and Care – Placements – Where Our Children Live Child Protection Plans (CPPs) are implemented when there is a significant concern that a child may be at risk of harm, including abuse, neglect, or other forms of abuse. These plans are developed through multi-agency collaboration and outline specific actions to safeguard the child and promote their overall wellbeing. They are reviewed regularly to ensure that the support provided remains appropriate and effective. The top graph illustrates the total number of children subject to an active Child Protection Plan at the end of each month. Monitoring this figure helps us understand the overall level of safeguarding demand and informs workforce and resource planning. The bottom graph shows the number of new Child Protection Plans initiated each month. Fluctuations in this data can indicate changes in local safeguarding pressures, such as increased risks within families or improved identification of harm through professional vigilance. As of March 2026, there were 202 children with active Child Protection Plans, a decrease from 240 at the end of 2024/25. Children, Families, Health and Care – Child Protection Plans As a port authority area, due to the presence of Heathrow Airport, Hillingdon continues to play a critical role in supporting unaccompanied asylum -seeking children (UASC). These young people arrive in the UK without a parent or guardian and therefore have significant vulnerabilities. Consequently, they require tailored support to ensure their safety, wellbeing and integration. The graph on the left shows the number of UASC supported by each London borough in 2024/25. Hillingdon has the third highest number (68) when compared to other boroughs; the average in London is 32. The National Transfer Scheme (NTS) enables the redistribution of UASC across local authorities to ensure a more equitable sharing of responsibility and to prevent disproportionate pressure on port authority areas like Hillingdon; under the NTS a number of UASC have been successfully transferred to other local authorities helping to manage local capacity while ensuring children continue to receive appropriate care. The numbers therefore don’t entirely reflect the activity as many more children receive a service prior to transfer to their permanent local authority. Care costs for unaccompanied asylum seeking children are funded by central government. Children, Families, Health and Care – Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children Children, Families, Health and Care – Care Leavers Local authorities have a statutory duty to support care leavers, young people who have been in the care of the local authority, as they transition into adulthood. This support extends beyond the age of 18 and includes the provision of a personal adviser, pathway planning, and access to advice, emotional support, and practical assistance with housing, education, employment, training, and financial management. The duty continues until at least the age of 21, and in many cases up to age of 25, depending on the young person’s needs and level of engagement. A key measure of this support is the suitability of accommodation provided to care leavers. Ensuring that young people have access to safe, stable, and appropriate housing is fundamental to their wellbeing and long -term outcomes. The graph on this page shows how each London borough performed in 2024/25. As a port authority borough, Hillingdon supports a significantly higher number of care leavers than many other local authorities, due in part to the volume of UASC who enter care locally and later transition into care leaver status. This places additional pressure on housing, education, and support services. In response, Hillingdon continues to strengthen its care leaver offer, with a focus on increasing access to suitable accommodation, improving pathway planning, and ensuring young people are well supported to achieve independence and thrive in adulthood. Children, Families, Health and Care – Social Worker Recruitment and Retention Recruiting and retaining qualified children’s social workers remains a significant national challenge, driven by rising demand, high caseloads, and increasing competition across the sector. These pressures are particularly acute in areas like Hillingdon, where the complexity and volume of cases, especially linked to our role as a port authority, require a highly skilled and resilient workforce. Maintaining a stable and experienced team is essential for building trusted relationships with children and families, ensuring continuity of care, and delivering high quality, timely interventions. The graph (top left) shows the latest published vacancy rates for children’s social workers across London. Monitoring these rates is critical for identifying workforce pressures and informing strategic planning. In Hillingdon, we have taken proactive steps to strengthen recruitment and retention, including the introduction of a refreshed workforce strategy, enhanced supervision and support structures, and targeted recruitment campaigns. We are also investing in professional development pathways and promoting Hillingdon as a place where social workers can thrive and make a meaningful impact. Our social work vacancy rates are higher in the last year as we reduced the overall number of social worker posts from August 2025 as part of our revised social care delivery model aligned to The Families First Partnership Programme. Children, Families, Health and Care – Early Contact with the Youth Justice System In 2025, Hillingdon recorded 45 first-time entrants to the youth justice system, similar to the London average of 44. This metric is a key indicator of how many children and young people are entering the criminal justice system for the first time, either through conviction or youth caution. A lower rate of first-time entrants is often interpreted as a sign of effective early intervention and prevention strategies, reflecting the strength of local safeguarding partnerships and the proactive work of services across education, social care and health. In Hillingdon, this positive trend aligns with the borough’s strategic commitment to a child first approach, which prioritises the rights, needs, and potential of children while aiming to divert them from formal justice pathways wherever possible. Children, Families, Health and Care – Youth Justice: Reoffending Rates While the rate of first-time entrants is encouraging, it is important to note that reoffending rates remain a concern. In the 12 months to Q2 2024, 30.3% of young people known to have committed an offence in Hillingdon reoffended, above the London average of 28.5%. This measure tracks the proportion of young people who commit a further proven offence within a year of a previous offence. A deep dive auditcommissioned by the Youth Justice Strategic Partnership Board, identified that the majority of reoffending happened between the first offence and becoming known to Youth Justice Services. Children in the youth justice system often face multiple and overlapping challenges, including social deprivation, trauma, discrimination, and unmet health needs. These factors underscore the importance of joined-up working across sectors, ensuring that interventions are not only timely but also holistic and tailored to individual circumstances. Children, Families, Health and Care - Children with SEND – Need Assessment Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment (EHCNA) Requests are formal applications that trigger a multi-professional review of a child’s needs. Increasing numbers may indicate greater awareness, earlier identification, or growing demand for support, all contributing to timely and appropriate provision. The year began with 67 requests and saw several peaks in demand, particularly in the early months. A noticeable dip occurred during the summer period, with numbers rising again in the latter part of the year. By the end of March 2026, the number of requests had increased to 76. EHC Needs Assessments Agreed to Assess The EHCNA Agreed to Assess stage reflects the council’s decision to proceed with a full Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment. This represents a formal commitment of professional and administrative resources to thoroughly assess and understand the child’s needs. Rising volumes increase pressure on council services. This demand also drives higher assessment and support costs, impacting overall budget sustainability. At the start of the 2025/26 financial year, 72% of EHCNA requests were agreed to proceed to assessment in April. By the end of the year, this had decreased to 66% in March 2026. Agree to assess levels remained higher month-on-month compared to last year, indicating a higher proportion of requests being progressed to formal assessment. This suggests more appropriate requests are being received for assessment. Children, Families, Health and Care - Children with SEND – Need Assessment Children, Families, Health and Care – Children with SEND, EHCP Demand We are tracking both the number of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) issued and the volume of Needs Assessment Requests. EHCPs define the tailored support that children and young people with SEND are entitled to, ensuring they have access to the appropriate education, health, and care services. Number of Education Health Care Plans (EHCPs) At the start of the financial year, there were 3,536 active EHCPs. Duringthe year, the number steadily increased, reflecting continued demand for support. As of the end of March 2026, the total stood at 3,795 - representing an overall increase of approximately 7.3% compared to the start of the year, more than double the increase throughout 2024/25 (3.1%). Children, Families, Health and Care – Children with SEND, EHCP Demand The Agreed to Issue decision is made by week 16 of the process.This measure captures whether, following an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment (EHCNA), the decision is to issue an EHCP . It reflects how often the council agrees that statutory support is needed and will be provided for a child or young person with SEND. In 2025/26, the rate of agreed-to-issue decisions fluctuated during the year. Typically, this outcome does vary throughout the year. Children, Families, Health and Care – Final EHCP 20 Week Timeliness This indicator tracks the percentage of final Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) issued within 20 weeks of the initial request, in line with the statutory timescale set out in the SEND Code of Practice. Exemptions apply in limited cases (e.g. during periods of school closures), but in most circumstances, a plan should be completed within 20 weeks. A higher percentage reflects better timeliness and system responsiveness to children and young people with special educational needs. At the start of the financial year 2025/26, 71% of final EHCPs were issued within 20 weeks. Timeliness has fluctuated throughout 2025/26 but then faced a dip by the end of March 2026. However, performance in March was above national average (46%). Children, Families, Health and Care – Funded Early Education for 3 and 4-Year Olds In 2025, 87.3% of children aged 3 and 4 in Hillingdon were registered for government funded early years provision. Higher than the London average (85.4%). This number reflects how many children in this age group are benefiting from the government’s offer of free early education, helping them get a strong start to their learning and development. Providing funded early education supports children’s social, emotional, and cognitive skills, preparing them well for starting school. Children, Families, Health and Care - NEET Outcomes for 16–17 Year Olds Percentage of Young People (16-17) Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET) In 2025, 2.5% of 16 and 17-year-olds in Hillingdon were not in education, employment or training (NEET). This is higher than the average for London (2%). The chart compares Hillingdon’s NEET rate with other London boroughs, showing that while some areas perform better, a number of boroughs face even higher NEET rates. Monitoring and addressing NEET levels is important to help young people access opportunities and support them to achieve positive outcomes. By focusing on this indicator, the council can work with local schools, employers, and training providers to help more young people in Hillingdon stay engaged and move into successful futures. Corporate Director: Sandra Taylor, Adult Social Care and Health Referrals into Adult Social Care are relatively steady, averaging 665 per month. Home-based support is becoming more complex— the number of unique clients receiving home care has fallen gradually, while the number of active services has increased, indicating more people are receiving multiple forms of support at once. Reablement is a key response— the council is using more short-term reablement support to help residents regain independence and reduce escalation into longer-term, higher-cost care. Independent living remains a relative strength— 81.1% of adults aged18–64 receiving long-term support were living in their own home or with family in2024/25, slightly above theLondon average of 78.8%. Residential and nursing support placements average 740 per month, while average support hours per resident on an adult support plan have stayed broadly stable, with an increase throughout the year from 58.1 to 66.1 hours of support given. The age profile of new entrants is consistent each month— an average of 42 in those aged 18–64, and 82 years in those aged 65+. Assessment speed is a clear challenge— Adult Social Care has an internal target to complete80% of new client assessments within 28 days, but the presentation states this has been missed consistently duringthe last two financial years. The service explicitly balances speed with quality— delays are partly attributed to complex needs, multi-agency coordination, and planned reviews, with the narrative emphasising triage and professional judgement rather than simple throughput. Completed assessment volume remains substantial— monthly assessment totals demonstrate sustained operational effort by social workers despite the timeliness gap. Overall implication— this is a capacity-and-complexity story rather than a collapse in delivery; the team is completing large volumes, but not always within the intended timeframe. Service user experience - Quality of life scores are comparatively positive— in 2024/25, Hillingdon scored19.1 out of 24on the adult social care quality-of-life measure, above theLondon average of 18.6. Overall satisfaction is broadly in line with London— the borough scored62% for satisfaction with care and support, close to theLondon average of 61.2%. Perceived control over daily life is another strong area— 75.2% of surveyed service users reported having adequate or as much control over daily life as they wanted, compared with 72.5% across London. Taken together, these measures suggest decent lived experience— despite pressure on assessments and increasing complexity, users generally report good outcomes and a sense of autonomy. Carer experience and workforce stability Carer quality-of-life outcomes are weaker than peers— Hillingdon scored6.8 out of 12for carer-related quality of life in2024/25, below theLondon average of 7.2. Carer satisfaction with services is stronger— 36.3% of carers were extremely or very satisfied with support and services, above the London average of 33.0%. This creates an important contrast— carers seem somewhat more satisfied with services than peers in other boroughs, but their own overall wellbeing remains lower. Workforce turnover is a positive signal— staff turnover in the formal care workforce was14.9% in 2024/25, well below theLondon average of 20.1%, which the presentation links to stronger continuity and better outcomes. Public Health: Childhood weight and adult physical activity Reception-age prevalence is comparatively better— 19.9% of children in Reception were overweight or living with obesity in2024/25, lower than both London and England The picture worsens by Year 6— prevalence rises to36.2% by Year 6, a gap of16.3 percentage pointsfrom Reception, which is similar to London but higher than the England gap. Childhood obesity as a major long-term health risk and notes it as a priority for the local health and wellbeing strategy through 2025–28. Adult inactivity — 30.8% of adults were physically inactive in2024/25, significantly worse than theLondon average of 21.9%. Adult Social Care’s front door is managing high volumes while maintaining strong control of demand through effective triage. Most contacts are resolved at first point or through existing services, ensuring statutory intervention is targeted appropriately. Over the period, 57,482 contacts were managed (around 4,100 per month), with only 16% progressing to a new referral. The majority were either linked to existing client records (42%) or resolved at first contact (36%). Demand is appropriately focused on statutory and higher-risk activity, including Care Act assessments and safeguarding, alongside hospital discharge, equipment, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and Mental Health Act work. Overall, this reflects a well-managed, high-volume service that is delivering the right response, meeting Care Act duties, and focusing resources on residents with the greatest need. Children, Families, Health and Care - Adult Social Care Demand Community long-term support is characterised by increasing complexity, with more residents requiring coordinated, multi-service packages. Currently, 2,521 people are supported through 3,978 services (c.1.6 per person), with long durations (c.2 years) reflecting sustained reliance on community provision, which accounts for around 75% of all activity. Demand is increasingly shaped by complexity, with higher reliance on combined support across home care, direct payments, supported living and outreach. This is driving both cost and delivery pressure across the system. Targeted use of reablement and digital tools such as AskSARA is strengthening early intervention and self-directed support, helping residents maintain independence and reducing avoidable escalation into long-term provision. Community services now form the backbone of Adult Social Care delivery. Performance, flow and financial grip are increasingly dependent on sufficient community capacity and stability. Demand remains structurally embedded, with core cohorts (physical care, learning disability and mental health) requiring long-term support and limited natural exit without active intervention. Children, Families, Health and Care - Adult Social Care Demand Performance data shows that in 2024/25, 81.1% of adults aged 18–64 receiving long-term support were living in their own home or with family, which is above the London average of 78.8%. This indicates that Hillingdon is performing well in the London region in enabling independent living, with a higher proportion of residents supported outside of institutional settings. The data suggests that current approaches, including community-based support and reablement, are contributing to residents maintaining independence and stability. Higher performance in this measure reflects a system that is successfully supporting people to remain in familiar environments, reducing reliance on more intensive forms of care, and improving overall outcomes for residents and reducing costs. Children, Families, Health and Care - Adult Social Care The top graph shows the number of monthly contacts by age range 18-64 and 65+. Contacts average 4,000 to 4,500 per month, with those aged 65+ driving more demand. The middle chart shows the average age within those ranges, with the 65+ cohort accounting for the larger share of contacts in most months. Average ages are very stable— within each age band, the average age barely changes over time: 18–64, around 42 years 65+, around 82 years The age profile is predictable— while contact counts fluctuate modestly, the underlying age mix within each band remains highly consistent. The bottom chart shows how many people aged over 85 have contacted adult social care services each month. The numbers are showing a downward trend in 2025/26. Children, Families, Health and Care - Adult Social Care Demand Adult Social Care ensures that everyone contacting the service is triaged at the point of contact, enabling an immediate response to risk, need and urgency. This approach supports timely decision-making and ensures that residents receive the right advice, intervention or onward allocation at the earliest opportunity. The service monitors the completion of Care Act assessments, with a locally agreed operational target for them to be completed within 28 days of referral. This measure relates to the full completion of assessments rather than initial response and is not a statutory requirement under the Care Act 2014. Performance against this target is influenced by operational factors including case complexity, multi-agency involvement, and specific cohorts such as hospital pathways and individuals subject to the Mental Health Act. While not all assessments are completed within the 28-day timeframe, residents are routinely seen, risk assessed and supported earlier in the process, with priority given to those with the greatest need. This demonstrates overall a responsive and well-managed service that is effectively balancing demand, complexity and timeliness, while maintaining a clear focus on safety, proportionality and person-centred practice. Children, Families, Health and Care - Adult Social Care Assessments The graph shows the volume of Adult Social Care assessments completed each month, demonstrating the scale of activity undertaken across the service. This sustained level of delivery reflects the ongoing work of teams managing high volumes of demand, progressing complex cases and ensuring that residents receive appropriate support. It also highlights the role of professional judgement in balancing timeliness with quality, with interventions often initiated at an earlier stage while formal assessment processes are completed. Every year, a survey is sent to randomly selected service users. This provides an excellent way for service users to feed back on a multitude of topics. It’s also helpful for Hillingdon and the government to understand service users’ views so that services can continue to be improved. This measure is an average quality of life score based on responses to the Adult Social Care Survey. It is a composite measure using responses to survey questions covering the eight domains identified in the Adult Social Care Outcome Framework (ASCOF): control, dignity, personal care, food and nutrition, safety, occupation, social participation and accommodation. In 2024/25, Hillingdon scored 19.1 out of 24, based on responses to surveys sent to service users; the average for London was 18.6. The higher the score, the better quality of life. ‘Service users’ definition: People receiving partly or wholly supported care from their local authority and not wholly private, self-funded care. Children, Families, Health and Care - Adult Social Care Service User Survey Responses (1) Children, Families, Health and Care - Adult Social Care Service User Survey Responses (2) Every year, a survey is sent to randomly selected service users. This provides an excellent way for service users to feed back on a multitude of topics. It’s also helpful for Hillingdon and the government to understand service users’ views so that services can continue to be improved. It’s important that service users’ satisfaction with care and support is as high as possible. In 2024/25, Hillingdon scored 62%, for social care- related satisfaction with care and support, based on responses to surveys sent to service users; this is similar to the London average of 61.2%. The higher the score, the more satisfied. Score based on those responding: 'I am extremely satisfied’ or 'I am very satisfied’ to 'Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the care and support services you receive’ and those responding: 'I am very happy with the way staff help me, it's really good’ to 'How happy are you with the way staff help you?‘ ‘Service users’ definition: People receiving partly or wholly supported care from their local authority and not wholly private, self-funded care. Every year, a survey is sent to randomly selected service users. This provides an excellent way for service users to feed back on a multitude of topics. It’s also helpful for Hillingdon and the government to understand service users’ views so that services can continue to be improved. It’s important that service users have as much control over their daily life as possible. In 2024/25, Hillingdon scored 75.2%, for those service users who reported having control over their daily life, based on responses to surveys sent to service users, higher than the London average of 72.5%. The higher the score, the more service users had control. Score based on those responding: ‘I have as much control over my daily life as I want’ or ‘I have adequate control over my daily life’ to: ‘Which of the following statements best describes how much control you have over your daily life?’ ‘Service users’ definition: People receiving partly or wholly supported care from their local authority and not wholly private, self-funded care. Children, Families, Health and Care - Adult Social Care Service User Survey Responses (3) Every two years, a survey is sent to randomly selected carers. This provides an excellent way for carers to feed back on a multitude of topics. It’s also helpful for Hillingdon and the government to understand carers’ views so that services can continue to be improved. In 2024/25, Hillingdon scored 6.8 out of 12, for carer- related quality of life, based on responses to surveys sent to carers, lower than London (7.2). The higher the score, the better quality of life. The score takes into consideration: -occupation -control -personal care -safety -social participation -encouragement/support. ‘Carer’ definition: Person providing unpaid support, where they have: -received ongoing support during the year, even if no review of those arrangements took place And/or -have been assessed or reviewed for support during the year, even if no support was provided. Children, Families, Health and Care - Adult Social Care Carer Survey Responses (1) Carer-reported quality of life In 2024/25, Hillingdon achieved a carer satisfaction score of36.3% for care and support services—based on survey responses from carers. This isabove the London average of 33.0%, indicating relatively higher satisfaction among local carers. The score reflects those who responded with 'extremely satisfied'or 'very satisfied'to the question: “Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the support or services you and the person you care for have received from Social Services in the last 12 months?” The term ‘carer’ refers to individuals providing unpaid support who either received ongoing support during the year (even without a formal review) or were assessed or reviewed for support (even if no support was ultimately provided). Children, Families, Health and Care - Adult Social Care Carer Survey Responses (2) Overall satisfaction of carers with social services In 2024/25, Hillingdon’s proportion of staff in the formal care workforce leaving their role was 14.9%, below the London average of 20.1%. It is based on directly employed staff only, agency staff are not included in these estimates. Higher staff leaver rates indicate that a greater share of social care staff have left their roles in the previous 12 months. A lower turnover rate reflects greater workforce stability and consistency, which supports better outcomes for residents. Children, Families, Health and Care - Adult Social Care Staff Turnover There is concern about the rise of childhood obesity and the implications of obesity persisting into adulthood. The risk of obesity in adulthood and risk of future obesity-related ill health are greater as children get older. Studies tracking child obesity into adulthood have found that the probability of children who are overweight or living with obesity becoming overweight or obese adults increases with age. The health consequences of childhood obesity include Type 2 Diabetes, hypertension and the exacerbation of conditions such as asthma and psychological problems such as social isolation, low self-esteem, teasing and bullying. 19.9% of Reception children were overweight or living with obesity in 2024/25, lower than both London and England. Children, Families, Health and Care – Public Health, prevalence of overweight (including obesity) in Reception aged children Year 6 prevalence of overweight (including obesity) was 36.2% in 2024/25; this represents a difference of 16.3 percentage points from Reception to Year 6, similar to London but higher than England differences (16.2 and 12.7). Hillingdon’s trend is below England for Reception but above England for Year 6. Reducing childhood obesity is a strategic priority for Hillingdon’s Health andWellbeing Board throughout 2025-28. Children, Families, Health and Care – Public Health, prevalence of overweight (including obesity) in Year 6 children This is the percentage of respondents aged 19 and over, doing less than 30 moderate intensity equivalent (MIE) minutes' physical activity per week in bouts of 10 minutes or more in the previous 28 days expressed as a percentage of the total number of respondents. In 2024/25, the percentage of physically inactive adults in Hillingdon was 30.8%, above the London average of 21.9%. Children, Families, Health and Care – Public Health, physical activity (adults) Cabinet Member: Cllr Adam Bennett Portfolio: Community, Environment and Enforcement Our commitments to residents Safe and strong communities A green and sustainable borough Corporate Director: Dan Kennedy, Residents Services Anti-social behaviour (ASB) and crime - Anti-social behaviour remains persistently high — monthly ASB enquiries average over 600 per month, with some seasonal variation but no real sign of a sustained drop. Relative performance is better than London overall — despite the high absolute numbers, Hillingdon has consistently lower rates than the London average. Crime levels are also high and fairly stable — recorded crime averages around 2,600 incidents per month, fluctuating month to month but without a major directional shift. Fly-tipping enforcement - Enforcement activity is exceptionally low relative to London — Hillingdon records 24 enforcement actions per 1,000 incidents, compared with a London average of 638.9. Data coverage is part of the caveat — the incidents shown are only those reported to the local authority and exclude incidents reported directly to the Environment Agency. What it means in practice — this is presented less as a clean performance judgment and more as a reminder that enforcement statistics need context before drawing conclusions.

Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Only the start of this long document is shown here. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.

Relevant Committee
Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in)
Officer(s) to action
Directorate
Classification
6. Council Budget - 2025/26 Draft Outturn Position PDF 1 MB
RESOLVED: That the Cabinet: 1) Note the 2025/26 General Fund Overview as set out in Section 1 of the report; 2) Note the 2025/26 Revenue Outturn position as set out in Section 2 of the report; 3) Note the 2025/26 Capital Outturn position as set out in Section 2 of the report; 4) Approve the General Fund Capital Budgets to be carried forward into 2026/27 as per Section 2 of the Report; 5) Approve the updated Reserves Levels as set out in Section 2; 6) Note the HRA Outturn Position and Carry Forward Amounts as set out in Section 2 of the Report; 7) Approve the bringing forward of £11.6m of funding from 2027/28 (where there is £39.3m budgeted) into 2026/27 to allow for the demolition works on the Hayes Regeneration Scheme; 8) Note the DSG Deficit Position as set out in Section 2 of the Report; 9) Note the final Treasury Position for the year (including the Prudential Indicators). 10) Appoint Cabinet Members to the following bodies; a. Shareholder Committee - Cllr Steve Tuckwell (Chair); Cllr Richard Mills (Vice-Chair); Cllr Eddie Lavery; Cllr Susan O’Brien and Cllr Nick Denys. b. West London Economic Prosperity Board – Cllr Steve Tuckwell (re-appointment); 11) Approve acceptance of £310,000 of grant funding from the Violence Reduction Unit (VRU) for 2026/27 and 2027/28 for direct investment in prevention activity for children at risk of suspension and exclusion from school. 12) Approve acceptance of £255,000 of capital grant funding from the GLA’s Green Roots Fund, for the delivery of three river restoration projects within the Yeading Brook/Crane Catchment. 13) Approve acceptance of DfE Arts Council Music Hub £147k Capital Grant for musical instruments, equipment, and technology to benefit children and young people. 14) Approve the acceptance of capital grant funding paid by MHCLG from Round 4 of the Local Authority Housing Fund, with Hillingdon’s allocation totalling £14,713,800. Reasons for decision On behalf of the Cabinet Member for Finance, the Leader of the Council introduced the 2025/26 budget outturn report, noting that it reflected both the scale of financial challenges and clear progress made. The General Fund position had stabilised since Month 6, with an improvement of £7.7 million, although an overspend of £29 million remained. This improvement was attributed to stronger financial control, departmental underspends, additional grant income and improved corporate oversight, alongside some technical adjustments. The Leader advised that the Dedicated Schools Grant position had improved, with the in - year deficit reduced to £9.9 million, reflecting progress in reducing reliance on costly placements and strengthening local provision, although the cumulative deficit remained significant. The Housing Revenue Account remained stable with £15 million in reserves, supporting continued investment in housing. Delivery of the capital programme remained strong, including acquisitions and regeneration activity, with variances largely due to timing rather than underperformance. Furthermore, the Council’s reserves position had strengthened following the Exceptional Financial Support settlement, improving financial resilience. The Deputy Chief Finance Officer advised that the outturn marked further progress in the Council’s financial recovery, supported by Exceptional Financial Support, although reserves remained below the London average and capacity for transformation remained limited. Capital carry?forwards would continue to be reviewed against priorities, and Dedicated Schools Grant funding later in the year would support cash flow, with final accounts expected by mid - July. Cabinet noted the report and agreed the recommendations. Alternative options considered and rejected None. Relevant Committee Audit, Finance & Performance Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) The Committee will have the opportunity to review this report. However, Cabinet’s decisions on this matter can still be called in by a majority of the Committee by 5pm, Friday 3 July 2026. If not called-in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Pete Carpenter / Andy Goodwin / Matt Davis 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
📄 Council Budget - 2025/26 Draft Outturn Position PDF 1 MB
Read the text of this document (38 pages)
Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) COUNCIL BUDGET – 2025/26 DRAFT OUTTURN POSITION Cabinet Member & Portfolio Councillor Eddie Lavery Cabinet Member for Finance Responsible Officer Pete Carpenter, Deputy s151 Officer Report Author & Directorate Matt Davis, Director of Strategic & Operational Finance Andy Goodwin, Head of Strategic Finance Papers with report Appendices A1-A4 HEADLINES Overview This report provides the Council's draft outturn financial position and performance against the 2025/26 revenue and capital budgets. At Outturn, the Council is reporting an overspend of £28.985m, representing a positive movement of £7.763m on Month 10:  £3.868m of this reduction is linked to underspending in Service Departments.  £3.895m is a positive variance in corporate budgets of which the vast majority is linked to timing differences of Collection Fund transactions which become payable in 2026/27 and 2027/28. £7.350m of this difference will be used to rebuild Earmarked Reserves used to balance the final 2024/25 Outturn position resulting in a net £0.413m reduction in the overall outtu rn position to a £36.335m overspend. The 2025/6 revenue monitorin g po sition was stabilised from month 6 due to the work being undertaken in the Finance Modernisation Programme , including increased focus on financial compliance to process. Over a number of years, the Council has adopted a strategy of doing all it can to maintain quality services whilst keeping the costs to residents as low as possible, through transforming how the Council operates and its consequent costs. However, like many local authorities across the country Hillingdon is facing financial challenges related to the increase of inflation rates across all of its service areas, utilities and running costs, as well as increases in demands for services following the Covid-19 pandemic and the impact of the recent Government National Insurance increase. As these pressures intensified, the Council undertook a detailed review of its financial position and the sustainability of its medium-term finances. In the summer of 2025, the council’s extern al auditors issued a Section 24 Statement citing concerns across: financial governance and oversight; budget setting and savings realism; financial Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) management capacity; monitoring and accountability; and medium -term sustainability planning. This had already been identified by the council and actions had been taken to address these issues. Significant improvements are now underway. The council’s Governance Review Improvement Plan (GRIP) and the Finance Modernisation Programme (FMP), both introduced at the s tart of 2025, are strengthening financial controls, accountability and oversight. As a consequence of the low level of reserves in the 2024/25 accounts and the 2025/26 reported financial position, the council successfully applied to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) for Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) to manage the curr ent challenge. Without EFS, the council could not have set a legally balanced budget in 2026/27. The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) outturn position presents a reduced in-year deficit for 2025/26 in respect of the High Needs Block, decreasing from £14.8m to £10.2m (a net reduction of £4.6m on 2024/25). This reflects the impact of a range of interventions that have partially mitigated ongoing demand pressures within the High Needs Block. The overall in -year deficit is £9.9m, resulting in a cumulative DSG de ficit of £75.8m. The Department for Education (DfE) has announced the introduction of the High Needs Stability Grant, which is expected to fund up to 90% of the cumulative DSG deficit, subject to the submission and approval of a robust SEND reform plan, payment is expected in Autumn 2026. Based on the DfE’s indicative methodology, the Council anticipates receiving approximately £71.8m. This would leave a residual deficit of approximately £4.0m to be managed by the Council. The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) is reporting a breakeven position at outturn, with all service areas within the ringfence ultimately funded with the available rent yield, with a shortfall in rent being offset by a reduced capital financing cost. The Capital Programme Outturn position is £252.9m against a Budget of £343.6m. This is split between:  General Fund - £74.5m against a budget of £124.5m  Housing Revenue Account - £178.4m against a budget of £219.1m 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 N/A Relevant Committee Audit, Finance & Performance Ward(s) All Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet: 1. Note the 2025/26 General Fund Overview as set out in Section 1 of the report; 2. Note the 2025/26 Revenue Outturn position as set out in Section 2 of the report; 3. Note the 2025/26 Capital Outturn position as set out in Section 2 of the report; 4. Approve the General Fund Capital Budgets to be carried forward into 2026/27 as per Section 2 of the Report; 5. Approve the updated Reserves Levels as set out in Section 2; 6. Note the HRA Outturn Position and Carry Forward Amounts as set out in Section 2 of the Report; 7. Approve the bring ing forward of £11.6m of funding from 2027/28 (where there is £39.3m budgeted) into 2026/27 to allow for the demolition works on the Hayes Regeneration Scheme; 8. Note the DSG Deficit Position as set out in Section 2 of the Report; 9. Note the final Treasury Position for the year (including the Prudential Indicators). 10. Appoint Cabinet Members to the following bodies; a) Shareholder Committee - Cllr Steve Tuckwell (Chair); Cllr Richard Mills (Vice - Chair); Cllr Eddie Lavery; Cllr Susan O’Brien and Cllr Nick Denys. b) West London Economic Prosperity Board – Cllr Steve Tuckwell (re- appointment); 11. Approve acceptance of £310,000 of grant funding from the Violence Reduction Unit (VRU) for 2026/27 and 2027/28 for direct investment in prevention activity for children at risk of suspension and exclusion from school. 12. Approve acceptance of £255,000 of capital grant funding from the GLA’s Green Roots Fund, for the delivery of three river restoration projects within the Yeading Brook/Crane Catchment. 13. Approve acceptance of DfE Arts Council Music Hub £147k Capital Grant for musical instruments, equipment, and technology to benefit children and young people. 14. Approve the acceptance of capital grant funding paid by MHCLG from Round 4 of the Local Authority Housing Fund, with Hillingdon’s allocation totalling £14,713,800. Reasons for recommendation 1. The reason for Recommendations 1 to 9 is to ensure that the Council achieves its budgetary objectives, providing Cabinet with the update on performance at year end 2025/26 against budgets approved by Council on 27 February 2025. An update on the Council's Treasury Management activities is included within this section of the report. Recommendation 10 updates, following the election, the Council’s representation on: i. The Shareholder Committee, a formal Cabinet sub -committee which discharges the shareholder functions in respect of the Council’s two wholly -owned companies: Hillingdon First Ltd. and The Hillingdon Care Company. ii. The West London Economic Prosperity Board, a formal joint committee of West London boroughs, where the Term of Office expired at the election. 2. As both bodies relate to executive functions, appointments must be made by the Cabinet Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) 3. Recommendation 11 requests acceptance of grant funding that has been o ffered by the VRU for the period April 2026 to March 2028 which, if accepted by Cabinet, will be utilised to cover the staffing costs associated with targeted prevention initiatives that reduce exclusions and serious youth violence, improve engagement in e ducation, and support vulnerable children and families who are affected by school exclusion. The funding enables collaboration with schools and partners to provide early intervention and tailored support, helping young people stay in education and reducing the need for statutory intervention. 4. Recommendation 12 requests acceptance of capital grant funding for three schemes (Grange Park, Queens Walk East and Queens Walk West) , with these projects aiming to restore natural river processes, enhance biodiversity , improve water quality, and strengthen climate resilience across the Yeading Brook corridor. They will also create new opportunities for community engagement, volunteering, and long -term stewardship through partners including ZSL and local residents’ groups. 5. Recommendation 13 requests acceptance of capital funding from the Department of Education (DfE) to fund music related services which includes adapted / adaptive instruments for children and young people with SEND and provision for music technology. 6. Recommendation 14 requests acceptance of capital funding of £14.7m from the MHCLG under the Local Authority Housing Fund initiative which runs from 2026/27 to 2029/30 aiming to increase affordable housing across the country , with this funding linked to the Council’s Housing Revenue Account and temporary accommodation strategies. Alternative options considered / risk management 7. There are no other options proposed for consideration. Committee comments None at this stage. The Audit, Finance & Performance Committee will consider the Outturn position at their meeting on 15 July 2026, as part of their overview and scrutiny role. Legal There is no specific statutory requirement prescribing the timing or content of in -year budget monitoring reports to Cabinet. However, under section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972, the Council is required to make proper arrangements for the administration of its financial affairs, and the Council’s s151 Officer has an ongoing duty to ensure that the Council maintains a balanced budget. In practice, regular budget monitoring reports to Members form a key part of demonstrating compliance with these duties, consistent with the expectations of the CIPFA Financial Management Code and external audit. It is accordingly in keeping with the principles of good governance for the Outturn report to be brought to Cabinet, in relation to the Council’s budget position. Any relevant legal implications are referred to elsewhere within the body of this report. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) SECTION 1 - GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW SUMMARY GENERAL FUND REVENUE 8. The General Fund Outturn position reports an overspend of £ 28.985m representing a improved position of £ 7.763m from the Month 10 update presented to Cabinet . This improvement is split between departmental budgets with a £3.868m improvement and Corporate Budgets with a £3.985m improvement. 9. The Council has continued to work through the Finance Modernisation Programme, which is focused on modernising financial processes, capability an d understanding across the Council, bringing in best practice and supporting the Council in its work to improve its financial position, this process is being done with partners Grant Thornton with oversight from the Local Government Association. 10. The below table sets out the 2025/26 outturn position against the Month 10 Cabinet update. Table 1 Revenue Outturn Position 11. This position is £7.763m less than the previously forecast overspend position that has been reported since Month 6. 12. £3.868 is an improvement to the departmental position, for which the det ail is set out in Section 2. This includes the reallocation of funding from corporate budgets to match grant usage. This underspend position is a 0.4% improvement against the gross budget a nd a 1.4% improvement against the net budget. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) 13. £3.895m is an improvement in corporate budgets of which the vast majority is linked to timing differences of Collection Fund transactions which become payable in 2026/27 and 2027/28. As such this “underspend” will need to be transferred to an Earmarked Reserve. 14. £7.350m of this difference will be used to rebuild Earmarked Reserves used to balance the final 2024/25 Outturn position resulting in a net £0.413m reduction in the overall outturn position to a £36.335m overspend. This is set out in more detail in paragraph 23. 15. The Government’s Fair Funding Review 2.0 s hows that from 2026/27 funding will migrate outwards from Inner London boroughs to Outer London, with this review having been delayed due to the pandemic. Whilst it is recognised that the Council has had to operate within the funding settlement for 2025/26, it is also recognised that should the Fair Funding Review have taken place when originally planned, the Council’s position is likely to have been significantly more favourable. 16. The outcome has produced new allocations for the three -year period from 2026/27. The council was pleased that Hillingdon’s funding needs have at last been recognised, with Core Spending Power rising from £290.3 million in 2025/26 to £395.6 million in 2028/29. However, this increase will be phased in over three year and assumes the full 4.99 % Council Tax increases over this period. 17. The closing Reserves Position for 2024/25 is set out in the table below. These reserves were deemed to be inadequate by the Section 151 Officer, and the Council entered conversations with MHCLG around the possibility of seeking Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) from the Government. Table 2 – Closing 2024/25 Reserve Position 18. Following the negotiations set out in paragraph 17 above, the Government were “minded to” award the Council the following Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) amounts: i. 2025/26 - £88m ii. 2026/27 - £62m iii. 2027/28 - £23m 19. The Council has submitted data to MHCLG for validation of the “minded to” amounts but in common with other Councils in the process is still awaiting a final response. 20. The 2025/26 Outturn position assumed £40m to rebuild reserves, £40m to cover the £2025/26 overspend position and £4m of headroom. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) 21. The 2025/6 Outturn position is £28.985m, representing a positive movement of £7.763m on Month 10. As part of the 2024/25 closure process, £9.329m of Earmarked Reserves were used to support the General Fund with the view that these would need to be built back as part of the 2025/26 closure process. £7.350m of this positive movement will be used to build back the following Earmarked Reserves which were significantly reduced as part of the 2024/25 closure process: i. Business Rates Smoothing Reserve (Payments in 26/27 & 27/28) - £3.500m ii. Insurance Reserve - £2.000m iii. Planning Reserves - £0.850m iv. Risk Reserves (inflation Pressures) - £1.000m 22. The Council’s outturn position applies £ 83m of the EFS amount . This represents a £5m reduction of the initial “minded to” decision and will save the Council circa £0.4m a year in debt charges. This outturn position builds back the following reserves: i. General Fund - £40.000m in total ii. Final Overspend Position - £28.985m iii. Rebuilding of Earmarked Reserves as per Paragraph 14 - £7.350m iv. Rebuilding of Risk Reserve to ensure the Council has the funds to transform and move to a sustainable budget - £6.665m 23. The closing Reserves Position is as follows: Table 3 – Closing 2025/26 Reserves Position 24. It should be noted that comparing these total reserves figure (General Fund plus Earmarked Reserves) of £67.821m, it is still significantly less than the average figure across London as set out in their 2024/25 Accounts of £137.7m (£18.6m General Fund, £119.1m Earmarked Reserves). This does not include the Schools Reserve. 25. The departmental contributions to and from reserves are set out in Appendix A1. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) Capital Position Summary – General Fund 26. The General Fund capital position was a spend of £74.4m against a budget of £124.5m - an underspend position of £ 50.0m. The outturn of £7 4.4m compares to a forecast at Period 9 (February Cabinet report) of £76.6m . More detail on specific positions are set out in the Capital section. 27. Due to this level of underspending, there are a signif icant number of projects where the business is requesting to carry forward amounts into the 2026/27 financial year. These items are set out in Appendix A 1 for approval and amount to £ 22.9m (previously forecast and reported in Period 9 to be £50.0m). The remainder of the amounts will be approved as part of the M2 2026/.27 Monitoring Report in July. HRA Summary 28. The H ousing Revenue Account (H RA) is reporting a Break -Even po sition. The 2025/26 closing HRA General Balance is £15.0m, in line with the target level set out in the Council’s budget strategy. 29. The HRA Capital Programme outturn position for 2025/26 was £178.4m against an approved budget of £219.1m, resulting in a variance of £40.8m. The £178.4m outturn compares to the Period 9 forecast of £186.4m . Part of the variance relates to project rephasing, with £8.1m slipping into 2026/27 as acquisitions are legally completed, and constructed houses move through handover stage Dedicated Schools Grant and Schools Summary 30. The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) recorded an in -year deficit of £9.9m at the end of 2025/26, a marked improvement from the £15.0m deficit in 2024/25, reflecting the impact of mitigation measures implemented by the Council. Howe ver, ongoing pressures , primarily within the High Needs Block due to rising demand, placement costs, and insufficient funding from the Department for Education (DfE) , continue to dr ive overspending. As a result, the cumulative DSG deficit increased to £75. 8m by 31 March 2026. Although statutory override remains in place until March 2028 to ringfence this deficit and protect general reserves, the scale of the shortfall highlights continued financial challenges within SEND provision. 31. Encouragingly, the DfE ha s announced a High Needs Stability Grant, which could cover up to 90% of the Council’s cumulative DSG deficit, subject to approval of a robust SEND reform plan, with funding expected in Autumn 2026. Based on current estimates, this would provide approximately £71.8m, leaving a residual pressure of around £4.0m for the Council to manage. Collection Fund Position 32. The Collection Fund is reporting an overall deficit of £7.4m at outturn, an adverse movement from Month 10 of £2.4m . This is mainly driven by the prior year deficit on Council Tax of Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) £10.7m included within the position , with Council Tax and Business Rates reporting in -year surpluses of £1.86m and £0.784m respectively. 33. However, the Business Rates position includes a shortfall in Business Rates income of £4.8m which reflects the difficult economic conditions many businesses in the borough are experiencing, with a higher income than expected from the Section 31 Grant of £0.825m and an underspend on budgeted Growth Levy of £4.756m driving the overall Business Rates surplus. 34. Lower business rate income for 2025/26 was anticipated in the 2026/27 budget setting process and the shortfall itself is deferred via the Collection Fund Adjustment Account . However, the Levy on Business Rate growth in 2025/26 fell as the result of the in-year shortfall and is not deferred by the Collection Fund Adjustment Account. The differences in required accounting treatment therefore result in a lower Levy in the 2025/26 accounts, whereas the deficit does not impact the General Fund until future years. Treasury Position 35. External borrowing was required during 2025/26 to finance the capital programme and ensure liquidity was maintained. The total loan portfolio increased by £140.03m, leaving a balance at year-end of £657.51m (GF £317.39m, HRA £340.12m) 36. Over the year the Council’s loan portfolio had an average interest rate of 4.07% (4.44% 2024/25). Interest paid over the year totalled £23.46m (GF £10.54m, HRA £12.92m), an increase of £6.94m from 2024/25 due to the increasing level of debt. 37. The investment income return for the year on day -to-day operational treasury balances excluding strategic pooled funds was 4.02% (4.93% 2024/25), resulting in income for 2025/26 of £2,066k (£2,349k in 2024/25), the reduction due to falling market interest rates. 38. The Council can confirm that it complied with the Treasury Indicators for 2025/26 per the Prudential Code, set in February 2025 as part of the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) SECTION 2 - DETAIL 2025/26 Revenue Outturn Position Service and Corporate Operating Budgets 39. The following are the major changes since P10: Finance - £0.340m Improvement since P10 Statutory Accounts, Investments and Pensions - £1.201m Favourable. Mainly due to favourable movements on interest (£454k) and investment returns (£841k) offset by a contribution to Earmarked Reserves for the Finance Modernisation Programme (£350k) Strategic & Operational Finance - £0.608m Adverse. Adverse movement of £617k reflecting agency staffing movements between Strategic & Operations of £35k, £66.7k Public Health Grant was assumed in staffing, included in recharges and adverse movements on the Housing Benefit Subsidy £460k Strategic Finance - £0.253 Adverse. Mainly due to assumed recharges to HRA (£241k) and Schools (£100k), which could not be realised. Adult Social Care £0.541m Adverse movement since P10 Dir of Adult Social Services - £3.200m Favourable o £1.55m Fav - Integrated Care Board (Health) contribution for community equipment not forecast o £0.700m Fav - Minimum NHS contribution income to Better Care Fund not forecast o £0.650m Fav - Duplicate forecast for care cost inflation o £0.300m Fav - Direct Payment clawbacks higher than forecast Safeguarding £0.600m Favourable - Integrated Care Board income for community equipment overperformance not forecast ASC Placements - £1.300m Favourable- o £0.900m Fav - Direct Payment clawbacks higher than forecast o £0.400m Fav - Legal provision release, write-off budgets not being utilised and the increase in bad debt provision being less than forecast Hospital and Localities - £0.300m Adverse - Expenditure relating to minimum NHS contribution income to Better Care Fund not forecast Public Health Budget - £1.343m Adverse - Previous forecasts did not include full range of relevant codes £4.00m Movement to Earmarked Reserves Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) Children & Young People - £0.711m Improvement since P10 This Favourable improvement is mainly attributable to a £0.2m underspend on legal costs, alongside a reduction in Cared for Children placement costs. The reduction in placement costs reflects increased recharges received from the ICB and children moving from higher-cost external placements into in-house residential provision. This shift supports the Council’s wider sufficiency and value-for-money strategy, reducing reliance on expensive external placements while improving cost control and placement stability for children. Place - £2.256m Improvement since P10 Property Services - £0.539m adverse movement driven by: o £0.400m reduction in admin fee income driven by fewer property disposals than forecast at M10. o £0.100m S106 funding was forecasted in M10, however in M12 it was identified this funding stream had been exhausted. Operational Assets - £0.168m favourable movement driven by HRA funding of FM works, previously thought to be charged to Operational Assets. Environmental and Leisure - £2.236m favourable movement driven by: o -£1.300m increased income for EPR grant - previously held centrally. o -£0.600m increased income from Breakspear Crematorium, due to increased cremations and recovery of previously written off debt. o -£0.150m staffing underspend in Waste. o -£0.100m increased Household Refuse & Recycling Centre trade income. o -£0.063m reduction of Power Day Waste Weekends rental costs Planning, Regeneration and Environment - '£0.391m favourable movement due to higher-than-normal pre-applications and minor applications received in M12. Homes and Communities - £2.297m Improvement since P10 Housing - £1.907m Favourable o B&B Headlease payable to Landlords: The month 10 forecast included outstanding invoices dating back to the 1st April 2024 (2 Years). The approach at 2024-25 close of accounts was to only accrue for invoices due in the current financial year. This was a change in approach from previous years and satisfied the auditors. The accrual at year end 2025/26 was therefore for invoices due in 2025/26 only, creating a favourable movement of £765k o B&B Bad Debt: The Month 10 forecast included an adjustment for rent charged on Chagos Rent accounts. This client group is under R99 - Resettlement and Strategic Partnership, not R81 Housing. There is a contra movement under R99 £500k o Recharge to section 106 funding - £500k favourable o Year reconciliation of rental income from the Housing System to the GL - £138k favourable Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) Community Safety and Enforcement - 'Favourable movement £0.548m driven by: o -£0.300m increased income in the Imported Food Unit. o -£0.250m reimbursement of costs from the Landlord for the Waking Watch. o -£0.200m improvement in Parking non-staff costs due to forecast spend not materialising. o Offsetting the following pressures: o -£0.120m reduced funding in the CCTV service; £0.070m costs not recharged to the HRA & £0.050m Transformation funding not utilised. o -£0.100m pressure due to the M10 forecast excluding Proceeds of Crime Act income which is shared with the Metropolitan Police. Community Services - 'Favourable movement of £0.407m driven by: o -£0.179m favourable movement for Battle of Britain Bunker made up of £0.111m in reduced non-staff costs and a £0.068m increase in visitor income. o -£0.109m underspend in the Leisure Centre due to a reduction in building maintenance costs o £0.154m Libraries underspend due to staffing costs recharged to the Household Support Fund, agreed in M12. Resettlement and Strategic Partnership - £565k Adverse o B&B Headlease payable to Landlords: The month 10 forecast included outstanding invoices dating back to the 1st April 2024 (2 Years). The approach at 2024-25 close of accounts was to only accrue for invoices due in the current financial year. This was a change in approach from previous years and satisfied the auditors. The accrual at year end 2025/26 was therefore for invoices due in 2025/26 only, creating a favourable movement of £139k o B&B Bad Debt (£500k): The Month 10 forecast included an adjustment for rent charged on Chagos Rent accounts under R81 Housing. This client group is under R99 - Resettlement and Strategic Partnership, not R81 Housing. There is a contra movement under R81. o B&B Bad Debt (£195k): Final year end calculation and reconciliation of the provision held on the balance sheet Chief Operating Officer - £1.071m Adverse movement since P10 Procurement – adverse movement £587k. Reduction in flexible use of capital receipts £349k forecast in M10, £270k Provision created for Procurement savings (Planned funding from flexible use of capital receipts, however not forecast in M10). Transformation – adverse movement £226k, reduction in flexible use of capital receipts of £241k offset by staffing underspend and £4k income from other services (Crematorium) Technology – favourable movement of £95k, an underspend of £480k across contracts and licences offset by £284k reduction in use of flexible capital receipts and £86k reduction in recharge from capital. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) Digital – Adverse movement £381k, £355k reduction in the use of flexible capital receipts, £28k reduction in recharges to capital offset by £2.5k favourable non staffing movement Resident Hub – favourable movement £28k, consisting of £36k underspend on various none staffing expenditure, offset by £3k on Staffing and £4k on income ** Note that during the year the council changed its approach to transformation funding reflecting its funding position and most transformation where required being funded through operational budgets. Chief Executive £0.124m Adverse movement since P10 Democratic Services – favourable movement £60k. Over-achieved on Income, underspent on various areas of material purchase and supplies and services and a small underspend on staffing. Legal – adverse movement £108k. £203k reduction in use of flexible capital receipts. Underspend on computer software and Counsel fees, under recovery on recharges compared to M10 forecast, underspend on staffing. Human Resources –Adverse movement £103k. £187k reduction in use of flexible capital receipts offset by £31k underspend on advertising appointments and £22k underspend on L&D. Communications – favourable movement £27k Minor underspends across various non staffing £20k and additional income of £7k (Hillingdon People) Savings Tracker 40. The final savings tracker for 2025/26 is set out below: Table 4: Savings Tracker Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) 41. At outturn, £17.8m (46%) of the savings and interventions are being recorded as banked, with a further £1.2m (3%) on track for delivery, with a further £1.1m (3%) being at initial stages of delivery. In addition, £4.1m (11%) are being reported as having pote ntial challenges in delivery, with alternative delivery methods being delivered in-year where appropriate, with the savings ultimately expected to be delivered in full. A further £14.4m of savings have been written out of the Council’s budget from 2025/26. It should be noted that the 2026/27 budget approved by Council in February 2026 built back £61.3m into base budget s. This ensured that the starting point for managers to manage their budgets reflected the financial position of the past 2 years and known pressures in 2026/27. This difference was funded via the EFS application. Transformation savings 42. As part of the 2025/26 budget process, transformation initiatives of £17m, to be funded from Capital receipts were agreed. 43. These initiatives were reviewed as part of the 2025/26 monthly monitoring process , and the month 6 monitoring set out that to support the delivery of the savings programme, the Council would be utilising £5.7m of capital receipts to fund transformation costs, in line with Government guidance. This was a significant reduction over what was agreed in the budget and reflected the Councils financial position and the availability and prioritisation of resources. 44. The final outturn position is that transformation initiatives totalled £3.642m - with these being funded from Capital Receipts.: i. Finance - £0.442m ii. Adults and Health - £0.092m iii. Children, Families and Young People - £0.695m iv. Place - £0.075m v. Homes and Communities - £0.492m vi. Chief Operating Officer - £1,800m vii. Chief Executive - £0.046m Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) 2025/26 Capital outturn position including Carried Forward Amounts 45. The Council General Fund final capital outturn was £74.5m against a budget of £ 124.5m. This is £2m reduction on the position reported at Period 9. Full detail of the Capital Programme is set out in Appendix A2. 46. As at year-end, a total variance of £ 50.0m is reported against the 202 5/26 approved capital programme. This comprises a cost variance underspend of £1.5m and a rephasing proposed slippage variance of £48.5m into 2026/27. These variances are presented in Table 5 and those 100% grant funded are recommended to Cabinet for approval , including proposed rephasing into 2026/27. 47. These totals include rephasing amounts of which i. £22.9m are fully funded by Grant (Green in Appendix A2) ii. £12.4m are partially funded by Grant (Yellow in Appendix A2) iii. £13.2m are funded from Council Resources. 48. It is proposed that those items that are 100% funded by Grant (listed in Appendix A2) are approved to be carried forward, but those items that are partially Grant funded or funded from Council resources are reviewed over the next month and a final decision made as part of the 2026/27 Month 2 Monitoring which will be presented in July 49. Across the five-year programme to 2028/29, the General Fund Capital Programme is forecast to remain within the overall approved budget envelope, with variances reflecting the timing of expenditure rather than permanent underspends, except where specific cost pressures have been formally declared. Table 5 General Fund Capital Programme Summary Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) 50. The principal risks and variances associated with this position are summarised in the following paragraphs by Cabinet Portfolio: i. Resident’s Services – Programmes within the Resident’s Services Directorate report a total variance of £ 45.2m in 2025/26, comprising a rephasing variance of £44.5m and a cost variance of £ 0.7m underspend. The key rephasing is primarily driven by key schemes, including Hillingdon Water Sports Facility of (£7.0), Schools Building Condition Works (£6. 3), D.F.G (£4.4), Harefield Family Hub new building (£2.2m) and the Special Resource Provision programme (£10.1m). Further significant rephasing is reported on variance in Investment in Home Care Capacity (£3.3m), Secondary school expansions (£4.8m) and Otterfield Road Library (£1.4m), alongside (£5.0m) of rephasing acro ss several smaller schemes. This position is partially offset by £ 6.8m overspend comprising of Civic Centre transformation, Jubilee Leisure Centre and Carbon initiatives schemes which are broadly offset by (£7.5m) of underspend across a range of other projects . All ongoing major project are proposed for rephasing into 2026/27, with major schemes expected to deliver within their approved budget. Community & Environment comprise of one capital scheme with a small capital budget of £0.2m, the scheme reported an underspend of £0.1m in 2025/26. ii. Corporate Services – This directorate reports a total variance of £5.0m for 2025/26, comprising a cost variance of £1.1m underspend and a rephasing variance of £3.9m. The cost variance is primarily driven by a (£ 1.1m) underspend within the Corporate Technology and Innovation Programme with a further (£3.9m) of rephasing into 2026/7 reflecting changes in delivery timelines. iii. Finance – The Finance & Transformation portfolio reports a net variance of £0.9m in 2025/26, comprising a £2.4m underspend relating to the Purchase of Vehicles offset by a overspend of £1.5m on the Devolved Capital to Schools capital scheme. iv. Adult Service and Health – The Adult Services and Health reports a cost var iance of £1.2m for 2025/26 reflecting an overspend on the Equipment Capitalisation – Social scheme. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) Capital Financing - General Fund Table 6: Capital Financing 51. Table 6 provides the financing position for the General Fund Capital Programme for 2025/26. Total financing applied during the year was £7 4.5m, compared to the approved budget of £124.5m. This reflects the wider rephasing of capital projects into future years, with financing requirements deferred in line with forecast project delivery. 52. Financing in 202 5/26 was primarily sourced from Prudential Borrowing (£ 52.7m), external Grants & Contributions (£ 16.5m), Section 106 (£2.6m), and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding (£2.7m). Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) HRA Outturn Position 53. The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) is reporting a breakeven position in line with the Month 10 update. The 2025/26 closing HRA General Balance is £15.0m, in line with the target level set out in the Council’s budget strategy. The table below presents key variances after a £11.7m transfer to balances that contributes to financing the capital programme. Table 7: Housing Revenue Account 54. At Month 12 rental income and other incomes report a £0.1m pressure. An additional 291 homes that were acquired or built were let to tenants t hat increased rental income. Rental income was reduced by 99 units sold under Right to Buy (RTB) that was 74 units higher than budget following the Government change to RTB rules in November 2024. The volume and duration of voids were higher than budget as homes acquired needed repairs and refurbishment to meet decent homes standards. 55. The HRA Operating Costs Budget is £38.8m and at outturn posted a £2.8m overspend. The operational variance related to service improvements undertaken to meet regulator updates, and also to meet the demand for more social housing with a focus on providing more stable housing for homeless clients. 56. The detail behind the service delivery of the blocks included in table 7 are as follows: i. Operational Assets budget funds the services provided for repairs and maintenance, void repairs, compliance and inspections. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) ii. The Director of Housing budget includes tenancy management and tenants’ services. The budgets include utility costs, and these will continue to be monitored given the volatility of the electricity and gas markets in recent times. iii. The Other Service Areas budget includes the Careline contract, HRA specific ICT costs and the revenue regeneration costs. iv. The Contribution to Shared Services budget includes the development and risk contingency, overheads and corporate and democratic core charges, and the bad debt provision. 57. The MTFS savings target was £1.0m with this saving not being delivered by virtue of the Council’s general fund savings against support services undergoing transformation th at remains in progress. Notably the HRA consumed more support services as it also began its own improvement programmes, hence the recharge to the HRA for these support services could not be reduced. 58. As at Month 12 the capital programme financing budget of £46.9m is reporting an underspend of £2.7m. Depreciation was £0.7m under budget as work to stock and higher than average volume of acquisitions took effect. Revenue contributions to fund the HRA capital programme was £3.7m under budget in line with reduc ed expenditure. Interest on borrowing was a net £2.3m over budget as loans that had been refinanced were at higher interest rates. HRA Capital Expenditure 59. Table 8 sets out the HRA Capital Programme outturn position for 2025/26. Total expenditure for the year was £178.4m against an approved budget of £219.1m, resulting in a variance of £40.8m. Part of the variance relates to project rephasing, with £8.1m slipping into 2026/27 as acquisitions are legally completed, and constructed houses move through handover stage. The rephased expenditure is recommended for carry forward into 2026/27, reflecting the Council’s continued commitment to support the delivery of decent, a ffordable housing. Over the five-year period, the programme tracks close to the approved £549.2m budget. Table 8: HRA Capital Expenditure Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) 60. HRA capital programme supports acquisitions, new build and investment in the Council’s existing stock. An additional 291 homes were delivered by March 2026, with 219 acquisitions, 42 buybacks, and 30 new builds from the Hayes regeneration scheme. The underspend in major projects is due to lack of supply of suitable properties that match tenancy profiles. Works to stocks underspend is related to reconfiguration of cyclical maintenance and replacement programmes as the high volume of acquisitions absorbed internal and external contractor capacities. 61. Hayes Estates Regeneration scheme was reprofiled to revised del ivery timelines, with construction handover of 30 units under Hayes Town Centre Phase 1 in Autumn 2025. This will be followed closely with 80 units handed over by Summer 2026. Future phases of this regeneration scheme were approved by Council in February 2 026 that w as to deliver over 500 units by 2032/33. 62. However, the regeneration scheme phases are recommended to be brought forward to safeguard the significant grants received from the GLA to finance costs. Also, there is the potential to save £10m on the overall construction costs of the Hayes Regeneration Scheme if demolition begins in 2026/27 under contract. As such, it is requested that Members approve the bringing forward of £11.6m of funding from 2027/28 (where there is £39.3m budgeted) into 2026/27 to allow for the demolition works to take place in 2026/27. 63. The impact of rephasing Hayes Regeneration scheme and the addition of Local Affordable Housing Fund Release 4 on the MTFS is to increase expenditure by £68.95m over the five years. Grant funding is estimated to increase by £15. 16m, and prudential borrowing is estimated to rise by £35.82m. The income multiplier exceeds the threshold by rising to 5.2 in 2029/30 compared to being below the threshold in the February approved plan. Where costs are contained within the proposed revised MTFS envelope the breach for one year could be considered to be within the risk tolerance for the Council. 64. Investment in the existing stock through the Works to Stock programmes was under budget. Cyclical maintenance was on profile; however, the Green Homes initiatives, adaptations and conversions or extensions were under profile. Rephasing has been undertaken to reflect the timing of planned works in the 2026/27 MTFS. Full details of the programme are set out in Appendix A3. HRA Capital Financing 65. Table 9 outlines the HRA capital financing position for 2025/26. Total financing applied in - year amounted to £178.4m, against the approved budget of £219.1m, reflecting a variance of £40.7m. Rephasing of £8.1m is recommended for carry forward into 2026/27 to support the Council’s ongoing delivery of decent affordable housing. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) Table 9: HRA Capital Financing 66. The programme continues to be predominantly financed by external grants and prudential borrowing, supplemented by revenue contributions and capital receipts. The Council’s financing strategy remains focused on maximising external funding streams wherever possible before deploying internal resources, ensuring best use of grant funding opportunities to reduce borrowing requirements. 67. Over the five -year period, the HRA financing plan remains balanced, with total resources forecast to align to the approved programme value of £508.5m. The service continues to actively pursue grant opportunities, particularly to support sustainability and energy efficiency upgrades across the housing stock, while ensuring revenue and borrowing contributions are optimised to support the broader housing investment strategy. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) DSG Deficit Position 68. The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) total Block for the Maintained Schools is reporting an in-year deficit of £9.9m at outturn, representing a significant improvement from the £15.0 reported at outturn 2024/25 as a result of a broad range of positive measures being deployed by the Council. The in -year deficit is largely driven by High Needs placement demand and cost pressures which continue to be significantly underfunded in the DSG settlement that the authority receives from the DfE. This position means that the cumulative deficit carried forward to 2026/27 is £75.8m 69. There is currently a time -limited statutory override in place until 31 March 2028 effectively keeping the Schools Budget deficit behind a ringfence which ensures that this deficit does not impact upon general reserves 70. The Department for Education (DfE) has announced the introduction of the High Needs Stability Grant, which is expected to fund up to 90% of the cumulative DSG deficit, subject to the submission and approval of a robust SEND reform plan, payment is expected in Autumn 2026. Based on the DfE’s indicative methodology, the Council anticipates receiving approximately £71.8m. This would leave a residual deficit of approximately £4.0m to be managed by the Council. Schools Budget 71. The final o utturn for the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) in the 2025/26 financial year indicates an overspend of £9.9 million, predominantly attributable to sustained demand pressures within High Needs placements 72. This represents a 34% reduction in the overspend compa red to the previous year, reflecting a positive trajectory in financial performance and the impact of mitigation strategies implemented during the year. 73. Despite this improvement, the cumulative DSG deficit as at 31 March 2026 stands at £75.8 million, underscoring the ongoing financial challenges within the High Needs Block and the need for continued strategic oversight and intervention. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) Table 10: DSG Income and Expenditure Summary Dedicated Schools Grant Income (nil variance) 74. There was no material difference in the amount of DSG received by the LA from the DfE compared to the final DSG allocation due. High Needs Block (£10.2m Overspend) 75. The overspend reflects ongoing pressures in the cost of High Needs placements, largely driven by inflationary factors which are not reflected in the funding from the DfE. This continues to be the area of DSG with the most significant pressure ending the ye ar with a £10.2m overspend, thus adding significantly to the overall DSG deficit. This position represents an improvement from 2024/25 with the achievements in the efficiency of resource allocation being as a result of the constructive work being undertake n by the service. The outturn for 2025-26 saw the overall DSG deficit increase to £75.8m as the full impact of some of efficiency improvements begin to be felt. This outcome is a significantly better result than expected and is an encouragement of the actions and strategy of the SEND service approach in meeting the needs of pupils with educational needs in the borough. 76. The overspend reflects ongoing pressures in the cost of High Needs placements, largely driven by inflationary factors which are not reflect ed in the funding from the DfE. This continues to be the area of DSG with the most significant pressure ending the year with a £10.2m overspend, thus adding significantly to the overall DSG deficit. This position represents an improvement from 2024/25 with the achievements in the efficiency of resource allocation being as a result of the constructive work being undertaken by the service. The outturn for 2025-26 saw the overall DSG deficit increase to £75.8m as the full impact of some of efficiency improvements begin to be felt. This outcome is a significantly better result than expected and is an encouragement of the actions and strategy of the SEND service approach in meeting the needs of pupils with educational needs in the borough. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) Schools Block (£0.1 underspend) 77. The Schools Block includes all funding paid directly to mainstream schools as part of their delegated budget share, including the funding recouped by the ESFA and paid to mainstream academies. 78. There is also a growth contingency fund which is funded from the Schools Block. Schools that are expanding, in agreement with the local authority, to meet basic need pupil population growth, receive additional funding to provide financial recompense throughout the relevant financial year to cover the cos t of this agreed and planned growth. The underspend is in relation to the growth funding coming in lower than the amount allocated for 2025/26. Early Years Block (£0.2m Underspend) 79. The Early Years Block has delivered an underspend of £0.2m. This comprises a £0.1m underspend against the contingency budget and a further £0.1m underspend within the 4% retained budgets, primarily attributable to staff vacancies within the Early Years advisory team during the year. Central School Services Block (nil variance) 80. The published DSG budget allocations confirmed a 20% decrease in the Central School Services Block provided for historic commitments. The block funding was used for the funding for ongoing responsibilities as well as historic commitments with no variance against budget. Collection Fund 81. A deficit of £7.379m is reported within the Collection Fund at outturn, representing a £2.4m adverse movement from Month 10. Within the Collection Fund, an adverse position is reported within Council Tax of £ 7.391m, with a small surplus of £0.012m within Business Rates. This position is driven by: i. Council Tax is presenting an in -year surplus of £1.86m against a £1 54.1m budget, however a variance of £9.25m on the budgeted prior year deficit takes Council Tax into the overall £7.391m adverse position. ii. Business Rates is presenting an in-year surplus of £0.784m against a £72.1m budget, largely due to higher than anticipated Section 31 grant income of an additional £0.825m and an underspend on the Growth Levy budget of £4.76m. Underachievement of gross Business Rates income of £4.8m and the prior year deficit of £0.772m brings the overall surplus down to £0.012m. 82. As well as a shortfall on Business Rates income, the adverse position is due to the review of Bad Debt Provision based on analysis provided by Capita , who manage Business Rates recovery for Hillingdon, of outstanding debt. This has been mitigated by releasing some of Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) the Business Rates Appeals Prov ision held as we anticipate the number of appeals to decrease, since this is the final year that the current Business Rate valuation list is valid. 83. Any surpluses or deficits within the Collection Fund impact on the Council’s future year budgets, with the position reported up to Month 9 impacting on the 202 6/27 saving requirement, leading to £5.5m being included in the Council’s refresh of the budget strategy approved by Cabinet and Council in February 2026, with any further updates between Month 10 and outturn impacting on 2027/28. This position therefore will increase the Council’s gross saving requirement by £2.4m for 2027/28. The salient risks and variances within this position are summarised in the following paragraphs by Cabinet Portfolio. Treasury Management Update as at 31 March 2026 84. External borrowing was required during 202 5/26 to finance capital expenditure and ensure liquidity was maintained. The total loan portfolio increased by £1 40.03m as set out in the table below, leaving a balance at year-end of £657.51m (GF £317.39m, HRA £340.12m). Table 11 - The Borrowing Requirement and Debt Management 85. New loans totalling £100m were taken under the HRA to take advantage of the concessionary PWLB rate for HRA capital financing, of which £20m were five years or less, and £80m was taken over a longer duration. New loans of £250m were taken under the General Fund of which £165.5m were replacing maturing debt including short term temporary local authority loans. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) 86. Over the year the Council’s loan portfolio had an average interest rate of 4.07% (4.44% 2024/25). Interest paid over the year totalled £23.46m (GF £ 10.54m, HRA £12.92m), an increase of £6.94m from 2024/25 due to the increasing level of debt. 87. As set out in the 2026/27 Budget Report in February 2026, the Council required Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) of up to £88m in 2025/26. EFS is not operational capital expenditure on new projects and programmes however it is delivered as a capitalisation directive enabling the Council to effectively treat revenue costs as capital, allowing those costs to be financed by borrowing and resulting in an increase to the Council’s capital financing requirement (CFR) in a similar way to ordinary capital expenditure. 88. The Council’s outturn position requires £83m of the EFS amount to be applied to replenish general balances/reserves. Hence the CFR increases to £761.59m with the inclusion of EFS. (31/3/2025 £586.94m). The balance of £7.74 m in other long-term liabilities reflects leased assets on the balance sheet resulting from IFRS16 lease accounting which became mandatory from 2024/25. The difference between the total CFR and external borrowing levels represents the level of internal borrowing, primarily supported by the Council’s own reserves and working capital. The Council’s underlying future external borrowing requirement, ie the difference between the CFR and total actual external borrowing has reduced by £ 50.6m to £13.3m (before EFS) at the end of the financial year as external borrowing has increased by more than the year-on-year increase in the CFR in 202 5/26. As was the case last year this indicates that previous internal borrowing against reserves and working capital is now requiring to be replaced with external debt in order to maintain liquidity. 89. As at the 31 March 2026, the Council held £544.51m of PWLB debt (£232.39m General Fund and £312.12m HRA) containing a broad range of loan types including both Maturity and EIP loans with fixed rates and with varying maturities. 90. In addition, the Council has £38m of market loans (£10m General Fund and £28m HRA), with £10m loans repaid during the year (£5m General Fund and £5m HRA) where the LOBO (Lenders Option Borrowers Option) loan provider exercised their right to apply a new significantly higher interest rate which was not favourable for the council . These consist of £12m fixed-rate loans and £26m LOBO loans. During the year there was £67.0m of naturally maturing longer term PWLB debt and £133m of local authority temporary borrowing maturities. 91. After declining sharply early in the financial year following the announcement of US tariffs, sentiment in financial markets had improved but equity and bond markets remained volatile throughout. However, the latter part of the period was dominated by the US/Israel war with Iran, which saw equity markets fall sharply, and bond yields rise as concerns over the inflationary impact from sharply higher oil and other commodity prices outweighed the flight - to-quality into government bonds often seen in conflicts. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) 92. The PWLB certainty rate for 10-year maturity loans was 5.38% at the beginning of the period and 5.72% at the end. The lowest available 10-year maturity rate was 5.13% and the highest was 5.88%. Rates for 20-year maturity loans ranged from 5.71% to 6.37% during the period, and 50-year maturity loans from 5.46% to 6.24%. 93. In the first half of the year, the cost of short-term borrowing from other local authorities closely tracked the Base Rate at around 4.15% - 4.30%. However, the second half saw an increase in rates as liquid cash began to reduce across the country, from 4.50% to 4.75 % dependent on start date and duration of borrowing. March saw a steep rise in rates with many councils needing to borrow over the financial year end – rates were between 5.00% to 7.00%. Borrowing Update 94. CIPFA’s 2021 Prudential Code is clear that local aut horities must not borrow to invest primarily for financial return and that it is not prudent for local authorities to make any investment or spending decision that will increase the capital financing requirement, and so may lead to new borrowing, unless di rectly and primarily related to the functions of the Authority. PWLB loans are no longer available to local authorities planning to buy investment assets primarily for yield unless these loans are for refinancing purposes. 95. The Council does not plan to bor row to invest primarily for commercial return and so is unaffected by the changes to the Prudential Code. However, the Council holds a £3.8 m portfolio in commercial investment properties that were purchased prior to the change in the CIPFA Prudential Code. The Council is not actively seeking to increase this type of investment exposure. These assets are not held for normal operational activity but held under long-term commercial leases. 96. A discounted PWLB HRA rate which is 0.4% below the GF certainty rate was made available from 15th June 2023. The availability of this rate has been extended to March 202 7. The discounted rate is to support local authorities borrowing for the Housing Revenue Account and for refinancing existing HRA loans. In 202 5/26 a total of £1 00m new PWLB borrowing accessed this discounted rate, to support financing the HRA capital programme which contains significant budgeted prudential borrowing for new housing developments and th e Hayes regeneration programme. Investment Activity 97. The investment income return for the year on day -to-day operational treasury balances excluding strategic pooled funds was 4.02% (4.93% 2024/25), resulting in income for 2025/26 of £2,066k (£2,349k in 2024/25), the reduction due to falling market interest rates. The table below shows day-to-day operational treasury investment balances on 31st March 202 6 plus strategic pooled funds. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 – Public) Table 12 – Investment Activity 98. The weighted average balance of these investments over the year was £66.39m (£62.62m in 2024/25). 99. In keeping with CLG’s Guidance on Investments, during 2024/25 short -term money was placed in instant access Money Market Funds and short-term deposits with the DMADF and occasionally local authorities to ensure liquidity was maintained. Rates payable on these activities were comparable with other medium-term duration deposit options and so there was no opportunity cost in keeping cash liquid. 100. The average return on total investments including strategic pooled funds was 4.09%. Rates being offered on DMADF deposits and Money Market Funds were higher at the beginning of the year, around 4.50%, falling to below 4% due to Bank of England base rate cuts during the year. 101. Security of capital remained the Council’s chief investment objective, and this was maintained by following the Council’s counterparty policy as set out in its Treasury Management Strategy Statement for 202 5/26. Investments during the year included deposits with the Debt Management Office and five local authorities as well as investments in AAA -rated Money Market Funds and Pooled Funds. In addition, instant access balances were held with UK Banks within the Councils counterparty limits. All bank placements held a minimum or higher credit rating of A- for UK counterparties.

Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Only the start of this long document is shown here. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.

Relevant Committee
Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in)
Officer(s) to action
Directorate
Classification
7. Local Plan Scoping Consultation (policy framework) PDF 333 KB
RESOLVED That the Cabinet: 1) Approves the draft document attached as Appendix 1 as the council’s Scoping Consultation for the Hillingdon Local Plan. 2) Approves the proposed 6-week period of public consultation on the Scoping Consultation document. 3) Delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Property, to make any necessary editorial amendments and minor material changes to consultation content prior to consultation. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Property introduced a report seeking Cabinet approval to undertake a public scoping consultation on the Local Plan, in line with statutory requirements. The consultation was described as an important early stage in preparing residents, businesses and stakeholders to consider how Hillingdon should grow and develop in future. The Cabinet Member explained that the consultation would seek views on land that should be considered through the Local Plan process, as well as how residents and community groups wished to be consulted at later stages. The scoping report also set out the key challenges, opportunities and ambitions for the Borough, including supporting healthy and active lives, access to green spaces and culture, sustainable growth, good quality affordable homes, education and employment opportunities, and independent living. The Cabinet Member advised that the Local Plan was also linked to the wider Hillingdon Growth Plan, recognising the Borough’s population and business growth. The consultation covered a broad range of topic areas, including vision and objectives, spatial strategy, design, housing, social infrastructure, economy, heritage, green infrastructure, sustainable infrastructure and transport. Subject to approval, the consultation would run from 9 July to 21 August, with a further main consultation anticipated later in the year. The Leader of the Council outlined the significance of the Local Plan in shaping Hillingdon for future generations and attracting investment for residents and businesses. The Corporate Director of Residents Services confirmed that significant preparatory work had been undertaken over the previous 18 months and that officers were ready to proceed. Cabinet approved the consultation. Alternative options considered and rejected Not updating the Local Plan was rejected as it would have risked Government intervention, weakened planning control and appeals defence, and failed to meet legal requirements, while the scoping stage posed no risk to current decision-making. Relevant Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Not for call-in. This forms part of developing the Council’s policy framework and will ultimately be considered by the full Council. This decision takes immediate effect. Officer(s) to action Gavin Polkinghorn 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
📄 Local Plan Scoping Consultation (policy framework) PDF 333 KB
Read the text of this document (8 pages)
Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 Public) LOCAL PLAN SCOPING CONSULTATION Cabinet Member & Portfolio Cllr Nick Denys, Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Property Responsible Officer Julia Johnson, Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth Report Author & Directorate Gavin Polkinghorn – Team Leader Planning Policy Planning, Regeneration and Environment, Residents Services Papers with report Appendix 1: Hillingdon Local Plan Scoping Consultation Website Content Appendix 2: Hillingdon Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation Statement HEADLINES Summary This report seeks Cabinet agreement to undertake a public Scoping Consultation on the Local Plan in line with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026. A draft version of the consultation content is provided (Appendix 1). This decision also seeks approval for related steps that are necessary to progress the Local Plan after the Scoping Consultation. Putting our Residents First Delivering on the Council Strategy 2022-2026 This report supports our ambition for residents to:  Live active and healthy lives,  Enjoy access to green spaces, leisure activities, culture and arts,  Live in a sustainable borough that is carbon neutral,  Be/feel safe from harm,  Live in good quality, affordable homes in connected communities,  Stay living independently for as long as they are able,  Achieve well in education, with opportunities for learning at all ages, and  Have opportunities to earn an income that supports their families. This report supports our commitments to residents for:  Safe and strong communities,  Thriving, healthy households,  A green and sustainable borough, and A thriving economy. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 Public) Financial Cost The costs of the Local Plan work including the estimated £3k cost arising from Recommendation 1 below to approve the Scoping Consultation are funded from the existing Planning Service revenue budget. Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee Ward(s) All wards. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet: 1. Approves the draft document att ached as Appendix 1 as the council’s Scoping Consultation for the Hillingdon Local Plan. 2. Approves the proposed 6-week period of public consultation on the Scoping Consultation document. 3. Delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth , in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Property, to make any necessary editorial amendm ents and minor material changes to consultation content prior to consultation. Reasons for recommendations 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 authority’s Local Plan forms the key part of the development plan and sets policies for their area. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) directs that each local planning authority should have a Local Plan. Failure to have an up to date Local Plan reduces the local planning authority’s ability to control development in accordance with local policies and priorities. This decision, if approved, will authorise the first public consultation in the Local Plan process under the new plan -making system. The new Local Plan will replace the existing policies which were adopted in 2012 and 2020. A review at least every five years is a legal requirement for all local plans. The Scoping Consultation is mandatory under the new system and is the first stage of engagement in the preparation of a new Local Plan. The consultation is limited to inviting feedback from stakeholders on how to engage with them throughout the plan-making process and what the plan should contain. It does not propose new policies or site allocations. These will be the subject of the next consultation later in 2026. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 Public) Alternative options considered / risk management Under the new plan making system the Council is required to update its Local Plan in accordance with a prescribed timetable. If the Council does not update the Local Plan the Secretary of State has the power to intervene and direct the Council to undertake plan-making. Further, it is essential that the Council has an up-to-date Local Plan to ensure it has planning policies in place to respond to the challenges of building homes, growing the economy, and protecting character, amenity and green spaces. In dec ision making, the Council requires an up-to-date Local Plan to stop inappropriate development and to defend planning appeals including applications for costs. The Scoping Consultation is limited to seeking views on what the Local Plan should contain and how the Council will consult with stakeholders. At this stage, the Council does not draft or adopt new local planning policies and as such there are no identified risks to disrupting the existing decision-making process on planning applications. Democratic compliance / previous authority Cabinet is the requisite body to initiate a review to the Local Plan and to initiate consultation on it, with this forming part the Council’s policy framework to be adopted by the full Council. Select Committee comments None at this stage, though select committee consultation will continue to be part of this process. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Introduction and background 1. The purpose of this document is to seek approval to undertake the Hillingdon Local Plan Scoping Consultation using Appendix 1 as the basis for consultation. This document seeks to gather issues and feedback from residents and stakeholders on what the Hillingdon Local Plan ought to contain and sets out how the Council wil l consult with stakeholders . The responses from this consultation will be considered by the Council when drafting the Hillingdon Local Plan. 2. The new Local Plan would replace all parts of the adopted Local Plan:  Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies (adopted 2012)  Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Polices (adopted 2020)  Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations (adopted 2020) 3. The Local Plan is important because through its planning policies it shapes the future development of the London Borough of Hillingdon. The Local Plan , alongside the London Plan (2021), sets the overall spatial strategy for new development in the borough, as well as detailed policies covering housing, economic development, the environment, design, heritage, transport and infrastructure. The Local Plan will be key to delivering Hillingdon’s Corporate Strategy. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 Public) 4. Work has been underway on a review of the Local Plan since 2023. The Council has established governance arrangements through the Loca l Plan Governance Board and is developing a comprehensive evidence base. The council has already conducted a Call for Views (Regulation 18) consultation and call for sites in 2023 and 2024 under an earlier set of plan-making regulations. Scoping Consultation and the new plan-making system 5. The Council has moved the Local Plan into the new plan -making system. The previous programme under the ‘legacy’ plan making system was undeliverable due to changes to the planning policy context which are beyond the Council’s control. The Council published its Notice of intention to Commence Local Plan Preparation and Local Plan Timetable on 12 May 2026. This sets out how the Council will prepare the Local Plan within the 30-month timeframe required in the regulations. 6. The Local Plan Scoping Consultation is the first of three statutory, formal consultations which the Council is required to undertake when preparing the Local Plan in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026 . All stages of mandatory consultation must be undertaken in the new plan -making system and stages undertaken under the ‘legacy’ system cannot be substituted. 7. In accordance with the regulations, the Scoping Consultation will gather up to date views on what the Local Plan should contain and how the Council should engage with stakeholders. It will allow stakeholders to provide updated representations which take into consideration changes in the development context since the Call for Views consultation in 2024. 8. The Hillingdon Local Plan Scoping Consultation Content (Appendix 1) sets the material that will be adapted and published online for the consultation. This will be published either through a webpage or an online engagement platform, working with our communications team. The consultation is proposed to be undertaken from 9 July 2026 to 21 August 2026 in accordance with the Local Plan Timetable. It will be undertaken in line with the regulations and the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (2021). 9. The Council will undertake the following consultation actions:  Publish a dedicated consultation webpage on the Council website or use an online citizen engagement platform linked to the Council website.  Make hard copies of the consultation c ontent available for inspection at the Civic Centre, Uxbridge Library, Botwell Green Library and Ruislip Manor Library.  Send emails to all contacts on the Hillingdon Planning Policy Consultation Database, including statutory consultees. Letters will be sen t to contacts without email addresses.  Publish a press release at the commencement of the consultation.  Post information on the Council’s social media accounts leading up to and during the consultation period. 10. The above consultation activities exceed the minimum consultation requirements set out in the regulations and in the Hillingdon Statement of Community Involvement. By using social media and a website or online engagement platform the consultation goes beyond the Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 Public) statutory minimums to reach a broad ra nge of residents and stakeholders and ensure and effective consultation. 11. Following the consultation, the Council will consider the responses received when preparing the Local Plan. The Council will prepare a consultation report setting out the consultatio n activities undertaken, a summary of the responses received and how they have been considered in drafting the Local Plan. This report will be published along with the draft Local Plan in the next stage of consultation. The next stage in the Local Plan wil l be subject to a separate Cabinet decision. Consultation content 12. The proposed consultation content (Appendix 1) has been developed to help stakeholders focus their representations on matters which the Local Plan can address to improve the quality and relevance of consultation. The document is broken into 10 topic areas:  Objectives and vision,  Growth and spatial strategy,  Design,  Housing,  Social infrastructure,  Economy,  Heritage and culture,  Green infrastructure and natural environment,  Sustainable infrastructure and  Transport. 13. For each topic area we set out the key challenges, existing approach, what the Local Plan needs to achieve, and asks for feedback on these matters and what the Local Plan ought to contain. 14. The Local Plan will be subject to an Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA). This assessment includes Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Sustainability Appraisal (SA), Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA), Community Safety Impact Assessment (CSIA), and Health Impact Assessment (HIA). The Council has started the IIA process by collecting baseline information in an IIA Scoping Report which has been published on the Council’s website. Previous consultations 15. A Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ consultation was undertaken by the Council between 29 April 2024 to 24 June 2024 under the previous plan making regulations. 16. All responses received in the Regulation 18 Call for Views consultation 2024 and both Call for Sites consultations (2023 and 2024) under the previous plan-making regulations will be carried forward and considered as part of the feedback to the Scoping Consultation. These responses will inform the Local Plan preparation going forward. There will be no need for stakeholders to re-submit this material. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 Public) 17. The Council received 141 responses to the consultation from a wide range of stakeholders. The main issues raised in this consultation have been summarised in the Hillingdon Local Plan Consultation Statement (Regulation 18) which is included as Appendix 2. 18. The council undertook two ‘ Call for Sites’ exercises to gather information on land that individuals or organisations may consider having development potential. The Calls for Sites were undertaken on the following dates:  Friday 26 May to Friday 29 September 2023, and  Monday 29 April 2024 to 24 June 2024. 19. A total of 80 sites were submitted as part of the Call for Sites exercise. As part of this consultation, we propose to accept further Call for Sites submissions. Next steps 20. Following the decision, if approved, the Council will undertake the Scoping Consultation from 9 July to 21 August 2026. Consultation responses will be reviewed by the Council and will inform preparation of the draft Local Plan. Local Plan work, including collecting evidence and drafting policies will proceed throughout 2026. 21. A separate approval by Cabinet will be required for the next stage of consultation - Local Plan content and evidence. Financial Implications 22. The costs of the Local Plan work including the estimated £3k cost arising from Recommendation 1 above to approve the Scoping Consultation are funded from the existing Planning Service revenue budget. Officers will seek to manage costs associated with the consultation, utilising economical approaches wherever possible, whilst ensuring it remains effective and far -reaching. Costs will be funded from within the Planning Service revenue budget. RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities? 23. The Local Plan will benefit Hillingdon residents, service users and communities by providing an up -to-date suite of planning policies which help achieve the aims of the Council Strategy and help achieve sustainable development, including building homes, supporting economic growth, conserving heritage, improving design and accessibility, and protecting green spaces and community facilities. The full effects on Hillingdon residents, service users and communities will be thoroughly tested through the IIA. Consultation & Engagement carried out (or required) 24. This decision is to allow the first stage of formal consultation for the Local Plan. As set out above, the results of the consultation will feed into the next stage of the Local Plan, which will be a further consultation subject to a separate Cabinet decision. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 Public) CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance Corporate Finance have reviewed this report and concur with the Financial Implications set out above, noting approval is sou ght for the draft document contained in Appendix 1 to be the Council’s Scoping Consultation for the Hillingdon Local Plan and to proceed with the six -week consultation, with delegated authority for any necessary editorial amendments and minor material changes granted to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Property. Furthermore, it is noted that the estimated cost associated with the work arising from the Scoping Consultation document is £3k, alongside any additional costs arising from the consultation will be met from the existing approved Planning Service revenue budget and will be monitored through the established Monthly monitoring cycle. Legal The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA 2023) introduced significant changes to the plan-making system in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA 2004). Under the PCPA 2004, a Local Planning Authority (LPA) must prepare and draft its Local Plan in accordance with its local development scheme. In doing so, the LPA must have regard to policies and plans including national policies, the London Plan, national waste management plan, policies developed by a local transport authority, and any other local development document adopted by the LPA. Section 19 of the PCPA 2004 explicitly requires that a draft Local Plan is prepared in accordance with the local development scheme, which outlines the documents that will comprise the Local Plan and i ncludes a timetable for their preparation and revision. This scheme must be made publicly available and kept up to date. When preparing its Local Plan, the LPA must comply with detailed procedural requirements set out in The Town and Country Planning (Loc al Planning) (England) Regulations 2026 (New Regulations), and this process is referred to as the “Current Plan-Making System”. Under the New Regulations Local Plans must go through at least three consultation stages to ensure stakeholder and public engagement throughout the process. The first is a scoping consultation held before the formal 30 -month plan-making period begins, allowing input on the Local Plan’s scope and content. The second involves consulting on the proposed Local Plan content and sup porting evidence, with a minimum six-week consultation period. The final stage is consultation on the draft Local Plan itself, including the policies map and evidence, which must be open for at least eight weeks. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 (Part 1 Public) Property Property have reviewed the report and do not consider that the proposed planning scoping has any direct property related impact, however, the service looks forward to being involved in the consultation process as a stakeholder and one of the borough’s major landowners. We also note that there will be further chances to submit representations under the call for sites process and we look forward to receiving further details of when this process is anticipated to take place. BACKGROUND PAPERS  Local Plan timetable (Hillingdon Council)  Notice of intention to commence local plan preparation (Hillingdon Council)

Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.

📄 Appendix 1 - Scoping Consultation Website Content , item 7. PDF 612 KB
Read the text of this document (42 pages)
Appendix 1 Hillingdon Local Plan Scoping consultation CONTENT FOR PUBLICATION June 2026 Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 2 Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................... 3 2. How to use this consultation ........................................................... 11 3. Objectives and vision ...................................................................... 12 4. Growth and spatial strategy ............................................................ 16 5. Design ............................................................................................ 19 6. Housing .......................................................................................... 21 7. Social infrastructure ........................................................................ 23 8. Economy ........................................................................................ 25 9. Heritage and culture ....................................................................... 28 10. Green infrastructure and natural environment................................. 30 11. Sustainable infrastructure ............................................................... 33 12. Transport ........................................................................................ 35 13. Integrated Impact Assessment ....................................................... 37 14. Have your say ................................................................................ 37 15. Call for Sites ................................................................................... 39 16. Glossary ......................................................................................... 40 Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 3 1. Introduction Hillingdon is creating a new Local Plan. The Local Plan will set out the vision for future development in the borough over the next 15 years and will set out planning policies to help achieve this. The Local Plan will set policies to help build new homes, create jobs and provide services to support a growing population. It will also help shape the look and feel of Hillingdon's places, enhancing the environment, with the option to include policies on matters such as tackling climate change and creating sustainable neighbourhoods. We are inviting engagement from stakeholders through this Scoping Consultation. The consultation has two objectives: 1. To reach out to residents and stakeholders to provide your views on key issues for the Local Plan and what it should contain. 2. To ask how Hillingdon should engage with stakeholders during Local Plan preparation. About the Local Plan What is a Local Plan? The Local Plan is the key document in Hillingdon’s development plan. The Development Plan is the group of documents which set out the Council’s planning policies. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Council must consider the National Planning Policy Framework in preparing the development plan, and it is a material consideration in planning decisions. National policy sets out that local planning authorities should prepare Local Plans to provide a positive vision for the future of each area, meet housing needs, address economic, social, and environmental priorities, and provide a platform for residents to shape their surroundings. The Local Plan guides decisions on future development proposals and addresses the needs and opportunities of the area as part of the borough's statutory development plan. A Local Plan may include policies covering: • Housing, • Employment, • Shops and social infrastructure, • Developments and design, • Economy, • Natural infrastructure, • Transport, and • Heritage and culture. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 4 The Local Plan must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development (Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Section 39(2)). Current development plan 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) Neighbourhood plans also form part of a local planning authority's development plan, however there are no neighbourhood plans in Hillingdon. The council is proposing to update and replace the Local Plan. The strategic and development management policies will be combined into a single document alongside the site allocations, in line with government guidance. The West London waste plan will remain as a separate document and is subject to a separate review process. The London Plan The Mayor of London adopted the current London Plan in 2021 and forms part of the development plan for the borough. Hillingdon's Local Plan must be in general conformity with the London Plan. The Mayor of London is working on a new London Plan. Consultation on what the new London Plan should contain was undertaken in May to June 2025. The new London Plan will likely include significant changes from the current plan across a range of policy areas. Chief among these will be the need for the new London Plan to consider the Government’s new standard housing need figure of around 880,000 homes within Greater London over ten years 1. This is a very large increase over the current requirement of approximately 522,000 homes over ten years. The London Plan will set individual borough targets for housing to meet the need for London as a whole. Hillingdon will be allocated an apportionment of this Greater London target based on its capacity for growth. The new London Plan is scheduled for consultation in 2026. As part of the ongoing review of the Local Plan, the council will have to take into 1.1 1 https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/planning- consultations/towards-new-london-plan#increasing-londons-housing-supply-237815-title Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 5 consideration the new London Plan as the Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. • Towards a new London Plan - consultation | London City Hall National Planning Policy Framework The Local Plan must be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how they should be applied. It must be considered in the preparation of the Local Plan and is a material consideration when making planning decisions. Separate policy documents deal with other topics that are material to planning, such as waste and traveller sites. The National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) supports the NPPF and is amended frequently. It provides specific guidance on how parts of the Local Plan should be undertaken and is material to the plan-making process. NPPF Review Consultation The government published a consultation on a new NPPF in December 2025. The proposed revisions are the largest change to the NPPF since its introduction in 2012. The proposals introduce new plan-making and decision-making policies. The proposed NPPF states that Local Plan policies must not duplicate, substantively restate or modify the content of national decision-making policies. The council is monitoring the progress of the NPPF and will respond appropriately in plan-making for the Local Plan. Heathrow Airport Heathrow Airport lies within the London Borough of Hillingdon. The Government has announced support for the expansion of Heathrow Airport for construction of a third runway. • Government backs Heathrow expansion to kickstart economic growth - GOV.UK As currently framed, the third-runway scheme represents the largest infrastructure project in Europe and would generate profound and far- reaching implications for Hillingdon over a prolonged period. The spatial impacts of airport expansion will be far-reaching, with substantial areas of housing, businesses and local open spaces being lost. The proposals also carry significant environmental considerations, particularly relating to air quality, noise, and the scale of construction activity The government have announced that a revised draft Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) will be published for consultation by summer 2026 and that it intends a final planning decision on expansion to be possible within the current Parliament. The council will take account of the ANPS consultation in plan-making for the Local Plan. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 6 Why are we reviewing the Local Plan? In line with the National Planning Policy Framework, Local Plans should be kept up to date with revision at least every 5 years. The Local Plan needs to be updated to respond to changes affecting Hillingdon including in the economy, the population, housing market, environment and to reflect a new London Plan and revisions to national policies. Without an up-to-date Local Plan, Hillingdon's local planning policies could be considered out of date. In decision making, the council would not be able to place appropriate weight on policies which are out of date, leading to inappropriate development that does not meet the needs of people living, working, and visiting Hillingdon. There is also a risk of intervention by the Government, where plan-making would be taken out of the hands of the local authority and stakeholders. A review of the Local Plan allows the council to add, remove and improve planning policies. The new plan-making system The Hillingdon Local Plan will now be produced under the government’s new plan-making system, which was introduced in March 2026. The new system aims to be a faster system and more streamlined approach, with the aim of creating shorter and clearer Local Plans. It includes a 30-month timeline for creating and adopting Local Plans, supporting the Government’s commitment to achieving universal Local Plan coverage across England. The new regulations are linked below: • The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026 Hillingdon Council published its notice of intention to commence local plan preparation under the new system on 12 May 2026: • Notice of Intention to commence local plan preparation (www.hillingdon.gov.uk) More information The council is publishing its Local Plan evidence base as it is being completed. The following evidence base documents are available for download: https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/local-plan-review • Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) Scoping Report • Hillingdon Townscape and Character Study 2023 (Urban Initiatives) • Hillingdon Employment Land and Capacity Study 2023 (Avison Young) • West London Town Centre Study 2023 (urban Foresight) Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 7 Local Plan timetable The Council has moved the Local Plan timetable into the new plan-making system. The previous programme under the ‘legacy’ plan making system was undeliverable due to changes to the planning policy context which are beyond the council’s control. The Council have adopted a revised programme that shifts the main stages of production and consultation for the Local Plan into 2026-2028, as set out in the table below. The new plan-making system includes a prescribed sequence of stages, which includes three stages of formal consultation and three ‘gateways’ which are used to determine readiness to progress to the next stage of plan-making. The sequence is set out in the diagram below. Source: 30-month local plan process: an overview - GOV.UK The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, part 15B(2)(i) requires the Local Plan timetable to specify a timetable for the preparation of the authority’s local plan for their area, in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026, Regulation 4(1). The timetable is set out below. Notice of intention to commence Local Plan preparation 12 May 2026 Consultation start: Scoping consultation 9 July 2026 Consultation end: Scoping consultation The date on or before representations on the scoping consultation must be received by Hillingdon Council. 21 August 2026 Gateway 1 17 September 2026 Consultation start: Local Plan content and evidence 5 November 2026 Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 8 Consultation end: Local Plan content and evidence The date on or before representations on the proposed local plan content and evidence consultation must be received by Hillingdon Council. 14 January 2027 Gateway 2 1 March 2027 Consultation start: proposed Local Plan 15 June 2027 Consultation end: proposed Local Plan The date on or before when representations on the proposed Local Plan consultation must be received by Hillingdon Council. 27 August 2027 Gateway 3 1 October 2027 Submission of the proposed local plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination 1 November 2027 Consideration of adoption of the proposed Local Plan 1 May 2028 Links This Local Plan timetable is also published on the Council website: • Local Plan timetable (www.hillingdon.gov.uk) Why are we undertaking a scoping consultation? We are undertaking a scoping consultation to gather up to date views on what the Local Plan should contain, taking into consideration changes in the development context since the Regulation 18 Call for Views consultation in 2024. It is also a statutory requirement under the new plan- making system to undertaking a Scoping Consultation prior to Gateway 1. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 9 Proposed consultation activities In line with the Statement of Community Involvement, we will, as a minimum, undertake the actions set out in the table below in future stages of consultation on the Local Plan. We invite you to comment on these consultation proposals and welcome suggestions on further types of consultation that you consider would be effective. This could include in-person events, online sessions, or different types of communication. ACTION DESCRIPTION Online Website or online engagement platform The consultations for the Draft Plan and Proposed Submission consultations will be run through the Council website or online engagement platform. The platform used will be designed to provide an informative, accessible and user-friendly experience. Social media For all consultations we will post on our social media channels notifying residents and interested parties of the Local Plan consultation and how they can get involved. We will use popular online platforms which could include X, Facebook, Instagram, next-door, Linked-in and YouTube. Feedback on social media via polls or comments will also be factored into the consultation statements produced. Press Press release We will publish a press release for the launch of the Draft Plan and Proposed Submission consultations. Email and letters On commencement of the consultations, we will send emails to all contacts on the Hillingdon Planning Policy Consultation Database, including statutory consultees. We will send letters to contacts where no email has been provided. We will also use existing channels and groups within the borough such as the weekly teachers email list, residents groups and council connect. Making documents available Hard copies of the consultation material will be made available for inspection at the Civic Centre and selected public libraries. Respondents may reply by web, email, or post. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 10 To sign-up to the Council’s Planning Policy Consultation Database, please email the Council at • localplan@hillingdon.gov.uk Previous engagement Call for Views consultation 2024 A Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ consultation was undertaken by the Council between 29 April 2024 to 24 June 2024. The Council received 141 responses to the consultation from a wide range of stakeholders. The main issues raised in this consultation have been summarised in the Hillingdon Local Plan Consultation Statement (Regulation 18). Call for sites The council undertook two ‘call for sites’ exercises to gather information on land that individuals or organisations may consider having development potential. The calls for sites were run on the following dates: • Friday 26 May to Friday 29 September 2023, and • Monday 29 April 2024 to 24 June 2024. There were 80 sites submitted as part of the call for sites exercise. Alongside this, representations were also made in response to the Local Plan call for views. These representations have been captured and summarised in the Regulation 18 Consultation Statement. Previous consultation responses will be considered All responses received in the Regulation 18 Call for Views consultation 2024 and both Call for Sites exercises (2023 and 2024) will be carried forward and considered under this Scoping Consultation. These responses will inform the Local Plan preparation going forward. There is no need to re-submit this material. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 11 2. How to use this consultation A scoping consultation is an early stage in creating a Local Plan where the council asks the community, businesses, and other stakeholders what issues the plan should focus on. It helps identify the key challenges and opportunities in the area—such as hous ing, jobs, transport, and the environment—before any detailed policies are written. By gathering views at the start, the council can make sure the Local Plan reflects local priorities and considers the things that matter most to the people who live, work, and invest in the area. 2.1 We have provided the following pages to provide background information on the Local Plan in Hillingdon. This is broken down into the main topics that Local Plans typically cover: • Objectives and vision • Growth and spatial strategy • Design • Housing • Social infrastructure • Economy • Heritage and culture • Green infrastructure and natural environment • Sustainable infrastructure • Transport 2.2 For each section we have described: • The Existing approach, which summarises the current policy approaches current adopted in Hillingdon Local Plan, • The Key Challenges that the Council has identified through evidence gathering to date, and • What the Local Plan could achieve, which sets out a series of objectives and policies which the Local Plan could incorporate, for your consideration. You may respond to this information or provide representations on other matters not covered on these pages. The Council has not made any decisions on what the Local Plan will include and this is your opportunity to help shape the plan. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 12 3. Objectives and vision The existing Hillingdon Local Plan Strategic Policies identify key challenges, issues and objectives for development in the borough. There have been significant changes since the Local Plan was adopted which need to be considered as part of the review. As part of the Local Plan Review the Council will need to create a new shared vision for Hillingdon. Existing approach The existing Local Plan Strategic Policies, which were adopted in 2012 contains a seven-point vision for the borough, with the following headlines: • Hillingdon is taking full advantage of its distinctive strengths regarding its places, communities and heritage. • The social and economic inequality gaps in Hillingdon are being closed. • The improved environment and infrastructure is supporting healthier living and helping the borough to mitigate and adapt to climate change. • Economic growth has been concentrated in Uxbridge, Heathrow and the Hayes/West Drayton Corridor, without ignoring local centres. • Improved accessibility to local jobs, housing and facilities is improving the quality of life of residents. • Hillingdon has a reliable network of north/south public transport routes and improved public transport interchanges. • Hillingdon has continued to prosper from the presence of Heathrow. Council Strategy vision The Council Strategy outlines its vision of putting residents first. It sets 5 commitments: • Safe and strong communities Hillingdon is a safe place with resilient, strong communities with access to good quality, affordable housing. • Thriving, healthy households Children, young people, their families and vulnerable adults and older people live healthy, active and independent lives. • A green and sustainable borough Hillingdon will be a sustainable, carbon-neutral borough, protecting Hillingdon's heritage, built environment and valued green spaces. Residents will live in pleasant neighbourhoods with access to sustainable waste management and transport. • A thriving economy We are actively working with local businesses and partners to create Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 13 a borough where businesses grow within a strong economy and local people can improve their skills and enjoy good quality jobs. • A digital-enabled, modern, well-run council We are a well-run, sustainable council with sound financial management, achieving positive outcomes for residents. Hillingdon Growth Plan The Council has created a growth plan, to shape the economy to benefit residents, businesses and the community. The growth plan is based around three principles: • Innovate: Growing new sectors, • Connect: North of Hillingdon with the south and match skills with businesses and • Thrive: Support town centres, build housing, support healthy lifestyles and public spaces. The Growth Plan focuses on four areas of opportunity: • Creative industries and technology, • Frontier innovation, • The experience economy and • Enabling skills and infrastructure. This growth is then planned spatially with the following clusters: • Hayes, Stockley Park and the Old Vinyl Factory as a creative cluster and frontier innovation, • Uxbridge and Brunel as the WestTech Corridor, • Heathrow Economic Activity Zone for modern logistics and supply chains and • Ruislip, Northwood and Harefield as a unique city experience. The Hillingdon Growth Plan also marks the first step in establishing a Heathrow Economic Activity Zone. Local Plan challenges As part of the evidence gathering stage, the Council has prepared the following challenges for the Local Plan. We welcome your views on whether these challenges should be inform the Draft Local Plan. Climate change In 2020 Hillingdon Council declared a climate emergency and committed to be carbon neutral by 2030. In 2021 Hillingdon Council adopted the Strategic Climate Action Plan, which sets a vision for Hillingdon to become the greenest London borough, to protect and enhance the environment, and to provide a brighter prospect for future generations. There is a need to Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 14 create greater resilience to the effects of climate change, including flood risk and excessive heat. A growing population Hillingdon’s population is growing at a higher rate than the London average. Between 2011 and 2021, the population of Hillingdon increased by 11.7%, from just over 273,900 to around 305,900 (Census 2023). That was a greater increase than London (7.7%) and the overall population of England (6.6%). The growing population demands more homes, jobs, infrastructure, and needs for services and leisure. A shortage of housing The cost of housing in Hillingdon is high and increasing, and there are more than 3,400 households on the social housing register. The ratio of median earnings to house prices in Hillingdon is 11.95 which is significantly higher than the England average at 7.8. The London Plan 2021 sets a housing target of 1,083 homes per year and a strategic target for 50 per cent of all new homes to be genuinely affordable. The Government has committed to a very ambitious target to build 1.5 million homes during this parliament. This means Hillingdon’s housing target is likely to increase significantly when a new London Plan is published. Economic disparities Hillingdon has a large economy, with over 14,300 businesses supporting approximately 203,000 jobs. This is significantly more than neighbouring local authorities, and Hillingdon has more jobs than working age residents. However, 11% of Hillingdon are income deprived and there are areas of deprivation, particularly across the south of the borough, with localities among the 20% most income deprived in the England. There is a significant opportunity to get the economy working for the most income deprived. Health and wellbeing As with the UK, Hillingdon has an aging population with health and wellbeing needs are growing increasingly complex. 28% of adults in Hillingdon live with excess weight which contributes to serious health outcomes and there is a need to tackle childhood obesity to establish healthy habits and lifestyles over the long term. There is also a pressing need to improve mental health and reduce social isolation. There is significant health inequality within the borough with life expectancy lower in deprived areas particularly in the south of the borough. The health and wellbeing strategy priorities include supporting children and young people, tackling inequality, preventing long term health conditions including dementia and heart disease, supporting people to live well, independently, and longer, improving mental health services. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 15 Transport Public transport accessibility varies across the borough, however large areas have relatively low levels. A high proportion of Hillingdon’s residents travel by private car, significantly higher than the Outer London average. There is significant congestion during peak times on the Strategic Road Network, with some of the busiest sections in the country. There are also significant opportunities to improve cycle infrastructure in the borough. Central and southern Hillingdon are well served by the public transport services in comparison to the north, which is less densely built up and the sparse distribution of facilities and services leads to longer trip lengths. There is an opportunity to further improve north to south orbital connections. Air quality Air pollution is associated with adverse health impacts and is linked to the major health challenges. The southern two thirds of Hillingdon is within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for levels of for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) above legal limits. There are also 10 Air Quality Focus Areas (AQFA) in Hillingdon, which are locations that exceed the EU annual mean limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and have high level of human exposure. Protecting open spaces and nature Hillingdon is the second largest of London’s 32 boroughs over half of which is a mosaic of countryside including canals, rivers, parks and woodland. Hillingdon has 4,870 hectares of Green Belt which comprises 42% of the borough. Hillingdon also has Metropolitan Open Land, Green Chains, playing fields, and river and canal corridors. The Colne Valley Regional Park stretches north to south along the western edge of the borough. Biodiversity is under threat and there is an urgent need to reverse loss of flora and fauna. The government have changed national planning policy on protection of Green Belt to unlock development. The Local Plan needs to ensure strong protection for the Green Belt and take an evidence based and plan led approach. Heathrow Airport Heathrow Airport is Europe’s busiest airport. The airport is essential national infrastructure and plays an important role in the economy of Hillingdon, London and the nation. The airport is the largest single site employer in the country and supports over 75,000 jobs on site and 40,000 more through its supply chain. However, areas around Heathrow airport are some of the most deprived in London indicating that not all the economic benefits are reaching the local areas. Heathrow Airport is a major source of adverse air quality in the borough through aviation activities and associated infrastructure and transport. In January 2025 the government said it would support proposals for a third runway at Heathrow airport. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 16 4. Growth and spatial strategy The existing Hillingdon Local Plan sets out the Council’s spatial strategy, which includes: • Setting out where new homes and new employment floorspace will be developed, • Designating industrial areas to be retained and improved, • Designating/retaining areas to be protected from inappropriate development, such as Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and open space, and • Identifying corridors where public transport links should be improved. Existing approach The Key Diagram sets out the existing overall growth strategy for Hillingdon. The spatial strategy of the existing plan includes: • Uxbridge as the main urban centre and an aim for this role to be strengthened. Growth of retail, leisure, and employment uses are encouraged. The Town Centre was expanded to include former RAF Uxbridge (now St Andrew’s Park) and part of the Uxbridge Industrial Estate, within which more homes have and are being built. • The role of Heathrow Airport Opportunity Area as an employment area is to be strengthened, provided environmental conditions are improved. More hotels, office space, industrial and commercial uses are to be developed within the Heathrow Opportunity Area. • The Hayes and West Drayton Corridor will be a key location for employment growth in the Heathrow Opportunity Area, and some employment sites have been released for residential led mixed use development. • To tackle deprivation in Hayes End and Yeading, the Local Plan targets improving access to open spaces, key employment areas and community facilities in these areas. • Stockley Park is currently designated as a strategic employment site. • The green and open character of the area to the north of the A40 will be enhanced. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 17 Key Diagram Map 4.1 Local Plan (2012) The existing Local Plan includes 32 strategic policies. Policies of particular importance to the overall strategy and those related to employment growth and the Green Belt are: Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 18 • Employment growth is directed to the Heathrow Opportunity Area, Strategic Industrial Locations, Locally Significant Employment Locations, Locally Significant Industrial Sites, Uxbridge Town Centre and Hayes Town Centre (Policy E2). • The Council seeks to maintain the current extent, hierarchy and strategic functions of the Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Green Chains (Policy EM2). Key challenges The key challenges for the new Local Plan are thought to include: • Making the best use of previously developed land by enabling brownfield development and utilising existing and planned infrastructure to optimise density, • Providing a plan-led approach to reviewing the Green Belt, taking into consideration changes to national policy, the introduction of ‘Grey Belt’, consideration of Green Belt assessments and evidence, and identifying sustainable locations for development, • Protecting valued open spaces from inappropriate development and setting a plan-led approach to protection of open space including Green Belt land, Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and Local Green Spaces, • Building a range of market and affordable homes of different types, • Providing sufficient employment and industrial space in the right locations and responding to the growth opportunities identified in the Growth Plan. • Ensuring a town centre first approach is taken to certain types of development and reviewing the potential of the borough’s only Metropolitan Town Centre (Uxbridge), • Reviewing the growth potential of the Hayes and Heathrow Opportunity Areas and • Managing the impacts arising from Heathrow Airport. What the new Local Plan could achieve The Local Plan needs to accommodate new development, including homes and space for businesses to grow, while protecting the green open spaces that are valued in Hillingdon. The plan needs to respond to emerging issues, like supporting growth sectors and clusters, the changing office market, data centres, and the impacts of any new major infrastructure projects. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 19 5. Design The existing Hillingdon Local Plan sets out the Council’s policy approach to: • The design of new buildings and spaces, • Creating high quality, safe, inclusive and welcoming places for everyone, • The location and design of tall buildings, • Alterations to existing buildings, • Crime prevention through urban design, and • The design of shopfronts and advertisements. Existing approach A strategic objective of the Local Plan is to create sustainable neighbourhoods of high quality design, that have regard for their historic context and use, address environmental issues and which are sensitive and responsive to the significance of the historic character, are distinctive, safe, functional and accessible. Relevant existing development management policies include: • Policy DMHB 11 seeks quality contextual design in all development, • Policy DMHB 10 set out where tall buildings may be located and how they should be designed, • Policy DMHB 12 relates to the design streets and the public realm, • Policy DMHB 13 and 13A controls the design of shopfronts and advertisements, • Policy DMHB 14 protects trees and seeks landscaping, trees, green roofs and walls in development, • Policy DMHB 15 seeks to prevent crime through urban design measures, • Policy DMHB 16 sets minimum housing standards and DMHB 17 requires that development considers the London Plan Residential Density Matrix, and • Policy DMHB 18 requires provision of private outdoor amenity space in new housing. Key challenges The new Local Plan needs to ensure good design in buildings and the public realm that is not only attractive, but also highly functional. This may include design that helps mitigate the effects of climate change, encourages active travel (walking and cycling), and is accessible, adaptable, healthy and safe. Key challenges to delivering high quality design in Hillingdon are thought to include: Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 20 • Improving the design quality of new development, • Ensuring design responds to environmental issues including flooding, noise, urban heat island effect, and air pollution, • Exploring opportunities for new public realm and ensuring it is inclusive, and places can be accessed by all residents, • Proactively planning for appropriate tall buildings, while addressing local constraints such as context, airports and the desire for an interesting skyline, • Accommodating the desire to extend and alter properties, whilst ensuring harmful externalities are avoided, such as those related to loss of privacy, daylight, basements and urban greening. • Creating streets which are pleasant, attractive, safe, healthy and which mitigate climate change impacts, • Ensuring development strengthens waterways such as canal edges and rivers, • Ensuring new development strengthens and integrates built heritage, and • Creating distinct public places, where identity is inspired by local cultural heritage. • Taking account of emerging government design guidance, including the Design and Placemaking Planning Practice Guidance. What the new Local Plan could achieve A key commitment from the Council Strategy is for a green and sustainable borough, where Hillingdon will be a sustainable, carbon- neutral borough, protecting Hillingdon's heritage, built environment and valued green spaces. Residents will live in pleasant neighbourhoods with access to sustainable waste management and transport. The Local Plan needs to focus on what is distinctive to Hillingdon, rather than restating generic principles of high-quality design which are already covered in national guidance. This means the need to address issues of local character and identity, area-specific townscape, landscape, heritage, or urban form priorities, and design responses to local constraints or opportunities. The Local Plan could also consider mechanisms for ensuring the principles of good design are embedded, such as requirements around masterplanning and design codes, the use of design review processes and expectations around community engagement in design. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 21 6. Housing The existing Hillingdon Local Plan sets out the Council’s policy approach to: • Maximising housing supply, • Provision of affordable housing, • Protecting existing homes, • Meeting housing needs in terms of type and size, • Providing housing for different groups including older people, student housing, homeless, and gypsy and traveller sites, and • Accessible and adaptable housing. Existing approach Housing is a key priority in the existing Local Plan. The existing Local Plan sets out where housing is to be developed. Most delivery is in large sites below the A40 including in the areas of Uxbridge, the Hayes / West Drayton Corridor, the Heathrow Opportunity Area, with a smaller proportion in sites north of the A40. Key housing policies include: • Strategic Policy H1 states that the Council will meet and exceed its minimum strategic dwelling requirement, where this can be achieved, in accordance with other Local Plan policies, • Policy DMH7 requires a minimum 35% affordable housing on all self- contained housing developments of 10 units or more, as well as a preferred tenure split, • Policy DMH 4 sets limits on the conversion of homes into flats to protect the supply of large family homes, • Policy DMH 5 sets limits on houses in multiple occupation, and • Policy DMH 6 controls garden and backland development to protect garden space and impacts on character and amenity. Key challenges Key challenges to delivering housing are thought to include: • Meeting new housing targets which are set by the new London Plan during the plan-making period. The new London Plan will seek to meet the Government’s new standard housing need figure of around 880,000 homes within greater London over ten years, a large increase over the current London Plan target for 522,000 homes over ten years. A proportion of this target will be allocated to Hillingdon based on our development capacity. • H igh demand for homes of a sufficient quality and type. • The cost of housing in Hillingdon is high and increasing and there are more than 3,400 households on the social housing register. The ratio of median earnings to house prices in Hillingdon is 11.95 which is significantly higher than the England average at 7.8. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 22 • Hillingdon’s population is growing at a higher rate than the London average. Between 2011 and 2021, the population of Hillingdon increased by 11.7%, from just over 273,900 to around 305,900 (Census 2023). That was a greater increase than London (7.7%) and the overall population of England (6.6%). • Meeting the strategic target for 50 per cent of all new homes to be genuinely affordable, which consists of both low-cost rented homes and intermediate housing products. The viability of delivering this often needs to be balanced against the need for additional considerations, such as different housing sizes, types, design and new infrastructure. • While Hillingdon is a large borough, there are significant constraints on development, such as local character, airports, and large quantities (42%) of Green Belt. What the new Local Plan could achieve A key commitment from the Council Strategy is for safe and strong communities, where Hillingdon is a safe place with resilient, strong communities with access to good quality, affordable housing. The Local Plan will need to be updated to meet the new London Plan housing targets and to identify new locations for development. The new Local Plan will also need to seek a range of housing types, sizes, accessibility and affordability to meet the needs of different groups. New housing will help tackle inequality and overcrowding, create sustainable and resilient neighbourhoods, improve health and wellbeing and secure homes suitable for individuals and families on low and middle incomes. The Local Plan needs to work towards meeting the London Plan strategic target for affordable homes. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 23 7. Social infrastructure The existing Hillingdon Local Plan sets out the Council’s policy approach to: • Developing, retaining and enhancing important social infrastructure, • Protecting public and private open space, • Providing new open spaces and play spaces in major developments, • Protection and provision of leisure and indoor sports facilities, and • Protection and provision of play spaces. Existing approach Community facilities, culture and leisure is a key priority in the existing Local Plan. Key policies include: • Policy DMCI 1 protects existing community facilities from redevelopment unless the use or site is no longer needed, • Policy DMCI 1A supports the development of new schools subject to their impacts including on open space, character, accessibility and the environment, • Policy DMCI 2 supports development of community infrastructure where it is close to the community it supports, is accessible and inclusive and directs large uses to Town Centres, • Policy DMCI 3 protects public open space from development and sets the rules for development next to open spaces, • Policy DMCI 4 requires major new residential development to provide or enhance open space, and • Policy DMCI 5 requires major housing developments to provide children’s play areas. Key challenges Key challenges for the new Local Plan are thought to include: • Ensuring the social infrastructure needs of the borough are considered when meeting growth targets and working with infrastructure providers to meet any new needs. • Ensuring that delivery mechanisms for social infrastructure are effective. • Maximising social infrastructure by allowing new models of public and community provision and co-location. • Hillingdon is home to many valued sports and leisure facilities, including playing fields. These types of uses and spaces are often under pressure and can be at risk of redevelopment for higher value uses, in particular housing. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 24 • The borough is home to educational facilities including Brunel University of London, Uxbridge College and Buckinghamshire New University. The plan should protect these uses and facilitate their economic potential in clustering knowledge economy uses. • The borough has a large amount of highly valued parks and opens spaces, covering approximately 1,800 acres. These spaces need to be protected and enhanced while ensuring development helps improve open space provision and biodiversity value. • Improving health is a key priority – and the plan should help promote active and healthy lifestyles through provision of community facilities, quality accessible open space and a range of sports facilities and play spaces. • The new Local Plan will need to reflect the limitations of the new Use Class Order and permitted development rights, which makes protection of certain types of infrastructure less achievable through the planning system. What the new Local Plan could achieve The Council Strategy set ambitions for residents including that they: • live active and healthy lives, • enjoy access to green spaces, leisure activities, culture and arts, and • achieve well in education, with opportunities for learning at all ages. The Local Plan will need to promote social interaction and enable and support healthy lifestyles in line with national policy and the London Plan. The Local Plan will also need to protect and enhance existing social infrastructure within the borough to develop inclusive and strong communities which brings people together and provides opportunities for social, educational, health, recreational and cultural activities. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 25 8. Economy The existing Hillingdon Local Plan sets out the Council’s policy approach to: • Promoting economic development and employment in Hillingdon, • Supporting businesses of a range of sizes to grow and invest, • The provision and protection of employment premises and sites, • Supporting job creation and opportunities for training and skills development, • Supporting tourism and providing visitor accommodation, and • Protecting the vitality and viability of town centres, high streets and local parades. Existing approach Key policies include: • Policy DME 1 protects industrial uses in Strategic Industrial Locations, Locally Significant Industrial Sites and Locally Significant Employment Locations, • Policy DME 2 facilitates the reuse of employment land outside of designated areas subject to certain criteria, • Policy DME 3 supports and protects offices in preferred locations, including town centres, Uxbridge and Stockley Park and establishes a sequential approach for office development outside of these locations, • Policy DME 4, 5, and 6 sets out where visitor attractions and accommodation should be located, limiting impacts, and ensuring accessibility, • Policy DMTC 1 directs retail and town centre uses to Hillingdon’s network of town centres and high streets, • Policy DMTC 2 balances the mix of uses in primary and secondary frontages in designated centres, with DMTC 3 protecting local centres and parades, and • Policy DMTC 4 protects the amenity of town centres by controlling uses with potential negative externalities such as hot food takeaways, night clubs, and betting shops. Key challenges Key challenges for the new Local Plan are thought to include: • Harnessing Hillingdon’s strategic location in West London to boost high productivity growth sectors and to support economic clusters in line with the Hillingdon Growth Plan, London Growth Plan, and Invest 2035 (the Government’s plan for growth). Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 26 • Consideration of the range of impacts arising from proposals for expansion of Heathrow Airport, taking account of a revised Airports National Policy Statement which is expected to be published in 2026. • The office market has changed following the COVID-19 pandemic, with businesses seeking less floorspace overall, located in highly accessible locations and in high quality buildings. • Understanding and accommodating any new and evolving needs for commercial, business and service floorspace. • Hillingdon has a large amount of industrial land with relatively low vacancies, which should be protected and intensified in accordance with the London Plan. • Data centres are an essential piece of digital infrastructure to support the UK’s service-based economy. Demand for data centres has increased in recent years in Hillingdon, with impacts on industrial sites, character and amenity, and the energy network. • Demand for serviced accommodation linked to Heathrow Airport is strong, with impacts on the transport network and land for other uses. • Ensuring town centres and high streets are vital and viable places for certain uses against out of centre retail competition, changing consumer preferences and the rise of online shopping. • Managing town centres so they can host daytime, evening and night- time activities when appropriate. • Reviewing the role of local parades, local and district town centres to ensure they remain important destinations for residents, who may otherwise face poor access to services. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 27 What the new Local Plan could achieve One of the commitments of the Council strategy is for a thriving economy, where businesses grow within a strong economy and local people can improve their skills and enjoy good quality jobs. The Local Plan could: • Implement the vision of the Hillingdon Growth Plan of ‘global gateway meets local opportunity’, by supporting: − The Creative Cluster and frontier innovation at Hayes, Stockley Park, and the Old Vinyl Factory, − The WestTech London corridor at Uxbridge and the Brunel Quarter, − Modern logistics and supply chains at the Heathrow Economic Activity Zone and − Unique urban and village experience at Ruislip, Northwood and Harefield. • Protect and modernise offices and industrial in key locations to support the economy, • Ensure that data centres and other unique uses are located and designed appropriately, • Manage the development of tourist accommodation, particularly around Heathrow Airport, and • Protect and enhance town centres, ensuring they remain busy, vibrant and valued centres of the community. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 28 9. Heritage and culture The existing Hillingdon Local Plan sets out the Council’s policy approach to: • Conserving and enhancing historic assets, including listed buildings, conservation areas, archaeological priority areas, areas of special local character, registered parks and gardens, ancient monuments and war memorials, • The role of heritage is to inspire new development with distinctive appearance and character, and • How community facilities, including cultural uses (relating to recreation such as sport, performance, religion, art, music or food) are protected from loss, and where new community facilities may be developed. Existing approach Key policies include: • Policies DMHB 1 to 9 protect heritage assets, including listed buildings and conservation areas, locally listed buildings, areas of special local character, registered historic parks, gardens and landscapes, and war memorials. • Policy DME 4 supports development of visitor attractions, subject to criteria, and • Policy DMCI 1 protects existing community facilities, including cultural uses, and Policy DMCI 2 directs new cultural facilities to town centres. Key challenges Key challenges to support built historic heritage in Hillingdon are thought to include: • Protecting heritage assets, including preventing any incremental harm that could arise over time, • Strengthening Hillingdon’s unique built heritage relating to industrial, transport, communication, educational, cultural, civic, retail, faith and technical infrastructure, • Encouraging restoration of heritage assets at risk, • Protecting locally significant views, particularly those which positively frame historic assets, and • Protecting valued cultural facilities where viable, such as public houses and theatres, from loss and developing new facilities to boost the cultural offer of Hillingdon. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 29 What the new Local Plan could achieve A key commitment of the Council Strategy is protecting Hillingdon's heritage and valued green spaces. The Local Plan should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, as required by the NPPF (Chapter 16). The Local Plan should set out a positive, locally distinctive strategy for the conservation, enhancement and enjoyment of Hillingdon’s historic environment. This means identifying and responding to the borough’s specific heritage assets and characteristics, including designated and non-designated assets, conservation areas, archaeological interest and heritage at risk, and clearly articulating how these contribute to the spatial strategy, growth locations and place-making priorities. The Local Plan could also establish the key mechanisms and evidence needed to support this approach, such as maintaining an up-to-date historic environment record, preparing and reviewing conservation area appraisals and management plans, and identifying non-designated heritage assets through a local list. It can set expectations for proactive asset management, the reuse and enhancement of heritage assets, and the integration of heritage considerations into masterplanning and site allocation processes, ensuring that heritage is embedded early in plan- making rather than addressed solely at application stage. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 30 10. Green infrastructure and natural environment The existing Hillingdon Local Plan sets out the Council’s policy approach to: • Protecting the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land, • Protecting green and blue infrastructure and securing new areas of urban greening in development, • Protecting open space and securing new open spaces in development, • Protecting ecological sites and securing net biodiversity gain in developments, • Protecting trees of value and requiring new trees in development, • Protecting agricultural land, allotments and geodiversity. Existing approach The protection and enhancement of green infrastructure and the natural environment is important nationally, regionally and locally. The existing Local Plan affords significant protection to the existing green infrastructure network and natural environment. Key policies include: • Policy DMEI 1 requires all major development proposals are required to incorporate living roofs or walls into the development unless there is suitable justification. • Policy DMEI 4 protects against inappropriate development in the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land, unless very special circumstances apply. • Policy DMEI 5 sets out that development in Green Chains, which provide physical links between wildlife and recreation sites in the borough, are only supported if they conserve and enhance the visual amenity and nature conservation value of the landscape. • Policy DMEI 6 seeks that development at Green Edge locations (adjacent to the Green Belt, MOL, Green Chains, SINCs, nature reserves, countryside, green spaces or the Blue Ribbon Network) is landscaped to assimilate into the surrounding area. • Policy DMEI 7 protects and enhances biodiversity value in development. • Policy DMEI 8 sets out a range of measures to protect watercourses by controlling waterside development. • Policy DMEI 10 requires development to control water run-off, including incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). • Policy DMHB 11 requires that development is of the highest standards of design including landscaping and tree planning to enhance amenity, biodiversity and green infrastructure. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 31 Key challenges Key challenges for the new Local Plan are thought to include: • National policy on the development of Green Belt has been significantly reformed, with more changes planned during 2026. The NPPF provides a wider range of circumstances where Green Belt may be developed, including the introduction of ‘Grey Belt’ land. The Local Plan will have to respond to this new framework for development with a strategic plan-led approach to reviewing the Green Belt. This will include identifying Green Belt land for protection, including redesignating it as Metropolitan Open Land or Local Green Space, and considering appropriate locations for Green Belt release for development in sustainable locations. • Air quality has improved significantly over the last few decades, however Hillingdon’s air still does not meet WHO guidelines for some pollutants. Water quality too needs to be improved. Green infrastructure can play an important role in filtering pollutants from the air and ground. • Green infrastructure and the natural environment are valuable in storing carbon, cooling the climate and filtering the air and water. A key challenge is building for a growing population whilst also improving on the network of green infrastructure, including through urban greening. • Health issues such as diabetes, obesity and heart disease, which can be significantly influenced by lifestyle and the environment, are prevalent in the borough. Spaces for physical activity and relaxation are not spread equally around the borough, with some areas deficient in these types of spaces. • Access to nature and open space is unequal in the borough, with some areas enjoying good access while others are deficient. There is a need to improve the quality of and access to open spaces, rivers and canals for all groups of people in the community. • Biodiversity may suffer because of urban activity, climate change, and new development if left unmitigated. The Council needs to meet the needs of a growing population whilst protecting wildlife habitats and enhancing biodiversity. • Recognising existing geodiversity within the borough and ensuring planning decisions protect and enhance this. • Ensuring the number and quality of trees in the borough increases to increase the extend of London’s urban forest. • Exploring the viability and need for greater food production in the Borough. • There is significant pressure on water resources which will increase as the population grows. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 32 What the new Local Plan could achieve A key commitment from the Council Strategy is for a green and sustainable borough, where Hillingdon will be a sustainable, carbon- neutral borough, protecting Hillingdon's heritage, built environment and valued green spaces. Green infrastructure is instrumental in tackling the effects of climate change, providing habitat for biodiversity, and improving health and mental wellbeing. The Local Plan could: • Provide a bold new vision to permanently protect Hillingdon’s network of parks, rivers and green open spaces, including designating areas as Metropolitan Open Land or Local Green Space. • Integrate biodiversity and nature recovery throughout the plan, from the spatial strategy to requirements for development, including: − Protecting areas of existing biodiversity value including Sites In Nature Conservation, − Seeking the maximum practical provision of green infrastructure from new development, − P rotect trees and require new development to provide new trees and − Reducing water run-off from developments by requiring Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) to tackle flooding and climate change impacts. Hillingdon Local Plan | Scoping consultation 33 11. Sustainable infrastructure The existing Hillingdon Local Plan sets out the Council’s policy approach to: • Ensuring new buildings are energy efficient and low carbon, • Expanding decentralised energy networks, • Minimising flood risk, and reducing water run off through Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), • P rotecting ground water, remediating contaminated land, managing waste and improving air quality, and • Controlling mineral extraction, aggregates, landfilling, and telecommunications infrastructure. Existing approach Key elements of the Local Plan policies on sustainable infrastructure include: • Policy DMEI 2 requires that new developments to reduce carbon emissions in line with London Plan targets and seeking offsite contributions if required. • Policy DMEI 3 requires major developments to be designed to be able to connect to a decentralised energy network, with those within 500 metres of an existing network required to connect. • Policy DMEI9 requires developments within flood risk zones 2 and 3a demonstrate there are no suitable sites in areas of lower flood risk, and no development is permitted within flood risk zone 3b. • Policy DMEI 10 requires all new development to use SUDS, and all major development and all minor development in Critical Drainage Areas or areas at risk of surface water flooding to reduce surface water run off to greenfield rate in a 1:100 year storm scenario, with allowance for climate change. • Policy DMEI 11 requires development within a Source Protection Zone, Safeguard Zone or Water Protection Zone to assess and protect against harm to groundwater resources. • Policy DMEI 12 requires development to mitigate or remediate contaminated land. • Policy DMEI 13 controls developments that import

Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Only the start of this long document is shown here. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.

📄 Appendix 2 - Hillingdon Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation Statement , item 7. PDF 2 MB
Read the text of this document (77 pages)
Appendix 2 Hillingdon Local Plan Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ June 2026 Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 2 Contents 1. Introduction ................................ ................................ ...................... 3 2. Statutory requirements ................................ ................................ ..... 4 3. Consultation activities ................................ ................................ ....... 5 4. Summary of main issues raised ................................ ...................... 11 5. List of representors ................................ ................................ ......... 22 6. Call for sites submissions ................................ ............................... 25 7. Appendix 1: Regulation 18 Questionnaire ................................ ....... 34 Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 3 1. Introduction 1.1 Hillingdon Council is preparing a new Local Plan. This will replace the existing Local Plan documents: • Local Plan: Part 1 Strategic Policies and • Local Plan: Part 2 Development Management Policies. 1.2 Hillingdon’s Local Plan sets out policies and site allocations that will guide and help determine development in the borough over a 15-year period. Background 1.3 Hillingdon commenced its Local Plan preparation in 2023 with the aim to complete the Local Plan under the existing (now ‘legacy’) plan-making system. The council undertook a call for views consultation (Regulation 18) in 2024. 1.4 This Consultation Statement sets out details on the 2024 Call for Views consultation. It demonstrates how the Hillingdon council complied with the consultation requirements at the time prescribed in the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended) and the council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement1. 1.5 This statement details the consultation activities undertaken at the Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ stage and summarises the feedback received and main issues raised. Relationship with the Scoping Consultation under the new plan- making system 1.6 In early 2026 the Government adopted a new system for the preparation of Local Plans, as part of its wider planning reforms and objective to boost growth and development. The council has now adopted a revised programme under the new plan-making system. The new plan-making system requires that all stages of consultation are conducted under the new system. This includes running a Scoping Consultation at the beginning of the plan making process. The purpose of the Scoping Consultation is to: • Ask stakeholders what the Local Plan should contain and • set out how the council will engage with stakeholders. 1.7 The purpose of the Scoping Consultation is broadly the same as the 2024 Call for Views consultation. This means that many representations made under this previous consultation are likely to remain broadly relevant in 2026. We therefore intend on carrying forward all representations as consideration in plan making under the Scoping Consultation, unless stakeholders inform us otherwise. Stakeholders will be invited to make 1 Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) - Hillingdon Council Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 4 any further representations under the Scoping Consultation, or to retract or amend previous representations, including call for sites submissions. 2. Statutory requirements National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024 2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework requires plan making to “be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan- makers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure providers and operators and statutory consultees” (Paragraph 16(c)). Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations, 2012 Regulation 18 2.2 As a minimum, the Local Planning Authority must notify relevant organisations (as defined in the Regulations) of the subject of the policies update and invite each of them to make representations about what the policies update ought to contain. The Local Planning Authority must consider the representations made. Statement of Community Involvement 2.3 The council adopted a Statement of Community Involvement or SCI in November 2021, which sets out processes and commitments the council intends to undertake in terms of engaging with local communities in the borough. The council believes that genuine community involvement in the planning process can improve the quality and efficiency of planning decisions, deliver better plans and achieve higher quality development. 2.4 The aim of the SCI is to ensure that all sectors of the community in Hillingdon are informed, understand how they can make representations, have access to information, are involved early in decision-making processes and can take an active role in preparing proposals or options to manage land. 2.5 The council has considered, in the SCI, what additional measures, beyond statutory requirements, it can employ to maximise participation in the plan- making process. It is committed to using different methods according to the scope of the consultation, the target audience and resources available. It is noted that there needs to be a certain degree of flexibility in the methods proposed to ensure that they are proportionate and appropriate to the Plan proposed. Duty to Cooperate 2.6 The Duty to Cooperate was introduced under the Localism Act 2011 and placed a legal duty on local planning authorities in England to ‘engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 5 effectiveness of Local Plan preparation in the context of strategic cross boundary matters.’ Since then, the Duty has been revoked, however, authorities are still encouraged to continue to work together across their boundaries, including on unmet development needs from neighbouring areas. 2.7 Hillingdon have engaged with neighbouring authorities to discuss strategic matters and understand whether there are any areas that could be jointly on. The council will continue to engage with neighbouring authorities through-out the Plan preparation period. 3. Consultation activities Consultation dates 3.1 The Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ consultation was undertaken between 29 April 2024 to 24 June 2024. Evidence published at launch The following evidence base documents were available for download from the Council website at time of launch: • Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) Scoping Report (PDF, 9 MB) • Hillingdon Townscape and Character Study 2023 (Urban Initiatives) (PDF, 43 MB) • Hillingdon Employment Land and Capacity Study 2023 (Avison Young) (PDF, 5 MB) • Hillingdon Employment Land and Capacity Study 2023 Annex 1 (PDF, 11 MB) • Hillingdon Employment Land and Capacity Study 2023 Annex 2 (PDF, 375 KB) • Hillingdon Employment Land and Capacity Study 2023 Annex 3 (PDF, 554 KB) • West London Town Centre Study 2023 (Urban Foresight) (PDF, 9 MB) Who was consulted? 3.2 The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended) state that the local planning authority must notify interested parties and individuals, including the prescribed bodies defined in the Regulations, invite comment, and must take into consideration the representations made in response. The whole of the Local Plan database was consulted which include statutory consultees. Relevant statutory consultees are set out below. Statutory Consultees contacted for Regulation 18 Consultation • Environment Agency • Natural England Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 6 • Historic England • Homes England • Highways England • Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities • Greater London Authority • Network Rail • Transport for London • Coal Authority • Canal and Rivers Trust • Heathrow Airport Ltd • Lead Local Flood Authority (Hillingdon internal consult) • Marine Management Organisation • Ministry for Defence • RAF Northolt • Denham Airport • London Fire Brigade • Metropolitan Police Utilities • Cadent Gas • National Grid • UK Power Networks • SSEN: Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks • Mobile Operators Association • Oil Pipeline Agency • Thames Water • Affinity Water • Anglian Water Services Healthcare • NHS Northwest London ICB • Hillingdon CCG • West London CCGs • Hillingdon Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Neighbouring Local Planning Authorities • Harrow Council • Brent Council • Hounslow Council • Ealing Council • Slough Council • South Bucks Council Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 7 • Buckinghamshire • Spelthorne Council • Three Rivers District Council • Watford Borough Council Launch activities Website and questionnaire The consultation was be run through a bespoke webpage dedicated to the Local Plan consultation. It provided information on the scope and purpose of the Local Plan, as well as presenting background information and prompt questions. The webpage was designed with the Communications team and the Customer Engagement team to maximise stakeholder engagement. Press Release A press release was circulated on the launch day. Email and letters On commencement of the consultation contacted all contacts on the Hillingdon Planning Policy Consultation Database, including statutory consultees. Letters were sent to without email addresses. Paper copies Hard copies of the questionnaire were available for inspection at the Civic Centre by appointment. Respondents were able to reply by web, email, or post. Social media The communications team regularly posted information on the Council’s social media accounts leading up to and during the consultation period. Platforms used were X, Facebook, next-door, and Linked-in. Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 8 Post launch activities Magazine article – Hillingdon People The magazine is delivered to homes across the borough every two months. The article appeared in the May edition which is for delivery between Monday 13 May and Friday 24 May. Website homepage A banner was added to the homepage linking to the consultation. Information sessions Two information sessions were held to introduce the Local Plan and the purpose of the consultation: • Online event: Wednesday 22 May 14:00 to 15:30 (MS Teams) • In person event: Thursday 23 May 18:00 to 20:00 (Civic Centre: Committee Room 4) The online event included an introduction to the Local Plan and break out rooms and topic- based discussions. The in-person event was a drop-in style session with several council officers available to answer questions. Business led events A business led stakeholder meeting with the Hillingdon Chamber of commerce, Hayes Town Partnership, Uxbridge BID and Brunel was undertaken. Hillingdon Expo: Hillingdon had a stand at the expo advertising the consultation (23 May 2024). Participation Service – Young People’s Voice Group An email was circulated to the Young People’s Voice Group. Poster Posters advertising the Local plan consultation were placed in 58 established locations around the borough as selected by the Customer Engagement team. The poster announced the beginning of the consultation, set the scope and purpose of the Local Plan, and provide details on how to respond. Press notice – West London Gazette A notice was placed in the West London Gazette announcing the beginning of the Regulation 18 Consultation. Briefings Briefings were provided to Councillors including Chief whips and ward Councillors. Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 9 E-Newsletter An item to be added informing of the consultation. Residents Planning Forum The Local Plan consultation was presented to the Resident’s Planning Forum Questionnaire 3.3 The council prepared a comprehensive information pack and questionnaire to explain the scope, challenges, and main issues of the Local Plan in Hillingdon, ask a series of pertinent questions and inform stakeholders to allow them to provide the most effective consultation responses. 3.4 There were 52 questions in total across 10 topics including: 1) Objectives and Vision, 2) Growth and Spatial Strategy, 3) Design, 4) Housing, 5) Social Infrastructure, 6) Economy, 7) Heritage and Culture, 8) Green Infrastructure and Natural Environment, 9) Sustainable Infrastructure, 10) Transport. 3.5 In total there were 92 responses using the questionnaire demonstrating the benefit of using a standardised approach with easy to understand questions. Questionnaire responses constituted 65% of the total number of responses. The Questionnaire is included in Appendix 1. Call for sites 3.6 The council undertook two ‘call for sites’ exercises to gather information on land that individuals or organisations may consider having development potential. The calls for sites were run on the following dates: • Friday 26 May to Friday 29 September 2023, and • Monday 29 April 2024 to 24 June 2024. 3.7 An online GIS mapping platform was used to allow stakeholders to map sites for submission. The results of this exercise formed part of the evidence gathering for the review of the Local Plan. 3.8 There were 80 sites submitted as part of the call for sites exercise. Alongside this, representations were also made in response to the Local Plan call for views. 3.9 Further details on the Call for Sites consultation are available at Appendix 2. Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 10 Call for open space evidence 3.10 As part of the Local Plan consultation, the Council asked stakeholders to submit open spaces for assessment as part of the update of our open space evidence. An online GIS mapping platform (ArcGIS) was used to allow stakeholders to map sites for submission. 3.11 We asked stakeholders to provide submissions including a description explaining how a space meets the typology and any relevant supporting information which may justify its protection. The submissions were reviewed by the council against PPG17 criteria. 3.12 This consultation ran concurrently with the Local Plan Call for Views consultation from Monday 29 April 2024 ending on Monday 24 June 2024. 3.13 A total of five sites were submitted to this consultation for consideration. Four of the sites applied to land already identified in the 2015 study, and one was an erroneous submission. Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 11 4. Summary of main issues raised 4.1 The following section provides a summary of the main issues raised for each key topic area. All representations received, including those not referenced in the main issue raised summary, will be considered by the Council for the purposes of plan making. Topic Area Main issues raised Whole Plan Comments Residents raised concerns about overdevelopment and its impact on social infrastructure. There was a common view that development must be supported by new infrastructure of all types. Councillors also wanted growth to be matched by infrastructure to proactive meet needs. Other comments called for more industry and business in the north and increased green space in the south. Residents and the wished to see a stronger focus on public health, particularly in densely populated areas. The NHS called for health and wellbeing to be prioritised throughout the plan, including policies to reduce health inequalities, promote inclusive design and secure Section 106 contributions for health infrastructure from major developments. 01 Objectives and Vision Environment Several residents have expressed opposition to increased development due to concerns over environmental impacts including impacts on biodiversity. There was strong support from residents for the protection of the Green Belt, with residents emphasising the importance of preserving natural landscapes in line with national and local environmental priorities. Additionally, the importance enhancing access to green spaces in promoting physical and mental health was a common theme. Furthermore, tenants’ and residents' associations called for a stronger emphasis on ecological objectives, including commitments to a green recovery and the broader climate emergency agenda. Housing Many residents and community groups have stressed the need for intensified efforts towards truly affordable housing. There is a view that current proposals may not adequately meet local housing needs, particularly for lower-income households and younger residents. Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 12 Economy and community development Residents and landowners have noted the importance of creating vibrant, inclusive neighbourhoods where people feel a sense of belonging and shared responsibility. There was a call for supporting and expanding employment opportunities to ensure that key business hubs, such as Stockley Park, continue to attract and retain thriving enterprises. Suggestions also include the regeneration of areas like Yiewsley and West Drayton to boost economic activity, improve infrastructure and enhance local services. Some councillors have recommended that the plan’s key language include the word “create” to ensure it conveys a clear commitment to delivering new opportunities. 02 Growth and Spatial Strategy Housing and land supply There was concern from developers and landowners that continued reliance on brownfield land is no longer a sufficient or appropriate strategy for Hillingdon and will result in sites that do not deliver the full housing mix and quality that is required. Some developers and landowners suggested that greenfield sites may need to be considered to meet this need. Developers also suggested that new residential development should be directed towards well-connected locations, especially those along the Elizabeth Line, such as Hayes and West Drayton, to maximise infrastructure investment and promote sustainable growth. Spatial distribution of development Residents and landowners expressed concern over uneven development across the borough, with too much development focused in the south. They called for a more balanced approach that considers community impacts and quality of life, not just housing targets. Employment land and economic growth Respondents felt that relying on existing floorspace and intensification is not enough to meet future employment needs. There was strong support for expanding industrial and commercial uses in the Heathrow Opportunity Area, particularly along the Hayes and West Drayton Corridor. Town centres and sustainable development Developers supported identifying Hayes as a key location for both housing and employment growth, leveraging existing infrastructure to promote sustainable development. Employment uses like retail should follow a town centre- Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 13 first approach, aligning with the NPPF sequential test, though some flexibility is allowed for edge-of-centre developments when justified. 03 Design Accessibility and inclusive design A statutory consultee responded supporting embedding health in all policies within design to promote wellbeing. Emphasis was placed on creating distinctive, healthy places that reflect local heritage. They also highlight the importance of creating attractive, affordable and accessible environments to help make healthy choices easier for residents. Developers would like to see front facing gardens to encourage social interaction, as well as benches and meeting places. Tall buildings Residents and tenants’ and residents’ associations (TRAs) had concerns regarding the impact of tall buildings, particularly in the south of the borough. TRAs wanted clear guidance on where tall buildings would be appropriate and were not. Several environmental groups recommended the plan consider the impact of tall buildings on wildlife and green spaces. Sustainable design Landowners and developers support climate-resilient design, highlighting the importance of incorporating SUDS and efficient design measures to manage overheating and other environmental challenges. Residents have expressed concern over the potential loss of front gardens, reduced green space and increased surface water run-off. Residents also wanted to see the inclusion of children’s play areas, outdoor seating and plenty of trees. Statutory bodies have advised that buildings should be set back from the rivers to prevent overshading, which can negatively impact aquatic plant growth and local biodiversity. 04 Housing Housing targets and requirements Developers wanted the Council should either meet or exceed London Plan housing targets to meet housing need. Some representors suggested following the Mayor’s Threshold Approach for the Affordable Housing with 35% Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 14 on privately owned land, 50% on publicly owned land without portfolio agreements, and 50% on Industrial Land. Affordability There was support for a 50% affordable housing target from some developers and residents and residents’ associations, with developers stating this should be subject to viability. Some developers wanted a more flexible approach to affordable housing, claiming it not realistic on some sites. Some developers stated minor development should be exempt from affordable housing. Some residents and residents’ associations were critical of the 50% affordable housing target, stating it was not realistic and not needed in some areas. Unit mix Several residents called for protecting and providing new large family homes, and some stated that too many 1- and 2-bedroom flats are being developed. There was clear support from developers for addressing diverse housing needs, including student accommodation, housing for health workers and older persons housing. There were calls from some Councillors for the regeneration of social housing areas, ensuring high-quality flats, prioritising homes with gardens for families and avoiding overdevelopment. Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Some residents said there were too many HMOs and were concerned about the loss of large family homes. There were also calls to licence all HMOs and concerns raised about the impacts on amenity, car parking and waste. Brownfield first Many landowners agreed that transforming underused brownfield sites for residential use is a flexible approach, while others suggested that development in Green Belt locations next to key public transport will be beneficial. There were calls from residents to protect Green Belt from residential development. Lastly, there were calls to protect Colne Valley Regional Park as a constraint. Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 15 05 Social Infrastructure Investment in youth facilities and community hubs  Respondents highlighted the need for more services and facilities for children and young people in the borough. This includes, but is not limited to, more playgrounds and sports facilities. There was a clear request for greater protection of existing social infrastructure such as public houses, live music venues, accessible clubs and faith-based community centres. Essential services and infrastructure Respondents stressed the importance of maintaining essential services such as convenience retail stores, public transport hubs, health and education facilities and ensuring that new and increased services are provided within new developments to ensure the increase in population does not have an adverse impact on existing residents. New developments should contribute towards improving existing infrastructure. Amenity green space Some respondents requested that 25% of the total area of new development sites should comprise green space. 06 Economy Industrial land and employment space Respondents requested that the Local Plan should identify additional industrial floorspace, in line with emerging evidence and should not rely solely on intensifying existing sites. Responses called for a range of industrial typologies and facilities of varying size, quality and environmental standards to be allocated in the emerging Local Plan. Data centres, offices and infrastructure Developers emphasised that data centre development presents opportunities for major investment, economic multiplier effects, job creation and the provision of UK critical infrastructure. Developers also said the availability of power is a prerequisite for data centre and large-scale employment development. On the other hand, some residents voiced concerns about the quantity of data centres and suggested they should only be in existing industrial areas. Other comments noted that data centre demand should be captured in employment land planning. There were calls from landowners to protect offices in designated employment areas and residents suggested that commercial spaces be protected, not converted into residential. Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 16 Town centres and high streets Residents called for revitalising town centres, including Eastcote, by filling empty units, encouraging and incentivising diverse businesses and supporting affordable rents. They also supported limiting uses like vape shops, improving safety and reducing hotels near Heathrow. There were also calls to include renewable energy and zero carbon buildings into economic policy. 07 Heritage and Culture Protection and conservation of heritage assets Many residents support the protection of local heritage, including the extension of conservation areas and have expressed concern over derelict heritage assets. There is a particular concern about the impact of the Heathrow Opportunity Area on heritage assets and conservation areas, with specific mention of the Great Barn in Harmondsworth. Calls have been made from developers and residents for greater protection of sites in Heathrow Villages and Longford Village, including the retention of parks and recognition of heritage assets such as ancient woodland. Barra Hall has been noted as an example or a protected heritage site. Conservation Area management Statutory consultees have noted concern around the lack of conservation area appraisal or management plan. Emphasises maximising the wider benefits of conserving the historic environment, particularly in terms of place making, climate action, nature recovery and social wellbeing. Councillors would like to see consultations being held before the sale of any heritage asset to ensure that these sites are properly protected. Promotion and education Residents, councillors, developers, interest groups and tenants’ and residents’ associations agreed that there is a need to educate the public about local heritage with suggestions including features in magazines and heritage programs, including public education. Additionally, there were suggestions that the borough should actively promote its heritage and establish and a dedicated space to house and protect local archives. Arts, culture and museums Residents called for a clear strategy for arts and culture, along with the establishment of museums to promote and celebrate the heritage a cultural identity of the area. Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 17 08 Green Infrastructure and Natural Environment Green Belt protection and review There was strong support from councillors, residents, residents’ associations and charity and community groups for stronger protections for Green Belt land. There was general opposition from residents and councillors for building on the Green Belt. There was a suggestion that Green Belt land should be utilised for recreational use for residents and that having access to open space is beneficial for public health. However, a group of councillors suggested that educational uses should be removed from the list of acceptable uses in the Green Belt as there is sufficient provision of schools in the Borough. It was also noted that once spaces are gone, they cannot be replaced. There was a request from one residents’ association to expand current Green Belt boundaries around Ickenham Marshes. One residents’ association suggested that a single area of Green Belt could be strategically released for residential development alongside shops and services to avoid over- development in other local areas. Developers and landowners, as well as community groups and businesses raised the overly restrictive nature of Green Belt policy and advocated for a Green Belt review in support of the new Local Plan and increased housing targets. There were several responses that raised concerns about the need for housing and the restrictive nature of the existing brownfield land first policy. It was also noted that several Green Belt sites are in sustainable locations, and therefore, should be considered for development. Further, responses were submitted arguing that several Green Belt sites do not contribute towards the 5 purposes set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and should be re-assessed as part of the Local Plan review. One response suggested where land is de- designated as Green Belt, nearby parks or sites of nature conservation should be improved to offset the loss. Some of the sites proposed for Green Belt release from respondents included land west of Stockley Road, Land at Shepiston Lane, Glebe Farm and Fore Street nursery. Incorporating urban greening into design Charities and residents call for policies that promote plants, green roofs, green walls and the protection of gardens as vital for nature recovery, floor management and enhancing climate resilience, health and access to nature. The stress Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 18 the importance of the quality, design and long-term management of green infrastructure, not just its quantity. Conversely, some developers resist mandatory green roof requirements, arguing that biodiversity Net Gain obligations are sufficient and express concern about sustainable drainage (SuDS) policies exceeding statutory requirements. Biodiversity and nature based solutions There is strong support for Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) policies from interest groups, with recommendations to exceed the national 10% requirement where feasible and to include protections for Priority and Protected Species under the Environment Act 20221 and NERC Act 2006. Additionally, there were calls for a Hillingdon Local Nature Recovery Plan, informed by the Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) review and support rewilding and nature-based solutions. There are also widespread calls from residents to protect playing fields and wildlife sites and councillors would like to see increased tree planting, improving biodiversity and green corridors in the south of the borough. Residents view green spaces as essential for community well-being and health. Other responses state development should not compromise existing open spaces and should include adequate provision for new green spaces. Flood risk and sustainable water management Overall, comments received raised concerns about risk of flooding across the borough and promoted a natural response to combatting flood-risk. Councillors raised concerns relating to potential flood risk in the borough and requested that measures to reduce risk be incorporated into the Plan. Statutory consultees also raised concerns about flooding and promoted nature-based solutions to combat flooding including tree planting, SuDs and re-wilding along the Rivers Crane and Colne. Consultees also raised the need for strong planning policies to promote the management of rainwater and surface water run-off, in addition to flooding from rivers and streams. One statutory consultee suggested that policies should state the importance of front and back gardens for flood Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 19 management and should encourage re-wilding of open spaces. One statutory consultee also requested that the Council assess the possibility of securing open spaces for the specific use of floodplain compensation. Rivers should be able to expand, where possible, and existing floodplains re- connected to protect homes and buildings from flooding. They also requested that any new site allocations should not expand the built footprint into Flood Zone 3. Another statutory consultee requested that policies be designed to deliver high quality street design including ensuring permeability of spaces to reduce surface water flooding. Residents and residents’ associations raised concerns about potential risks to gardens from flooding and noted that additional development could exacerbate the situation. In order to mitigate this, it was recommended that all new developments should incorporate SuDS measures and any larger developments must improve existing drainage infrastructure. Concerned residents noted that areas including West Drayton and Yiewsley, Northwood Hills, Eastcote and Harmondsworth already have a problem, which could get worse. Air quality Responses from several councillors included issues around poor air quality and the need for the Local Plan to address this. Air quality should be measured across the borough, with ‘air quality control’ implemented in the worst areas. Councillors also raised issues with pollution from Heathrow Airport. There was a suggestion that the ‘Hayes and West Drayton Corridor’ should be protected from increases in air pollution and more open spaces protected/designated. There was also a request that development should be stopped within air quality focus areas. Residents have raised concerns about poor air quality in the borough and the impacts this has on public health. Issues raised particularly focused on the need to promote practical green infrastructure policies and protect existing natural assets such as trees, open spaces, hedgerows etc. Several responses from residents also raised the impacts of Heathrow Airport on air quality in the borough. A residents association noted that the Local Plan should be more ambitious and should require development to be ‘air quality neutral’ as ‘improvement’ in no longer adequate. This stance was echoed by a statutory consultee that Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 20 requested the borough promote air quality neutral and air quality positive development through the Local Plan. Responses from businesses also asserted that air quality needs to be urgently addressed. 09 Sustainable Infrastructure Sustainable development and construction There was a lot of support from residents and developers for new builds to have solar panels installed and follow net zero housing standards. Developers and residents also emphasised that construction should focus on minimising demolition and focus more on material re-use contributing to a circular economy. Nature and biodiversity There were multiple comments from residents who wished to see clean green spaces which are accessible and protected. Residents also stated that policies should be strengthened to enhance the green character across all developments within the borough. Charities and community groups asked for more nature- based solution policies like green roofs, SUDS and urban hedgerows to support biodiversity net gain. Sustainable infrastructure There was widespread support from residents and statutory consultees for addressing climate change through increased EV charging, SuDS, retrofitting existing homes, low-carbon development and microgeneration turbines. Waste and pollution management There were numerous comments from residents which call for safer waste collection infrastructure in developments. There was also support for improving drainage infrastructure in floor prone areas, utilising SUDs. Others would like to see stronger policies to grey water in new developments. Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 21 10 Transport Car parking provision Statutory consultees supported a move towards sustainable travel and expect the Local Plan to support car- free development and adopt maximum car parking standards. The Plan should adopt a policy that promotes turning existing car parks into land for homes and jobs instead. Some developers and landowners supported TfL’s goal to promote sustainable modes of transport and suggested that lower levels of car parking provision should be required through the Local Plan. Several charities and community groups went further and suggested that some areas of car parking should be re- allocated for green space through the Local Plan. At least 25% of kerbside space in the borough should be re-used for green and sustainable infrastructure instead of car parking. However, some residents and residents’ associations felt that there was insufficient car parking provision within new developments, and this should be rectified in the new Local Plan. They would not support a reduction in car parking provision and object to the reduction of the parking ratio. Instead, they would like to see greater car parking provision. Transport links Several residents and respondents from residents’ associations said there were not enough reliable transport links between the north and south of the borough. Sustainable transport Several residents called for increased infrastructure for cycling, scooting and improvements made to footpaths. Other residents said all new development plans should be centred around existing multimodal travel networks. Many residents, councillors and developers called for increased EV charging points, including at flats. Other residents wished to see more electric buses. Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 22 5. List of representors 5.1 Listed below are the stakeholders who responded in the call for views consultation. Residents have not been included to protect personal data. Statutory • Active Travel England • Affinity Water • Environment Agency • Greater London Authority (GLA) • Historic England • Transport for London (TfL) • Ministry of Defence (MoD) • National Highways • Natural England • Places for London (TfL) • Sport England • Canal and River Trust Tenants’ and Residents’ Association • Eastcote Residents' Association • Garden City Residents’ Association • Gateshill Residents’ Association • Harefield Tenants’ and Residents’ Association • Ickenham Residents' Association • Longford Residents’ Association • Northwood Residents’ Association • Oak Farm Residents’ Association • Ruislip Residents' Association Charity or interest group • Colne Valley Regional Park (CVRP) • CPRE London • Crane Valley Partnership • Hayes Town Partnership • Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust • Hillingdon Friends of the Earth • London Healthy Urban Development Unit (NHS) • London Wildlife Trust • Southlands Arts Centre • Swifts Local Network • The Confederation Hillingdon CIC • Theatres Trust Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 23 • Woodland Trust Councillors • Cllr Bassam Mahfouz • Cllr Stuart Mathers • Hillingdon Labour Group of Councillors • West Drayton Councillors Landowners and developers • A2Dominion Group Ltd • All Souls College (Savills) • Ark Data Centres (Savills) • Beck Theatre Ltd • Bidwells • Brunel University (Avison Young) • Car Giant • Carter Jonas • Centrica Combined Common Investment Fund Ltd – Land off Ducks Hill Road (Montagu Evans) • Church Commissioners for England (Lichfields) • CMYK • Colt Data Centres (Savills) • Columbia Threadneedle Investments (Montagu Evans) • GCAP 44 Ltd – Land bound by Dawley Road and Bolingbroke Way (DP9) • Guy Morgan/Countess Goda Estates Ltd – Land at Rickmansworth Road (Montagu Evans) • H Plus Ltd – Land off Chapel Lane Site (Iceni Projects) • Heathrow Airport • Heatons Planning • Home Builders Federation • Ingrebourne Valley Ltd • Joel Street Limited (Charterhouse Property Group) • Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) • Khoja Shia Ithna Asheri Muslim Community (KSIMC) • Laidlaw Estates – 470 Bath Road, Longford (Avison Young) • Legal and General (Strategic Land) Ltd. (Savills) • London Diocesan Fund – Allotment Gardens Site and Land at Breakspear Road site (Iceni Projects) • Metropolitan Police Service (Knight Frank) • Montagu Evans on behalf of Welbeck Strategic Land IV LLP (Land at Clovelly Avenue) • Montare LLP, Lowdham Lodge Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 24 • NHS Property • Nuveen Real Estate – Odyssey Business Park (Rapleys) • Nuveen Real Estate (Rapleys) • Oak Wood School (Barker Parry Town Planning Ltd) • Places for London (TfL) • Prologis (Savills) • SEGRO • Southlands Arts Centre • Square Yard Limited – Land at Kewferry Hill (Phillips Planning Services) • Union4 Planning • Vinci St Modwen (VSM) • Vistry Group • Watkin Jones • Wealdstone FC and Blenheim Chalcot • Woolbro Group • Woolbro Group – Land at North Harlington (JG Planning) • Yiewsley Waterside Limited – Land at Yiewsley Waterside (Stantec) Other • LB Hounslow • Three Rivers Council • Slough Borough Council • Hillingdon Council Public Health Team Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 25 6. Call for sites submissions Below is a list of the representations for call for sites received. Our Reference Promotor Consultant Location AE6 DNA Uxbridge Ltd DP9 148-154 High Street and 25-30 Bakers Road AE8 London Diocese Fund Iceni Land at Moor Lane AR0 Uxbridge United Welfare Trust n/a Hows Road Car Park BA1-BA7 Brunel University London Avison Young Brunel University BD1 WSP N/A Wood End, Land West of Springfield Road BD8 Telereal Securitised Property GP Limited Turley Osborne Road, Uxbridge Telephone Exchange BI6 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team Knight Frank Harefield Village, Land East of Northwood Road BJ4 Heathrow Land Ltd and Enterprise UK Ltd Maven Plan Sipson Road, Land east of Sipson Road BN8 Church Commissioners for England Lichfields Hayes Village BR4 BI5 Wealdstone FC ROK Planning Land off Freezeland Way BS6 DW Routledge, TG Platt & SM Platt CBRE Royal Lane-Uxbridge BX0 Harlington Investors Limited DLA Town Planning, Heathrow Villages Heathrow Villages, The Gavel Centre BY6 Oak Wood School Barker Parry Oak Wood School Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 26 Our Reference Promotor Consultant Location BY8 AEW UK Savills Uxbridge, The Pavilions CC9 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team Harefield Village Harefield Village, Land East of Hill End Road CH7 Heathrow Lands and Skyport Enterprise Maven Chambers Business Park CQ3 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team Knight Frank Ickenham, Park Lodge Farm CV4 Trafalgar Bury Maven Plan Land North of 188 Bury Street Ruislip DB8 Abrdn Pegasus Group The Chimes DP5 Joel Street Ltd Charterhouse Strategic Land Joel Street Farm DQ7 Square Yard Limited PPS Ltd Land at Kewferry Hill DU4 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team N/A Uxbridge, Blue Dragon Dry Cleaners DW7 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team N/A Rural Activities Centre, 1& 2 Merrimans, Merrimans House DX7 Places for London N/A Ickenham, Land West of West Ruislip Depot EG0 Individual Savills Ruislip, Blenheim Care Centre, Ickenham Road ER2 Eagle Street Partners N/A 11 Hertz House, Vine Street EU5 Hotel Top Limited Rok Planning Land off Long Drive EV9 Centrica Combined Common Investment Fund Montagu Evans Land off Duck's Hill Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 27 Our Reference Promotor Consultant Location FD2-FD6 Land Reegen Limited Knight Frank Land at Springwell Lane FE2 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team Knight Frank Longford, Land South of A4 west FH1 Individual Iceni Projects Hayes Park West FJ7 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team Knight Frank Land East of Church Hill FK1 RGP Holdings Ltd Jon Dingle Ltd Silverdale Industrial Estate FM3 NSS LLP Savills Breakspear Road, Former MSD Site FR9 Cappard Estate Union 4 Planning Frogs Ditch Farm and Holloway Farm GW0 Barts Charity Savills Jackets Lane GY2 Comer Homes Savills Harefield Village, Land at Hill End Road HH2 Guy's and St Thomas's Hospital Avison Young Harefield Hospital IB6 Wellbeck Strategic Land Montagu Evans Land at Clovelly Avenue IH2 Guy Morgan Countess Goda Estates Montagu Evans Land at Rickmansworth Road IJ7 Prologis UK Ltd Savills Land East of Stockley Road IL2, RI3, IL2, TK6, XI2, BI5 Places for London N/A TfL Station Car Parks IP0 C&L Country Arora Group Northolt, Country Club IS8 Nuveen Real Estate Rapleys Odyssey Business Park IV7 The Garden City Estate Residents' N/A Yiewsley, Former Coal Depot Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 28 Our Reference Promotor Consultant Location Association (GCERA) IX8 Kings Oak Addison Estate LLP Iceni Projects Limited 702B Field End Road, Addison Industrial Estate JD8 Vinci St Modwen Lichfields St Andrews Gate JFJ3 Henry Streeter Ltd for Harlington Green Ltd Turley Land to the North and South of Cranford Lane JH2 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team N/A Belmore, Former Mecca Bingo JM9 Yiewsley Waterside Limited Stantec Land at Yiewsley Waterside JY9 Infinium Logistics Quod NCP Heathrow KH4 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team Knight Frank Harefield Village, Land North of Park Lane KJ3 Affinity Water Savills Tavistock Road West Drayton KP9 Clermont Hotel Group N/A Heathrow Villages, Thistle Heathrow KQ5 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team N/A Land Bound by Chippendale Waye, Park Road and High Street including Former Regal Cinema KQ9 RR Falcon Ltd Montagu Evans Salamander Quay KT2 Lewdown Holdings Ltd Bidwells Heathrow Villages, Former Sipson Garden Centre SP9 Arora Group N/A Former Quarry on land at Sipson Lane LD7 Montare LLP Magenta Planning Ltd Lowdham Lodge Pole Hill Road LL8 Progress Planning N/A Uxbridge, The Altium Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 29 Our Reference Promotor Consultant Location LP3 Hawksmoore Investments Ltd Brooke Smith Planning Land opposite 176 - 184 Fore Street LR1 CEMEX UK Operations Limited Carter Jonas Land at Shepiston Lane LV3 London Diocesan Fund Iceni Breakspear Road MF3 Pembury Realty Montagu Evans Hayes, Newport Road MF9 Quod N/A 101-105 The Quays MP4 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team Knight Frank Longford, Land South of A4 MQ4 Trustees of Harefield Grove Briggs and Stone Harefield Village, Land at Harefield Grove MV6 R. Heathrow Propco Ltd Jones Lang LaSalle Land off Stockley Road, Crowne Plaza Heathrow MV7 Aspire Infinity Ltd Maven Plan Hayes, Hambro Arms Public House NL5 London Diocesan Fund Iceni Projects Nursery Lane, Allotment Gardens NM3 Shall do Hayes Development Limited Iceni Projects Hayes Park West NY9 All Souls College Savills Land north of Sharvel Lane OS4 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team Knight Frank Land South of South Ruislip, Priors Farm OV1 Affinity Water Savills Land Adjacent to Ruislip Railway Depot, Northeast of Austins Lane, Ickenham PK4 Affinity Water Savills Land Adjacent to Skip Lane, Denham PL8 NSS IV (Croydon) LLP Savills Harefield Oil Terminal Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 30 Our Reference Promotor Consultant Location PM5 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team N/A Hillingdon East, Land East of the former Master Brewer site PO3 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team Knight Frank Land South of A40, Forming part of Gutteridge Farm PP3 Gem Investment Properties Ltd JLL 6 Coldharbour Lane Hayes UB3 3EW PQ6 Individual N/A Yeading, Brookside Open Field PV0 Columbia Threadneedle Investments Montagu Evans Hyde Park Hayes QF6 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team N/A Hill lane, Golf Course QQ9 Comer Homes Group Savills Harefield Village, Harefield Grove QR2 Individual Messrs. MA & MS Chaudhary Hayes, Charville Lane QR4 KSIMC Savills Widewater Place QR9 Blueleaf Real Estate ROK Planning Ruislip, Land at Field End Road RE4 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team N/A Charville, Charles Wilson Engineers RG3 Annington Property Limited (APL) Rapleys LLP St Andrews Park, Annington Homes Site RM0 H Plus Care Ltd Iceni Land at Chapel Lane RQ6 Smith Jenkins Planning and Heritage Ruislip Manor Sports Ground, Wealdstone FC Stadium RR1 London Borough of Hillingdon Deloitte LLP Uxbridge, Lobster Pot car park Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 31 Our Reference Promotor Consultant Location SD2 Bath Road Propery Investments Maven Plan Harlington, 1 & 1A Bath Road SP2 - SP3 Stockley Park Estates Company Iceni Stockley Park SR2 Blueleaf Real Estate ROK Planning Land at Field End Road SR7 Lotus Trident Development Limited CREATE Planning Northwood, 34-38 Green Lane ST4 Vinci St Moden Lichfields Lichfields, St. Andrew’s Gate SW1 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team N/A Charville, Mead House SZ6 GCAP 44 Ltd DP9 Land bound by Dawley Road and Bolingbroke Way TD8 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team Knight Frank forming part of Knightscote Farm, Land North of Breakspear Road North TF3 Individual Megaplan Land north of the M4, Land South of Bedwell Gardens UE4 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team Knight Frank Longford, Land south of Bath Road UG5 London Diocesan Fund Savills Matalan site, Hayes UH3 London Diocesan Fund Savills Hayes, Matalan Site UI2 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team Knight Frank Land North of Hill End Road, Forming part of Whiteheath Farm UO9 Legal & General Savills Land East of Ickenham UQ2 RAF Central Fund N/A RAF site, RAF Vine Lane Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 32 Our Reference Promotor Consultant Location UQ4 SUEZ Recycling and Recovery UK LTD N/A Hayes, Hayes Waste Transfer Station WL9 SUEZ Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd N/A Hayes, Rigby Lane WS7 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team Knight Frank Heathrow Villages, Land North of Bath Road WT9 SEGRO n/a Master Brewer, Freezeland Way Hillingdon WU7 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team Knight Frank Forming part of Gutteridge Farm, Land South of A40 XC3 Union4 Planning N/A Heathrow Villages, Airpets XO2 Nuveen Real Estate Rapleys 3 Furzeground Way XP6 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team Knight Frank Harfield, Land East of Northwood Road XQ4 Individual N/A Uxbridge, Civic Centre Car Park XR4 Individual Michael Conoley Associates Springwell Lane, Maracus Cottage YE7 London Borough of Hillingdon Property Team Knight Frank Ickenham, Land West of Harvil Road YR5 Woolbro Group JG Planning Land at North Harlington YY1 Gem Investment Properties JLL Hayes, Land south of Pump Lane ZO9 Laidlaw Estates Avison Young Land to the rear of 470 Bath Road ZY2 MBH Heathrow Ltd Savills Heathrow Villages, Land at Status Park, Harlington Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 33 Our Reference Promotor Consultant Location ZZ2 Car Giant Ltd PowerHaus Consultancy Ltd West End Road Ruislip, Glebe Farm Hillingdon Local Plan | Consultation Statement Regulation 18 ‘Call for Views’ 34 7. Appendix 1: Regulation 18 Questionnaire Hillingdon Local Plan Regulation 18 Call for Views Consultation April 2024 Hillingdon Local Plan | Call for views consultation 2 Contents 1. About the Local Plan ........................................................................ 4 1. Objectives and vision ........................................................................ 7 2. Growth and spatial strategy .............................................................. 9 3. Design ............................................................................................ 12 4. Housing .......................................................................................... 15 5. Social infrastructure ........................................................................ 18 6. Economy ........................................................................................ 21 7. Heritage and culture ....................................................................... 24 8. Green infrastructure and natural environment................................. 26 9. Sustainable infrastructure ............................................................... 29 10. Transport ........................................................................................ 32 11. Integrated Impact Assessment ....................................................... 35 12. Have your say ................................................................................ 35 13. Call for open space evidence ......................................................... 37 14. Call for Sites – additional consultation ............................................ 40 15. Glossary ......................................................................................... 41 Hillingdon Local Plan | Call for views consultation 3 This document sets out the questionnaire for the Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation. This questionnaire is provided as an interactive questionnaire on the Council’s website. This version is provided to display the content in a document format so the questions may be reviewed prior to filling out the online form. Hillingdon Local Plan | Call for views consultation 4 We are asking for your views to help develop the Local Plan. The Local Plan will set out the vision for future development in the borough over the next 15 years and will set out planning policies to help achieve this. The Local Plan will set policies to help build new homes, create jobs and provide services to support a growing population. It will also help shape the look and feel of Hillingdon's places, enhancing the environment, tackling climate change and creating sustainable neighbourhoods. This is the first stage in the process. This 'Call for Views' consultation is an opportunity for you to tell us what the Local Plan should contain. 1. About the Local Plan Foreword As the portfolio holder and a long term resident, I have seen how proactive planning is essential for tacking the challenges that Hillingdon faces - growing a strong economy, building good homes, creating great places and protecting the environment. Some of these issues are more pressing than ever - with economic headwinds, housing affordability and the climate crisis requiring strategic action. I am proud to launch this Local Plan consultation, which allows you to shape development over the next 15 years. Many may not have heard of the Local Plan, but it affects our lives on a daily basis. The Local Plan is prepared by the council, in consultation with the community, and sets the vision and a framework for the future development of the borough. It sets a spatial strategy for Hillingdon and a suite of planning policies including for housing, economic development, sustainability, infrastructure and transport. This is the first stage of consultation and we are asking you what the Local Plan should contain. This is your opportunity to make your voice heard. I hope you will join us in this consultation and help create a shared vision for Hillingdon. Cllr Eddie Lavery Cabinet Member for Residents' Services What is a Local Plan? National policy sets out that local planning authorities should prepare Local Plans to provide a positive vision for the future of each area, meet housing needs, address economic, social, and environmental priorities, and provide a platform for residents to shape their surroundings. Hillingdon Local Plan | Call for views consultation 5 The Local Plan guides decisions on future development proposals and addresses the needs and opportunities of the area as part of the borough's statutory development plan. A Local Plan may include: • housing • employment • shops and social infrastructure • developments and design • economy • natural infrastructure • transport • heritage and culture The Local Plan must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development (Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Section 39(2)). Current development plan 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) Neighbourhood plans also form part of a local planning authority's development plan, however there are no neighbourhood plans in Hillingdon. The council is proposing to update and replace the Local Plan. The strategic and development management policies will be combined into a single document alongside the site allocations, in line with Government guidance. The West London waste plan will remain as a separate document. The London Plan The Mayor of London adopted a new London Plan in 2021, introducing new policy requirements for development in London and evidence requirements for Local Plans. Hillingdon's Local Plan must be in general conformity with the London Plan. National Planning Policy Framework The Local Plan must be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This sets out the government's planning policies for Hillingdon Local Plan | Call for views consultation 6 England and how they should be applied. It must be considered in the preparation of the Local Plan and is a material consideration when making planning decisions. Separate policy documents deal with other topics that are material to planning, such as waste and traveller sites. The National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) supports the NPPF and is amended frequently. It provides specific guidance on how parts of the Local Plan should be undertaken and is material to the plan-making process. Why are we reviewing the Local Plan? In line with the National Planning Policy Framework, Local Plans should be kept up to date. The Local Plan needs to be updated to respond to changes affecting Hillingdon including in the economy, the population, housing market, environment and to reflect a new London Plan and revisions to national policies. Without an up-to-date Local Plan, Hillingdon's local planning policies could be considered out of date. In decision making, the council would not be able to place appropriate weight on policies which are out of date, leading to inappropriate development that does not meet the needs of people living, working, and visiting Hillingdon. There is also a risk of intervention by the Government, where plan-making would be taken out of the hands of the local authority and stakeholders. A full review of the Local Plan allows the council to add, remove and improve planning policies. Regulation 18 consultation A 'Regulation 18' consultation is the first formal stage of consultation required for preparation of a Local Plan and is carried out in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, Part 6, Regulation 18. During the first stage, stakeholders are asked what a Local Plan ought to contain. More information The council is publishing its Local Plan evidence base as it is being completed. The following evidence base documents are available for download: • Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) Scoping Report (PDF) [9MB] • Hillingdon Townscape and Character Study 2023 (Urban Initiatives) (PDF) [43MB]

Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Only the start of this long document is shown here. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.

Relevant Committee
Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in)
Officer(s) to action
Directorate
Classification
8. West London Waste Plan - Regulation 19 Consultation (policy framework) PDF 418 KB
RESOLVED: That the Cabinet recommend to Full Council to: 1) Authorise the publication and consultation of the Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) West London Waste Plan attached in Appendix A; 2) Delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth (as Chief Planning Officer) to, in conjunction with other participating boroughs: a. Make minor modifications to the Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) West London Waste Plan and accompanying documents before consultation launch; b. Suggest any necessary proposed modifications to the West London Waste Plan and accompanying documents as well as undertaking any associated consultation required throughout the examination process to ensure that the West London Waste Plan can be found sound by the Planning Inspector; and c. Make minor modifications to the Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) West London Waste Plan and accompanying documents following consultation and submit these documents under Regulation 22 to the Secretary of State. 3) Endorse that the Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) West London Waste Plan to be used for development management purposes in determining planning applications related to waste management development, with appropriate weight given in accordance with paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Property introduced a report on the proposed Regulation 19 consultation for the draft West London Waste Plan. It was explained that the plan had been developed collaboratively with neighbouring West London boroughs to ensure a coordinated and effective approach to waste management across the sub - region. The draft plan had been supported by extensive joint working and independent testing to ensure it was robust, deliverable and capable of meeting future waste capacity needs. It was noted that the potential expansion of Heathrow Airport remained an area of uncertainty and had not been incorporated at this stage, with the plan to be revisited if required. The Cabinet Member advised that for Hillingdon, the proposed sites remained unchanged from the existing plan, with previously considered additional sites having been discounted as unsuitable. The Leader of the Council highlighted the importance of the plan, noting that although it operated largely in the background, it had a direct impact on residents. He confirmed that the recommendations, if agreed, would be referred to full Council. The Corporate Director of Residents Services advised that the programme remained on track to meet government deadlines. Cabinet noted the report and approved the recommendations. Alternative options considered and rejected Not proceeding was rejected as it would have delayed an up-to-date Waste Plan, weakened planning decisions across West London, risked missing the required deadlines, and potentially required restarting the plan process. Relevant Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Not for call-in, as a policy framework document that will ultimately be considered by the full Council. This decision takes immediate effect. Officer(s) to action Gavin Polkinghorn 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
📄 West London Waste Plan - Regulation 19 Consultation (policy framework) PDF 418 KB
Read the text of this document (12 pages)
Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 Part 1 - Public WEST LONDON WASTE PLAN - REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION Cabinet Member & Portfolio Councillor Nick Denys, Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Property Responsible Officer Julia Johnson, Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth Report Author & Directorate Gavin Polkinghorn – Team Leader, Planning Policy Papers with report Appendix A: Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan, May 2026 Appendix B: Regulation 18 Plan Consultation Statement, May 2026 Appendix C: Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan Regulation 19 Consultation, May 2026 HEADLINES Summary This report sets out the background to, content of and proposed publication of the ‘Regulation 19’ version of the draft updated West London Waste Plan. A draft version of the proposed Regulation 19 version of the updated West London Waste Plan is provided (Appendix A). The report seeks Cabinet agreement to undertake a public consultation for an 8-week period on the proposed Plan in line with Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended). This decision also seeks approval for several other related steps that are deemed necessary to progress the West London Waste Plan following the Regulation 19 Consultation period. Putting our Residents First Delivering on the Council Strategy 2022-2026 This report supports our ambition for residents / the Council of: Live in a sustainable borough that is carbon neutral This report supports our commitments to residents of: A Green and Sustainable Borough Financial Cost The costs of the consultation arising from approving the Regulation 19 Consultation are estimated at £3,000 and would be funded from the existing Planning Policy Service revenue budget. Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Ward(s) N/A (all wards) Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 Part 1 - Public RECOMMENDATIONS That the Cabinet recommend to Full Council* to: 1. Authorise the publication and consultation of the Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) West London Waste Plan attached in Appendix A; 2. Delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth (as Chief Planning Officer) to, in conjunction with other participating boroughs: a. Make minor modifications to the Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) West London Waste Plan and accompanying documents before consu ltation launch; b. Suggest any necessary proposed modifications to the West London Waste Plan and accompanying documents as well as undertaking any associated consultation required throughout the examination process to ensure that the West London Waste Plan can be found sound by the Planning Inspector; and c. Make minor modifications to the Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) West London Waste Plan and accompanying documents following consultation and submit these documents under Regulation 22 to the Secretary of State. 3. Endorse that the Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) West London Waste Plan to be used for development management purposes in determining planning applications related to waste management development, with appropriate weight given in accordance with paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework. *full Council meeting – 9 July 2026 Reasons for recommendations The West London Waste Plan (WLWP) is part of the Council’s development plan and, therefore a policy framework document. The current plan was adopted in 2015 and is considered in many respects to be out -of-date in the context of national and regional planning policy and therefore needs to be replaced. The process of preparing a new WLWP includes statutory consultation periods. Cabinet consideration and then Full Council approval (scheduled for 9 July 2026) is required from each of the participating boroughs to commence the Regulation 19 consultation. The new plan is being prepared in the context of the national December 2026 submission deadline for plans to progress under the current plan-making legislation. Delegated authority to recommend minor amendments to the Plan prior to consultation is necessary to allow the process to continue in a timely manner. After consultation, the final submission version of the plan will be drafted to include amendments arising from the Regulation 19 Consultation and will require further Cabinet consideration, prior to Full Council approval in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. Alternative options considered / risk management There are 2 potential options: 1) Consult on the Regulation 19 Version of the Plan (and associated supporting evidence ) and submit the Plan for examination, 2) Do not proceed with the Regulation 19 consultation and submission. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 Part 1 - Public The West London Waste Plan is one of the key documents in the Council’s policy framework. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local plans to be reviewed and updated as necessary at least once every five years. After th is, plans are regarded as not being up -to-date and tend to be given less weight in planning decision-making. The current WLWP was adopted over 11 years ago. It is being reviewed to provide an up-to-date set of policies to determine planning applications for waste related development and ensure that sufficient capacity is available to manage expected waste arising s over the next 15 years, including addressing the Household, Industrial, and Commercial (HIC) waste apportionment targets and the management targets for C&D waste set out in the adopted and emerging London Plans. The option of not approving the draft updated Regulation 19 Version of the WLWP for consultation would delay the adoption of the WLWP, meaning that the participating west London boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Richmond upon Thames and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) would not have an up-to-date Waste Local Plan against which to determine planning applications for waste related development. Significant delay could result in Hillingdon Council not being able to participate in the WLWP update process. Delay would also increase the risk of missing the Government’s deadline of 31st December 2026 for plans to progress under the current plan making system. If the west London boroughs were to miss this deadline, the whole Plan process including consultation would have to be re -started. Considering the benefits to the Council of progressing towards an up-to-date WLWP and the lack of compelling reasons for departing from option 1), it is recommended t hat the draft Regulation 19 version of the updated WLWP is approved. Democratic compliance / previous authority The WLWP forms a Development Plan document and thereby consideration and adoption of it follow the procedures for Policy Framework documents in the Constitution. The timetable for this is set out in the report below. The Cabinet approved the Regulation 18 (Draft Plan) West London Waste Plan for consultation on 20th November 2025. Link to this decision here: London Borough of Hillingdon - Decision - West London Waste Plan Regulation 18 Consultation - Policy Framework Select Committee comments As a policy framework document, t he draft WLWP was considered at the Residents’ Services Select Committee on 18th February 2026. The comments given at the select committee have been considered in drafting the Regulation 19 version of the WLWP. From May 2026, the Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee now has the planning scrutiny brief and may consider the policy further. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 Part 1 - Public SUPPORTING INFORMATION Introduction 1. The current WLWP was adopted in 2015, by the London Boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, and Richmond upon Thames (the west London Boroughs). It also relates to the parts of Brent and Ealing that are covered by the Old Oak/Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC). 2. The adopted Plan contains seven policies that are used to determine planning applications for waste related development across the plan area and eight site allocations to meet the London Plan (2011) waste apportionments for the management of waste predicted to arise from households, business and industry (HIC) in the Plan area up to 2031. 3. The adopted Plan allocates 8 sites for waste management, including one in Hillingdon – Rigby Lane Transfer Site, Hayes. 4. A new WLWP is now being prepared with the support of waste planning consultants BPP Consulting (that assisted in production of the adopted WLWP), with input from representatives from each of the west London Boroughs and OPDC (the participating authorities). Its production is being managed by the West London Alliance (WLA). The new document will cover the period up to 2041 (the end of the period of the current London Plan). 5. Following Cabinet approval in October 2025, the draft Regulation 18 version of the new WLWP was subject to an 8 week period of public consultation across all the west London Boroughs from 11 th December 2025 to 5 th February 2026. The consultation process and responses received are summarised is Section 9 of this report. 6. We are now seeking approval to publish the Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) West London Waste Plan for consultation (Appendix A). This is the version of the WLWP that the participating authorities intend to submit to the Secretary of State for independent examination by the Planning Inspectorate and its production has been informed by the comments received at Regulation 18 stage. 7. The west London Boroughs and OPDC are seeking to submit the new WLWP to the Secretary of State by December 2026, so that it can be examined under the current plan making system and avoid any abortive work associated with the transition to the new plan- making system. It should be noted that the suite of Regulations to enact the new system came into effect on 25 March 2026 (including The Town an d Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026). Guidance in relation to the process is being progressively released by the Government. Response to the Regulation 18 Consultation 8. Following Cabinet approval in November 2025, the first version (‘Regulation 18 version’) of the Draft West London Waste Plan was published for consultation across the west London Area on 11th December 2025. A ‘call for sites’ exercise inviting site owners and promoters to submit potential waste sites for inclusion in the Plan formed part of this Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 Part 1 - Public process. The consultation ran for 8 weeks (extended to cover the Christmas period) and concluded on 5 th February 2026. The process was undertaken in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements, incl uding Hillingdon’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). 9. Representations on the Regulation 18 version of the WLWP were received from 77 separate individuals and organisations. The Regulation 18 Consultation Statement provides further information with regards to respondents and can be found at Appendix B. Engagement with other London boroughs (duty to cooperate) 10. Responses were received from London boroughs outside of the west London area that are not part of a waste planning group and are seeking to make use of the surplus of waste management capacity identified in the Plan to meet their unmet needs. Engagement with other boroughs is on-going. 11. Westminster City Council confirmed that it has been unable to identify sites within its area boundary and would welcome the opportunity to join the West London waste planning partnership to plan positively for its unmet need. 12. Tower Hamlets Council is a Unitary Waste Plan Making Authority (it is not part of a waste planning group) and has identified a shortfall in meeting its waste management needs. Tower Hamlets is seeking to transfer 192,370 tonnes per annum of HIC waste and 56,935 tonnes per annum of C, D and E waste capaci ty to the west London waste area to meet its needs. 13. Lambeth Council noted that a slight shortage of waste management capacity had been identified over the period of its Local Plan and would like to explore the potential to accommodate unmet need in West London. Lambeth noted that this matter could be progressed through a Statement of Common Ground. Heathrow Airport Response 14. Heathrow Airport Ltd responded to the Regulation 18 Consultation and raised concerns that several safeguarded sites are located within their proposed airport expansion area . They state that two sites in Hillingdon, H106, Land off Holloway Lane and HI09, Holloway Lane Materials Recycling Facility, will require relocation should the proposed third runaway expansion proceed. As such, they have suggested that the se sites should not be safeguarded in the WLWP. In addition, the y note that the proposed expansion will likely generate a significant amount of construction and demolition waste and may place a significant burden on existing waste management facilities across west London. As such, they have requested that the Plan take account of this and Plan for it accordingly. 15. The West London Boroughs have sought legal advice in relation to the Regulation 18 representation from Heathrow Ltd. Advice received recommended that the Plan acknowledges the potential impacts of the proposed expansion but should not take account of plans at this stage as there is no formal development consent order. A short paragraph (para 3.3) has been added to the Regulation 19 version of the WLWP to this effect. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 Part 1 - Public Call for Sites Response 16. Three sites were submitted in response to the ‘call for sites’ process, two of which are in Hillingdon and one in Hounslow. Further information is provided in the Consultation Statement and IIA found at Appendix B and C respectively. 17. Of the Hillingdon sites, the first submission is already safeguarded within the new WLWP - HI18 (High View Farm) . The call for sites submission requested an extension to the existing safeguarded site boundary to bring the boundary up to date and reflect a recent planning application red line site boundary. The boundary for HI18 has been amended to reflect the latest planning permission. 18. A further call for sites proposed development of a new waste site at Broadwater Lake for depositing non-hazardous excavation waste. As set out in the IIA, the site has a resolution to grant planning permission in April (subject to S106) for an outdoor water and activity centre as mitigation f or the impacts of HS2 . This proposal is likely to be implemented. Further, the site is designated as a SSSI, SINC, and lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and Green Belt. These designations would heavily restrict potential for waste development on- site. As such, the site was assessed not to be considered a reasonable alternative as it is unlikely to be available due to the proposed outdoor activity use and due to the ecological constraints. 19. The remaining site in Hounslow is an existing operational waste site, which does not currently benefit from planning consent, and therefore would not benefit from site safeguarding given the waste site definition being pursued. The site owners have separately been invited to submit an application for retrospective pla nning permission for the existing waste use, and the Call for Sites submission appears to be intended to support any future application to regularise the operation and enable the site to be recognised as a safeguarded waste site, but it cannot yet be included within the revised WLWP. The new West London Waste Plan (WLWP) 20. The new WLWP follows a similar format to the adopted plan. Key elements include the amount of waste to be managed in west London over the plan period (waste arisings), an updated list of safeguarded existing waste sites across west London with sufficient capacity to manage expected waste management needs and updated policies against which planning applications for waste related development will be determined. Draft Proposed Vision and Objectives 21. The draft Regulation 19 WLWP contains a high -level vision which sets out what the plan is seeking to achieve by the end of the plan period and a series of strategic objectives, which provide a framework to realise the vision. These elements have been developed from the adopted WLWP with input from officers, drawing on the content of the various plans and strategies from each Borough. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 Part 1 - Public Draft Proposed Policies 22. As with the adopted WLWP, the emerging WLWP contains a series of policies against which planning applications for waste related development will be determined. The policies safeguard existing waste sites identified in the emerging WLWP. Safeguarding means that planning applications for other forms of development (such as residential) that result in the restriction or loss of waste management capacity will be resisted, unless suitable alternative replacement capacity is identified elsewhere in the Plan area.  The draft Regulation 19 WLWP contains the following policies:  Policy WLWP 1 – Safeguarding and Optimising Waste Site Network: Keystone policy to make the most of existing network of waste sites.  Policy WLWP 2 – Provision of additional Waste Management Capacity: Policy making provision for compensatory and windfall (additional) capacity.  Policy WLWP 3 – Residual Waste Management & Energy Recovery: Policy defining specific conditions under which capacity for the management of residual waste may be supported.  Policy WLWP 4 – Ensuring High Quality and Resilient Waste Facilities: Policy introducing waste specific requirements/standards facilities need to meet.  Policy WLWP 5 – Recovery and Disposal of Waste to Land: Policy defining specific conditions under which proposals for non -inert landfill, placement of inert waste; and excavation/mining of existing landfills may be consented.  Policy WLWP 6 – Circular Economy: Policy setting out the requirements for proposed development to fulfil certain sustainability criteria.  New Policy WLWP 7 – Waste Water Treatment – Policy WLWP 7 was added following the Regulation 18 Consultation to respond to representations made by Thames Water. Safeguarded Sites 23. To be in general conformity with the London Plan, the WLWP is required to identify sufficient waste management capacity to manage the projecte d Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste arisings and the total HIC waste apportionment for west London. 24. The WLWP sets criteria for safeguarded sites as follows:  Sites with extant planning consents for a waste use;  Sites granted Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development; and  Sites deemed to be lawful over time or ancillary to another lawful use. 25. The Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) West London Waste Plan safeguards 21 waste sites in the London Borough of Hillingdon. This is fewer than in the Regulation 18 version of the WLWP ( 22 sites) and the current WLWP (25 sites). No new site allocations are proposed. 26. The site removed from the plan is HI14. This is because the site does not have any relevant planning history relating to a lawful waste use and therefore does not meet the definition of a waste site in line with the WLWP. The landowner could choose to regularise the land use and the site could potentially be reconsidered in an update of the WLWP, however, it will not be part of the Regulation 19 Version. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 Part 1 - Public 27. The full list of safeguarded sites in Hillingdon is included in the table below. Site Reference and Location Operator Type of Waste Processed HI01 New Years Green Lane, CA Site and WTS Hillingdon Council HIC HI02 Airside Waste Sweepings Treatment Facility Heathrow Airport Ltd HIC/Haz HOI3 New Years Green Lane BFA Recycling Limited HIC HI04 WTS, Civic Way, Ruislip B&K Environmental Services Ltd CDEW HI06 Land off Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth Foley Haulage Ltd CDEW HI07 GK Depot, Trout Road Recycling with Skips Ltd CDEW HI08 Old Stockley Road, West Drayton Hanson Quarry Products Europe Ltd (formerly West Drayton Aggregates) CDEW HI09 Holloway Lane, Materials Recycling Facility Powerday PLC CDEW/HIC HI13 Skip Lane, Harvill Road Sortera Ltd, formerly Uxbridge Skip and Recycling Ltd CDEW HI15 Skip Lane, Harvill Road Thames Materials Ltd formerly Pioneer Concrete CDEW (Excavation) HI16 Unit 1, Wallingford Road Recycling Facility Uxbridge Recycling Ltd, formerly A&A Recycling Ltd CDEW HI17 Crows Nest Farm Country Compost Ltd HIC HI18 High View Farm West London Composting Ltd HIC HI19 Hillingdon Clinical Waste Incinerator Medisort Ltd HIC/Haz HI20 Cranford Lane WTS, Heathrow Heathrow Airport Ltd HIC HI21 Waybeards Farm, Hill End Road, Harefield FJ Heppelthwaite Solutions Ltd formerly Hep Oils HIC HI24 Heathrow Depot FM Conway HIC/Haz/CDEW HI25 Central Depot, Harlington Road Hillingdon Council HIC (LACW) HI27 Unit 1 & 2, Pump Lane, Industrial Estate Personnel Hygiene Services Ltd HIC HI28 Hayes Transfer Station Rigby Lane Suez Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd HIC Victoria Road WTS Suez Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd HIC (LACW) Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 Part 1 - Public Supporting Evidence 28. BPP Consulting has prepared a Waste Capacity Assessment Report, which assesses the management capacity of existing waste sites across the plan area. This determines if sufficient qualifying capacity is available in west London for the waste apportionments set out in the current London Plan 2021 will be met. A survey of waste operators (that run the principal waste sites across west London) was undertaken to test the findings of this work. 29. The Capacity Assessment Report forms a key part of the evidence base for the new WLWP and has been updated in response to feedback received at the Regulation 18 stage. The assessment of safeguarded sites continues to show a surplus of waste management capacity for both HIC and C&D waste. This means that the amount of waste that can be managed by the sites identified in the plan exceeds the waste apportionments set out in the current London Plan. There is, however, a possibility that the waste apportionments could increase as part of the London Plan Review. 30. A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) relating to the sites has been prepared as part of the evidence base by Metis Consultants. Next steps in the plan making process 31. Subject to the approval of the recommendations outlined above, the Regulation 19 version of the updated West London Waste Plan will be published for consultation over an 8-week period commencing in August 2026. The Council (and other London boroughs and OPDC) will seek views on the overall soundness of the Plan, assessed against the tests set out in the NPPF, as well as its legal compliance. 32. Following this, representations submitted will be reviewed and considered. Subject to the nature of the comments received, authorisation will then be sought in accordance with the recommendations of the report to submit the Plan and supporting documents to the Secretary of State for independent examination (Regulation 22 stage). The Regulation 22 submission version of the plan will require Cabinet and Full Council approval. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 Part 1 - Public 33. The proposed WLWP programme to adoption is set out in the table below. Key Stage Timeline Draft emerging WLWP – 6/8-week public consultation (Regulation 18) November/December 2025 WLWP Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) to Cabinet / Council June / July 2026 Proposed Submission WLWP published for representations (Regulation 19) August 2026 WLWP Proposed Submission for examination to Cabinet and then Full Council October/November 2026 WLWP submitted for independent examination December 2026 Examination hearings (if needed) Early/Mid 2027 Main modifications (if needed) published for representations Mid 2027 Inspector’s Report Late 2027 Adoption Late 2027/Early 2028 Financial Implications The preparation of the West London Waste Plan is being led by BPP Consulting, with specialist sub-consultancy input from Land Use Consultants (Integrated Impact Assessment) and Metis (Strategic Flood Risk Assessment). The overall project is b eing managed by the West London Alliance. The cost of undertaking the project (consultancy and project management) is £29,500 per year per borough over the duration of the project (2023/24-2027/28). The WLWP funding has been agreed at directorate level and is funded by the Strategic Planning EMR. It has been included in the budget monitoring position. This decision will help ensure that the WLWP is completed on time and that no further funding is required. This decision has a cost of no more than £3k to cover administering the consultation activities at borough level. This includes advertisements in local newspapers and printing and distribution of the consultation documents to libraries and selected stakeholders. These costs will be funded from the existing Planning Service revenue budget. RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities? Managing waste is a key part of a well-functioning modern society. If waste is not handled in the right facilities or locations, it can harm both the environment and local communities. The WLWP is the essential planning tool to manage waste in the borough. Consultation and Engagement carried out (or required) The Regulation 19 version of the WLWP will be consulted on in August 2026, once it has been approved for consultation by all the participating boroughs and OPDC. The approach proposed will meet statutory requirements and the provisions of each borough’s (and OPDC) Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The following methods will be used to communicate how the Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 Part 1 - Public updated draft WLWP has been amended in response to the Regulation 18 Consultation feedback and call for sites submissions , as well as seek further feedback in relation to legal compliance and soundness of the Plan.  A dedicated website ( Found here: Project: Consultation on the draft West London Waste Plan | Ealing Council) will serve as a single, accessible portal for all updates, consultation materials, FAQs, and opportunity for respondents to provide feedback.  Information and consultation documents will be published on the individual boroughs and OPDC’s websites and hard copies will be made available to view at main offices and libraries.  A notice of commencement swill be sent to all relevant landowners within the West London area, in addition to emails sent to stakeholders using details held on Council databases.  Boroughs will publicise key stages of the WLWP production using established social media channels (e.g. X (Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, YouTube channel , where relevant). Comments received will be recorded (on the WLWP project database managed by Ealing Council) and reviewed and analysed by all the Borough’s and OPDC. The consultation statement will be updated accordingly and made publicly available on the project website , as well as submitted in support of the final version of the Plan for examination. CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance Corporate Finance have reviewed this report and concur with the Financial Implications set out above, noting approval is sought to proceed with the Regulation 19 consultation for the West London Waste Plan, with delegated authority for minor pre-consultation modifications granted to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth in conjunction with other participating boroughs. Endorsement is sought for the Proposed Submissio n (Regulation 19) West London Plan to be used for development management p urposes in determining planning applications related to waste management. Furthermore, it is noted the West London Wast Plan is managed by the West London Alliance, with the total c onsultancy and project management cost of £30k per borough per year over the five-year period 2023/24 to 2027/28, which is met from the Strategic Planning Earmarked Reserve and is reflected in the outturn position. An additional £3k will be required to sup port the borough level consultation activities, which will be met from the existing Planning Service revenue budget. The cost of the consultation and the future drawdown from reserves will be monitored through the established monthly monitoring cycle. Legal The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended) (“the Regulations”) set out the procedural framework for preparing local plans in England. The West London Waste Plan is a local development document for the purposes of Regulation 5 of the Regulations and forms part of the Council’s Local Plan. Cabinet Report – 25 June 2026 Part 1 - Public Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (the “PCPA”) places a duty on local planning authorities to cooperate on a range of planning activities r elating to sustainable development (“the Duty”). Waste management is a strategic matter as confirmed by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and section 33A (4) of the PCPA, therefore, the Duty to co-operate applies. The Duty requires local authorities to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in any process relating to the carrying out of identified planning activities, including the preparation of a local development document. The Regulations establish the legal procedure s that local planning authorities must follow when preparing a local development document. In line with Regulation 19 this report seeks approval for the publication and consultation on the WLWP. The purpose of this stage in the local planning process is to ensure transparency and public participation in the plan -making process. It provides an opportunity for stakeholders, including the public and consultation bodies, to review and comment on the WLWP before it is submitted to the Secretary of State for examination. Decision makers must ensure there is a full consideration of all representations arising during consultation of the WLWP. The decision maker must be satisfied that responses from the public are conscientiously considered. The report also recommends approval of the Chief Planning Officer to make minor modifications to the WLWP (and accompanying documents) following compliance with Regulation 19, and before submission to the Secretary of State (Regulation 22). Therefore, the report seeks to comply with Regulation 22 which requires specific documents and information that must be submitted to the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 20(3) of the PCPA. BACKGROUND PAPERS  West London Waste Plan 2015 (PDF)  London Borough of Hillingdon - Agenda for Residents' Services Select Committee on Wednesday, 18th February, 2026, 7.00 pm  West London Waste Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment Regulation 19 Consultation Version (PDF)

Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.

📄 Appendix A - Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan , item 8. PDF 5 MB
Read the text of this document (212 pages)
Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan May 2026 Appendix A Contents Chapter 1: Executive Summary ............................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Introduction and background .................................................. 4 What is the West London Waste Plan? ...................................................... 4 The process of preparing the West London Waste Plan ................................ 6 How to comment on this Version of the WLWP ......................................... 10 Chapter 3: The Plan Context ................................................................. 11 Spatial Portrait .................................................................................... 11 Local Planning Authority-Level Summaries .............................................. 12 Common Themes ................................................................................. 15 Proposed Planning Strategy .................................................................. 16 Chapter 4: Waste Management in West London ....................................... 18 Scope of this WLWP ............................................................................. 18 Existing Waste Management Sites in West London ................................... 20 Chapter 5: The Policy Context ............................................................... 22 National Policy ..................................................................................... 23 Regional Policy – The London Plan ......................................................... 32 Local Policy ......................................................................................... 39 Chapter 6: Vision and Objectives ........................................................... 44 The Vision ........................................................................................... 44 Strategic Objectives ............................................................................. 46 Chapter 7: Future Requirements for Waste Management Capacity .............. 49 Management Capacity for Apportioned HIC Waste .................................... 49 Management Capacity for C, D & E Waste ............................................... 50 Providing for Unmet Needs from Elsewhere within London ........................ 51 Future Waste Management Capacity in West London ................................ 52 Chapter 8: Proposed Policies ................................................................. 54 Policy WLWP 1 – Safeguarding and Optimising the Waste Site Network ....... 56 Policy WLWP 3 – Residual Waste Management & Energy Recovery .............. 68 Policy WLWP 4 – Ensuring High Quality and Resilient Waste Facilities .......... 74 Policy WLWP 5 – Deposit of Waste on Land ............................................. 78 Policy WLWP 6 – Circular Economy and Resource Efficiency ....................... 82 Policy WLWP 7 – Provision of Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure ............ 85 Chapter 9: Policies Map ........................................................................ 88 Glossary ............................................................................................. 89 Appendix 1:Monitoring Framework ....................................................... 104 Appendix 2:List of Safeguarded Waste Sites .......................................... 114 Appendix 3:Maps of Safeguarded Waste Sites ....................................... 131 Appendix 4:Replacement of Policies in the 2015 WLWP ........................... 197 Appendix 5: Management Arrangements for West London's waste ........... 198 Appendix 6: Waste Sites Proposed for Release from Safeguarding........... 205 All map data from OpenStreetMap contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2010 to 2023. Contains national statistics data © Crown copyright and database right 2024 Figures and Tables Table 1: London Plan Forecast HIC Waste Arisings & Apportionments for the West London Boroughs ......................................................................... 34 Table 2: Combined apportionment for West London Boroughs compared to Estimated Apportionment Capacity in West London (after release of sites) .. 50 Table 3: London Plan Forecast Waste Arisings for the West London Boroughs ....................................................................................................... 198 Table 4: Non-hazardous C, D & E Waste arisings from West London 2020- 2023 mean ....................................................................................... 199 Table 5: Non-hazardous C, D & E Waste in West London - Waste Management Profile 2023 ................................................................... 200 Table 6: Principal Hazardous Waste Component Arisings in West London 2023 ................................................................................................ 202 Table 7: Adjusted Tonnages of West London waste managed in permitted facilities within West London and outside West London, and tonnage of imported waste to West London facilities ............................................. 203 Figure 1: Map of West London Waste Plan area ....................................... 5 Figure 2: Map of West London Existing Waste Sites Proposed to be Safeguarded ....................................................................................... 21 Figure 3: The Policy Context for the new WLWP ..................................... 22 Figure 4: The Waste Hierarchy ............................................................. 24 Figure 5: Circular Economy .................................................................. 25 Figure 6: Residual Waste ..................................................................... 68 Figure 7: Flows of Waste for Management at Permitted Facilities ............ 204 Abbreviations AMR Authority Monitoring Report BAP Biodiversity Action Plans CCC Climate Change Committee CCUS Carbon capture, use and storage CE Circular economy C, D & E Construction, demolition and excavation C&I Commercial and Industrial EIP Environmental Improvement Plan GLA Greater London Authority HIC Household, Industrial and Commercial waste HRA Habitats Regulation Assessment LACW Local Authority Collected Waste LNR Local Nature Reserve Mtpa Million tonnes per annum MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment NPPF National Planning Policy Framework OFWAT Office of the Water Regulator OPDC Old Oak & Park Royal Development Corporation OS Ordnance Survey RBMP River Basin Management Plan RDF Refuse Derived Fuel RWS Resources and Waste Strategy SIL Strategic Industrial Location SA Sustainability Appraisal SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SPA Special Protection Area tpa tonnes per annum WDI Waste Data Interrogator WLLPAs West London Local Planning Authorities WLWA West London Waste Authority WLWP West London Waste Plan WLWP 2015 West London Waste Plan 2015 WPA Waste Planning Authority Page 1 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan Chapter 1: Executive Summary 1.1 Managing waste is a key part of a well-functioning modern society. If waste is not handled in the right facilities or locations, it can harm both the environment and local communities. The National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) requires all waste plans to follow the waste hierarchy, which prioritises prevention, reuse, recycling, and then recovery over disposal. It also encourages managing waste close to where it is produced. Because of this, the future management of waste needs to be carefully planned for, and it is a statutory requirement for each waste planning authority to have a ‘waste local plan’ that sets out how and where waste is to be managed. 1.2 The West London Waste Plan (WLWP) plans for the management of waste through to 2041 within the following London boroughs: Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond upon Thames. Those parts of the boroughs of Brent and Ealing that fall under the planning jurisdiction of the Old Oak & Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) are also included. Together these seven local planning authorities are referred to as the West London Local Planning Authorities (WLLPAs). 1.3 This West London Waste Plan (WLWP) covers all types of waste expected to be produced within west London during the Plan period. It focuses especially on the management of Household, Industrial and Commercial (HIC) waste, Construction, Demolition and Excavation (C, D & E) waste and Hazardous waste. In doing so this version of the WLWP takes account of the requirements of the London Plan and the West London Waste Authority’s strategy for managing Local Authority Collected Waste (LACW). 1.4 This document is the Proposed Submission version of the WLWP for which the WLLPAs are publishing to receive representations on soundness and legal compliance as part of the statutory ‘Regulation 19’ consultation. Once adopted, this WLWP will replace the WLWP 2015 and form part of each local planning authority’s wider development plan. It will sit Page 2 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan alongside their adopted local plans, the London Plan and any relevant neighbourhood plan(s). This WLWP is designed to support existing planning policies rather than repeat them. 1.5 This WLWP includes a Vision and five Strategic Objectives, along with seven policies that will guide decisions about waste related planning applications, or applications for planning permission which would impact on safeguarded waste sites as follows: • Policy WLWP 1 – Safeguarding and Optimising Waste Site Network • Policy WLWP 2 – Provision of additional Waste Management Capacity • Policy WLWP 3 – Residual Waste Management & Energy Recovery • Policy WLWP 4 – Ensuring High Quality and Resilient Waste Facilities • Policy WLWP 5 – Recovery and Disposal of Waste to Land. • Policy WLWP 6 – Circular Economy & Resource Efficiency • Policy WLWP 7 – Wastewater Infrastructure 1.6 These policies aim to ensure that waste related development, such as new or expanded waste management facilities, is well located and does not cause harm to local communities or the environment. They provide a clear framework to support waste management development to meet emerging needs, protect existing capacity and allow for the release of land from waste use where appropriate. 1.7 The most recent assessment shows that west London has sufficient capacity for the management of current and forecast future waste arisings, other than for landfill. This includes the amounts of HIC waste apportioned for management by each London borough in the 2021 London Plan through to 2041. Therefore, there is no immediate need for more waste management capacity within the Plan area. 1.8 This WLWP is considered to be in general conformity with the requirements of the 2021 London Plan. However the London Plan is under Page 3 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan review and once the new version is adopted, this WLWP may also need to be reviewed to ensure it aligns with it. In addition, the possibility of the Heathrow Airport expansion plan going ahead within the Plan period, may also trigger an early review, depending on its precise implications for provision of waste management capacity in west London. 1.9 This WLWP proposes to protect most existing waste sites in west London. It also supports additional waste development where such development will help achieve the Plan's goals. It does not identify specific areas of land for the development of additional waste management capacity. Page 4 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan Chapter 2: Introduction and background What is the West London Waste Plan? 2.1 The efficient and effective management of waste is an important aspect of a well-functioning society. While essential, waste management has the potential to cause impacts on the environment and communities if it is not undertaken in the right facilities located in the right place. 2.2 It is a statutory requirement for each area to have a ‘waste local plan’ that sets out how and where waste, expected to be produced within the area, is to be managed. Policies in waste local plans are used by the responsible decision-maker, usually the Local Planning Authority (LPA) alongside policies contained in other development plan documents, to determine applications for planning permission relating to waste development. 2.3 In west London, the current version of the West London Waste Plan (WLWP 2015), was adopted in 2015 and plans for the management of waste over the period until 2031 within the following local planning authority areas located in west London (‘the WLLPAs’): • London Borough of Brent • London Borough of Ealing • London Borough of Harrow • London Borough of Hillingdon • London Borough of Hounslow • London Borough of Richmond upon Thames • Parts of Brent and Ealing that fall under the jurisdiction of the Old Oak & Park Royal Development Corporation. 2.4 Once adopted, this version of the West London Waste Plan (‘WLWP’ or ‘the Plan’), replaces the West London Waste Plan 2015 taking account of changes in policy and taking the planning horizon forward for another 15 Page 5 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan years. The adopted West London Waste Plan forms part of each authority’s Development Plan. 2.5 A map of the area covered by the Plan (the Plan area) is presented in Figure 1. The other areas of London are also responsible for preparing their own plans and/or planning policies for waste in order that the requirements of the extant London Plan are met. Figure 1: Map of West London Waste Plan area Page 6 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan The need to replace the current WLWP 2.6 Waste management is a rapidly evolving sector, shaped by new initiatives aimed at reducing waste generation and ongoing innovation in the way it is managed. 2.7 Once adopted the WLLPAs will use the policies in this WLWP when determining planning applications relating to waste management development, so it is essential that the Plan provides an up-to-date policy framework that reflects these changes to support the more sustainable management of waste that is produced. 2.8 Through safeguarding existing capacity and ensuring that additional waste management capacity provided within the Plan area is of the right type and in the right locations and contributes towards more sustainable management of waste when it is needed, this WLWP will ensure that there continues to be sufficient capacity to manage waste in west London over the Plan period. The process of preparing the West London Waste Plan 2.9 The process by which a local plan is prepared is prescribed in legislation 1 2. A Consultation Protocol has been prepared that sets out in more detail how the WLLPAs engage with communities and stakeholders during the preparation of the Plan. 2.10 The key elements of this West London Waste Plan are: • Vision • Strategic Objectives • Policies • Policies Map • Monitoring Framework 1 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Town and Country (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 2 National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024 Page 7 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan 2.11 Together, these elements set out how and where the WLLPAs intend the management of waste to take place in west London. 2.12 The Vision and Strategic Objectives set out how waste ought to be managed to ensure its management benefits, protects and enhances communities and the environment of west London. The Policies and Policies Map are intended to ensure the Vision is realised and the Strategic Objectives are achieved. To ensure the objectives of this Plan are being met and the policies are working effectively, certain indicators (as set out in Appendix 1) will be monitored on a regular basis. This version of the WLWP 2.13 This ‘Regulation 19’ Proposed Submission Version of the WLWP has been prepared taking account of comments received on an earlier draft WLWP (Regulation 18 version) that was consulted upon between December 2025 and February 2026. The WLLPAs responses to the specific submissions received are set out in a separate document available to access on the website. 2.14 Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 requires Waste Planning Authorities (WPA) to publish the version of the Plan in advance of its submission to the Secretary of State for examination, for a minimum period of six weeks. During this period representations can be made on the soundness and legal compliance of the Plan. A representation form and guidance note is available and should be used and referenced by anyone wishing to make such a representation. 2.15 This Regulation 19 Proposed Submission WLWP has been evaluated through a Sustainability Appraisal which is incorporated into an ‘Integrated Impact Assessment’ (IIA) published alongside this Plan. In addition, a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) has been undertaken to assess any potential adverse impacts on designated habitat sites. The IIA serves as a framework for assessing and communicating the possible Page 8 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan effects of a plan, and the reasonable alternative courses of action available to that proposed, focussing on key sustainability aspects. The main objective of the IIA is to inform and influence the development of the Plan so as to avoid, and if necessary mitigate, negative impacts that might occur. By adopting this approach, the IIA aims to maximise the Plan’s contribution toward sustainable development. The IIA and HRA have been published as part of the suite of consultation documents. Topic Papers that explore the key considerations underpinning this Plan are published alongside this version of the Plan as well. 2.16 Following the period for representations, the WLLPAs intend to submit the Plan for examination, along with the evidence base and all the representations received. The Plan can only be adopted if following examination, the appointed independent Inspector finds the Plan to be sound and legally compliant. Supporting documents 2.17 This Proposed Submission WLWP is supported by the following evidence base documents including:  Integrated Impact Assessment comprising:  Sustainability Appraisal  Habitats Regulation Assessment  Equalities Impact Assessment  Health Impact Assessment  Strategic Flood Risk Assessment  Waste Capacity Assessment and Arisings Estimates  Strategic Waste Flows Report  Existing Safeguarded Sites for Release – Assessment Report  Climate Change Topic Paper  Circular Economy Topic Paper  Waste Management in West London Topic Paper Page 9 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan 2.30 This Proposed Submission WLWP and all evidence base documents can be found on the following website: https://haveyoursay.ealing.gov.uk/en- GB/projects/wlwp-consultation Page 10 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan How to comment on this Version of the WLWP 2.31 Representations are invited on this Plan’s soundness and matters relating to its legal compliance. These can be submitted by the deadline specified on the consultation website via:  the consultation website using the online form, or  by email to wlwasteplan@ealing.gov.uk; or  in hard copy to the address below. Planning and Infrastructure West London Alliance Ealing Council 5th Floor, Perceval House 14-16 Uxbridge Road Ealing, W5 2HL 2.34 Guidance on how to respond is included in the Consultation Protocol available online. A copy of the Protocol and response form may be requested from the email address above. Page 11 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan Chapter 3: The Plan Context Spatial Portrait 3.1 This section sets out the key spatial characteristics and constraints affecting development involving the management of waste in west London, providing the context for the West London Waste Plan (WLWP). 3.2 West London is a diverse sub-region comprising dense urban centres, established industrial hubs, strategic transport corridors, and extensive green spaces. Waste management development in this area is shaped by a combination of opportunities and challenges. Strategic industrial areas provide essential locations for waste management facilities, while major regeneration areas are delivering new homes and employment space that will increase waste generation but also create opportunities for innovative and sustainable management solutions. 3.3 Waste management development is constrained by the presence of residential areas and other sensitive land uses particularly, Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), heritage and conservation designations, ecological protections, and widespread Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs). In addition the presence of Heathrow Airport and RAF Northolt introduce aerodrome safeguarding considerations. It is also acknowledged, the prospect of the expansion of Heathrow Airport will place pressure on certain existing waste sites. 3.4 Transport infrastructure, including road, rail, and waterborne freight networks, also plays a critical role in determining where waste produced in West London ends up being managed. 3.5 These unique spatial characteristics determine the location of existing waste management facilities within each local planning authority area, and availability of land to support expansion of the network where needed. Page 12 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan Local Planning Authority-Level Summaries London Borough of Brent 3.6 In Brent, Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL) and Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS) in Wembley, Neasden and Alperton currently host waste management facilities. Growth and regeneration across the borough are driving high-density development, which requires integrated waste solutions. Road transport is supported by the A406, A5, and M1 corridors, though congestion is a major challenge. Railheads for materials transportation exist in Wembley and Neasden. Environmental and land- use constraints include AQMA coverage, flood risk along the River Brent, and the protected Welsh Harp Reservoir (SSSI). Brent currently accommodates 10 existing waste facilities adjudged to be lawful (excluding those located in OPDC), and its overarching strategy is to protect and modernise them while promoting low-carbon transport solutions. Three existing waste sites identified within the adopted Brent Local Plan for comprehensive, residential-led redevelopment are put forward in this Plan for release from safeguarding, as their continued safeguarding and use for waste is likely to conflict with wider planning and regeneration objectives of the adopted Local Plan. London Borough of Ealing 3.7 Ealing’s strategic industrial areas, including Greenford, Perivale, Northolt, and Southall host several waste management facilities. The Southall Opportunity Area is expected to generate significant additional waste, highlighting the need to embed circular economy principles into development. The A40, A406, and Uxbridge Road provide vital transport routes, with further potential for rail-based waste movement. Future development is constrained by AQMA coverage, Green Belt land, and flood risk in Southall and Acton. With 14 existing waste facilities in operation adjudged to be lawful (excluding those located in OPDC), Ealing’s strategy is to safeguard existing suitable sites, establish circular economy hubs, and expand rail-based freight transport. Page 13 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan London Borough of Harrow 3.8 Harrow has limited industrial land, with only Wealdstone and Honeypot Lane designated as SIL or LSIS. Regeneration in Wealdstone and Harrow Town Centre will increase waste production, but space for new waste management facilities is scarce. The borough lacks major highways or rail freight links, making it reliant on local road transport. Additional constraints include AQMA coverage and significant areas of Green Belt. Harrow currently hosts only two existing waste facilities adjudged to be lawful, and its strategy is to protect and intensify their use where needed, while integrating waste infrastructure into any major non-waste developments and supporting localised recycling facilities. London Borough of Hillingdon 3.9 Hillingdon benefits from industrial and transport hubs, including Heathrow Airport and the Hayes and West Drayton Corridor, which generate substantial quantities of commercial and industrial waste. In addition, the proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport can be expected to place additional pressure on waste infrastructure if it goes ahead. Existing infrastructure includes the West Drayton Waste Transfer Station, the South Hillingdon Recycling Centre, and former mineral sites such as Harmondsworth Quarry. Transport strengths include access to the M4, A40, M25, and West Drayton Rail Freight Terminal, as well as the Grand Union Canal, which offers potential for non-road waste movement. However, Green Belt, AQMA coverage, and flood risk from the River Colne and canal present constraints. With 21 existing waste facilities adjudged to be lawful, Hillingdon’s strategy is to modernise and intensify existing sites where needed, expand sustainable transport use, and safeguard key facilities from displacement by redevelopment. Page 14 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan London Borough of Hounslow 3.10 Hounslow’s Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL), including in Brentford along the Great West Road, and the North Feltham Trading Estate, and other local sites (LSIS), accommodate a number of existing waste management facilities. Growth pressures from the Great West Corridor and Heathrow Opportunity Areas are expected to increase demand for waste management capacity. The M4 provides a strategic road link, supplemented by rail freight at Transport Avenue and potential river transport via the Thames. Constraints include high air pollution along the A4/M4, flood risk in Brentford and Feltham, and extensive Green Belt. With 10 existing waste facilities adjudged to be lawful, the borough aims to expand low-carbon waste management, modernise and intensify existing sites where needed, and increase sustainable waste movements through utilising river and rail-based waste transport options. One existing waste site identified within the Hounslow Local Plan for comprehensive, residential-led redevelopment is to be released from safeguarding, as its continued safeguarding and use for waste is likely to conflict with wider planning and regeneration objectives of the Local Plan. Old Oak & Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) 3.11 The OPDC area includes London’s largest Strategic Industrial Location, accommodating around 2,000 businesses in sectors such as logistics, food production, and creative industries. It is also one of the UK’s largest regeneration projects, supporting the delivery of tens of thousands of new homes and jobs. Existing waste management facilities are located within Park Royal SIL as well as in areas planned for new mixed-use neighbourhoods. Transport links are strong, with the A40, A406, multiple rail connections, and the Grand Union Canal offering multimodal opportunities. However, constraints include AQMA coverage, the proximity of Wormwood Scrubs MOL, High Speed 2 (HS2) construction impacts, and flood risk from the canal. With five existing waste facilities adjudged to be lawful, the OPDC’s strategy is to safeguard existing waste infrastructure Page 15 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan when it doesn’t conflict with wider development aspirations, embed waste solutions into regeneration, and promote rail and canal-based waste transport. Two waste sites identified for comprehensive redevelopment are to be released from safeguarding, as their continued safeguarding and use for waste is likely to conflict with wider planning and regeneration objectives of the Local Plan. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames 3.12 Richmond upon Thames has the smallest industrial base in west London, with just four existing waste facilities adjudged to be lawful, most notably the Townmead Road Council Depot, a Household Waste & Recycling Centre, a composting site in Kew Gardens and a dormant waste oil treatment site at Arlington Works. Regeneration in Mortlake, Twickenham, and Richmond will increase waste generation, but opportunities for developing additional capacity are extremely limited. The borough’s constraints include extensive protected land, such as Richmond Park and Kew Gardens, alongside Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), and flood-prone riverfront areas. The Borough is rich in built heritage and has a number of protected vistas/views. Transport capacity is constrained, though there may be limited scope for river-based waste movement on the Thames. Richmond’s strategy is to safeguard existing facilities, integrate waste solutions into redevelopment where possible, and develop Circular Economy hubs. Common Themes 3.13 Several themes emerge from the above Plan area analysis. 3.14 First, competition for land and conflicting uses highlights the need to safeguard existing waste facilities, particularly where they are located on industrial sites. Waste management facilities are often under residential and commercial redevelopment pressure, while other brownfield land is productively used and designations such as Green Belt and MOL limit Page 16 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan opportunities for expansion. This means intensification and modernisation of existing waste sites should be prioritised. 3.15 Second, regeneration projects and circular economy initiatives present opportunities for integration of waste management. Growth areas are expected to generate significant additional amounts of waste, but could also create opportunities for circular economy hubs, facilitating reuse and recycling of materials, and possible co-location of compatible industries. 3.16 Third, environmental challenges such as climate change require resilient infrastructure and low-emission technologies to protect air and soil quality, mitigate flood risk, and deliver biodiversity net gain. 3.17 Finally, transport and logistics remain a central concern. Congestion on key routes, including the A40, A406, A316, M4, and the North Circular hampers efficiency, while opportunities for rail and river freight at locations such as West Drayton, Brentford, using the Grand Union Canal and the River Thames, should be fully exploited. Proposed Planning Strategy 3.18 To address these issues, the planning strategy for waste in west London focuses on two key areas: a. First, maintaining sufficient suitable management capacity by safeguarding key existing waste sites and providing for the use of such sites to be intensified to meet emerging needs, where appropriate. b. Second, high standards of environmental protection in line with best practice be applied to all facilities whether new or expanded, including robust emissions controls, enclosed operations, sustainable drainage systems, and climate resilience measures, ensuring that waste management safeguards health, enhances local amenity, and supports wider environmental goals. Finally, encouraging the increased use of low-carbon transport, with greater use of rail and Page 17 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan river freight supported by electric and low-emission vehicles for road-based transport. Page 18 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan Chapter 4: Waste Management in West London 4.1 The legal definition of waste, set out in section 75(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 19903 is, “..any substance or object which the holder discards, or intends or is required to, discard”. The key concept relates to the producer or holder's intention regardless of whether the waste may have a value to the recipient. Scope of this WLWP 4.2 This WLWP focuses on providing management capacity for the principal types of waste produced within west London, which are as follows. Local Authority Collected Waste (mainly household waste) (LACW) 4.3 Local Authority Collected Waste (LACW) consists of waste which comes into the possession of, or under the control of, the local authority including waste collected from households (household waste). LACW collected by or on behalf of local authorities can include household waste (residual, dry mixed recycling and food waste), street sweepings, green waste from maintenance of open spaces, and a small quantity of clinical waste 4. Depending upon the local arrangements, LACW can include waste from businesses collected by trade waste operations. Commercial and Industrial Waste (from businesses & industry) (C&I waste) 4.4 Commercial and industrial Waste (C&I) is waste produced by businesses. A significant proportion of commercial waste (c60%) is also classed as municipal waste, which is subject to statutory management targets that also affect LACW set out in a subsequent section of this Plan. 4.5 These first two categories of waste (LACW and C&I) are combined into a single category of 'household, industrial and commercial' waste in the London Plan (‘HIC waste’ for short). The London Plan apportions quantities 3 Transposing the Waste Framework Directive as amended 2008/98/EC 4 Household clinical waste is not deemed hazardous unless a particular risk has been identified (based on medical diagnosis). Page 19 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan of forecast HIC waste arisings to each Borough within London for provision of management capacity through to 2041. The ‘HIC waste’ categorisation is used throughout this Plan reflecting the influence of the London Plan on this Plan’s approach/trajectory. Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste (C, D & E waste) 4.6 Construction, demolition & excavation (C, D & E) waste comprises waste arising from construction and demolition activity, and is made up of mainly inert5 materials such as concrete, brick and tile and soils and stone excavated during ground work prior to construction. However, non-inert elements such as wood, metals, plastics, cardboard, and plasterboard may also be present in this waste stream. Due to their weight, the inert elements generally make up the majority (c.80%) of the total tonnage. 4.7 The London Plan deals with construction and demolition waste separately to excavation waste, as excavation waste is not normally suited to recycling, and this distinction is recognised in the waste evidence reports that support this Plan. The London Plan does not apportion quantities of C & D waste for management, but this Plan still plans for this waste stream. Hazardous Waste 4.8 Hazardous wastes are categorised as those that are harmful to human health, or the environment, either immediately or over an extended period of time. In west London, hazardous waste arises mainly from: construction and demolition activity, vehicle maintenance and/or dismantling activity and healthcare. Hazardous waste may be present in C, D & E waste particularly when development takes place on brownfield sites that have been affected by historical contamination. 4.9 The London Plan states that hazardous waste arising in the HIC waste stream (to which the apportionments relate) is included in the apportioned tonnages, and therefore does not distinguish its management needs from 5 Inert waste is defined as “waste that does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations”. Page 20 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan the non-hazardous component of HIC waste. However, for the purposes of this Plan, all hazardous waste has been considered and planned for separately. Therefore, to some degree there will be an element of double counting between the London Plan apportionment values and hazardous waste management capacity needs identified. Existing Waste Management Sites in West London 4.10 There are a range of existing waste facilities located in west London that manage waste both arising within and outside west London. It is intended that 66 sites be safeguarded through this Plan for ongoing waste management uses and their location is shown in Figure 2 below. Page 21 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan Figure 2: Map of West London Existing Waste Sites to be Safeguarded Page 22 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan Chapter 5: The Policy Context 5.1 The policy context within which the WLWP sits is illustrated in Figure 3 below. 5.2 To be found sound the new WLWP needs to be in general conformity with the London Plan and consistent with national policy. The WLWP is also aligned with the policies of the adopted Local Plans of the WLLPAs. The WLWP may update relevant aspects of the Development Plan and where any conflict between policies exists, the policy to have been adopted most recently generally takes precedence in decision making. Once adopted, the policies in this version of the WLWP will supersede the policies in the WLWP (2015). Appendix 4 sets out how the WLWP (2015) policies are replaced by those set out in this version of the WLWP. 5.3 Once adopted this version of the WLWP forms part of the statutory Development Plan for the WLLPAs, to guide decision-making on planning applications in relation to waste related developments. The WLWP is in Figure 3: The Policy Context for the WLWP Page 23 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan accordance with national policy by applying a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that “... for the purpose of making any determination under the planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. 5.4 The Development Plan is to be read as a whole. Most adopted plans within a local planning authority’s Development Plan, such as a Local Plan, are likely to have policies that are also relevant to applications for waste related development. Each LPA may also have adopted Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) which may be relevant. Furthermore, applications will also be decided according to the policies in the London Plan, which also forms part of the Development Plan. Therefore, when proposing waste related development, adopted Local Plans, the extant London Plan and, if relevant SPDs, should also be consulted. National Policy 5.5 The key objective of national policy for waste 6 is to protect the environment and human health by: • preventing or reducing the generation of waste • where its production is unavoidable, reducing the adverse impacts of its generation and management • reducing the overall impacts of the use of resources from which waste may arise and improving the efficiency of such use 5.6 The National Planning Policy for Waste 2014 (NPPW) 7, associated Planning Practice Guidance8 and the Resources and Waste Strategy for England 6 See The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 and The Waste (Circular Economy) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 7 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364759/141015_ National_Planning_Policy_for_Waste.pdf 8 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/waste Page 24 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan 2018 (RWS)9 currently set the national policy context for waste planning in England. Whilst the NPPF does not contain policies specific to waste, its principles remain relevant. The Waste Management Plan for England10 signposts policies concerning waste management in England. 5.7 The ‘Waste Hierarchy’ is one of the keystone principles of sustainable waste management and is enshrined into English Law. This categorises different methods of managing waste and ranks them in order of preference. This is illustrated in Figure 4 below. This shows that ‘Prevention’ is the most preferred option with ‘Disposal’ at the bottom being the option of last resort. Application of the Waste Hierarchy in priority order i.e. from the top down is a legal requirement 11. 9 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/resources-and-waste-strategy-for-england 10 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/waste-management-plan-for-england-2021 11 Part 6 of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 sets out the duties placed on all planning authorities with regard to application of the hierarchy in decision making. Figure 4: The Waste Hierarchy, Graphic from the Mayor's Environment Strategy (Figure 44) Page 25 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan 5.8 The RWS was published in December 2018 and set out Government thinking on waste management in England at that time. This included five strategic ambitions: • To work towards all plastic packaging placed on the market being recyclable, reusable or compostable by 2025 • To work towards eliminating food waste to landfill by 2030 • To eliminate avoidable plastic waste by the end of 2042 • To double resource productivity by 2050 • To eliminate avoidable waste of all kinds by 2050 5.9 The RWS introduced the concept of Circular Economy into waste management policy for the first time. The London Plan 2021 defines Circular Economy as "..where materials are retained in use at their highest value for as long as possible and are then re-used or recycled, leaving a minimum of residual waste." (Para 9.7.1). The central role waste management plays in the material cycle as part of more circular economy is illustrated in Figure 5 below. Figure 5: Circular Economy, Source: Resources and Waste Strategy, DEFRA, 2018 Page 26 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan 5.10 The Circular Economy is also a tool for tackling the climate emergency. When applied to the built environment, circular economy principles significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by avoiding extraction of raw materials, reducing production of virgin construction materials, retaining embodied carbon and eliminating waste. The Government established a Circular Economy Task Force in 2024, and is expected to consult on five sector-specific roadmaps in 2026. Each roadmap is expected to include specific actions, timelines and policy recommendations to drive circularity within each target sector – textiles, transport, construction, agri-food and chemicals & plastics. 5.11 The Government set the following targets in the Environmental Improvement Plan 202312 (EIP), which builds on existing recycling and landfill diversion targets: • eliminate avoidable waste by 2050 and double resource productivity by 2050 • explore options for the near elimination of biodegradable municipal waste to landfill from 2028 • eliminate avoidable plastic waste by 2042 • seek to eliminate waste crime by 2042 • halve residual waste (excluding major mineral waste) produced per person by 2042 5.12 The target for the reduction in residual waste is enshrined in The Environmental Targets (Residual Waste) (England) Regulations 202313 which came into force on 30 January 2023. The waste target is for the 12 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/1168372/environmental-improvement-plan-2023.pdf 13 The Environmental Targets (Residual Waste) (England) Regulations 2023 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/en/uksi/2023/92/made Page 27 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan reduction of residual waste (excluding major mineral wastes) on a kg per capita14 basis by 50% by 2042 from 2019 levels (574 kg per capita). Accordingly, the residual waste long-term target is that by the end of 31 December 2042 the total mass of residual waste for the calendar year 2042 does not exceed 287 kg per capita. Management routes which count as residual are: • sent to landfill in the United Kingdom • put through incineration in the United Kingdom • used in energy recovery in the United Kingdom • sent outside the United Kingdom for energy recovery 5.13 The EIP also set the following interim targets for the residual waste target to be achieved by 31 January 2028 (deferred to December 2030 in EIP update published December 2025): • Reduce residual waste (excluding major mineral waste) produced per person by 24%. • Reduce residual waste (excluding major mineral waste) in total tonnes by 21%. • Reduce municipal residual waste produced per person by 29%. In addition, the following material specific targets were set: • Reduce residual municipal food waste produced per person by 50%. • Reduce residual municipal plastic waste produced per person by 45%. • Reduce residual municipal paper and card waste produced per person by 26%. • Reduce residual municipal metal waste produced per person by 42%. • Reduce residual municipal glass waste produced per person by 48%. 14 Per head of population in England Page 28 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan 5.14 In July 2023 the Government published a national waste prevention plan entitled ‘Waste prevention programme for England:Maximising Resources, Minimising Waste’15. This document sets out how strategic principle 2 of the Resources and Waste Strategy – to prevent waste from occurring in the first place and manage it better when it does – is to be achieved. 5.15 This Plan also notes that: • the Government intends to prepare a ‘Waste Sector Decarbonisation Plan’ that will set out how the waste sector will contribute to the targets in the 6th Carbon Budget (see below) • the National Model Design Code published 16 in 2021 provides tools and guidance for developers to embed circular economy principles in all new development including waste management facilities • NPPW expects planning authorities to ensure that new development includes proposals for handling waste arising from the construction and operation maximises reuse and recovery opportunities, and minimises off-site disposal • the NPPF recognises the need for the planning system to consider the prudent use of natural resources and waste minimisation in the pursuit of sustainable development. 5.16 In addition to the above, in 2024, the Government announced its ambition for the country to achieve a zero waste economy by 2050. 5.17 In December 2024, the Government published a Residual waste infrastructure capacity note indicating that, following the implementation of policies mentioned above, there would be sufficient residual waste infrastructure capacity to treat forecast municipal residual waste arisings in London. However, it did identify a possible capacity shortfall in London 15 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/waste-prevention-programme-for-england- maximising-resources-minimising-waste 16 http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-modeldesign-code To be replaced by the Design and Placemaking Planning Practice Guidance. Page 29 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan when all residual waste was considered, were all such waste suitable for diversion from landfill17. Climate change 5.18 The Climate Change Topic Paper 18 accompanying this Plan summarises how waste planning and management can mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and adapt to its likely impacts. 5.19 In general, application of the waste hierarchy in priority order (and driving waste management as far up the hierarchy as possible) will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is reinforced by the application of life cycle assessment and circular economy approaches, which ensure that the environmental benefits of waste prevention, reuse, recycling, and other recovery are maximised. 5.20 Diverting biodegradable waste from landfill reduces methane emissions, while diverting non-biogenic waste from inefficient incineration can avoid emissions by capturing its calorific value in more sustainable ways. Recycling generally offers greater avoided emissions than burning waste to recover energy, because it exploits the material value of both biogenic and non-biogenic waste, substituting for virgin materials and their associated carbon burden. Reuse extends the lifespan of products and reduces the need for replacement production, avoiding emissions that would otherwise be generated from both manufacturing and raw material extraction. Waste prevention avoids creating waste in the first place, for example, replacing products with services, although the carbon benefits of such measures can depend on renewable energy sources being used in service delivery. 17 It found that for London while 2.86 Mt of EfW capacity will be available, and the total quantity of residual LACW is 2.46Mt ie a 0.4Mt surplus, an additional 1.84Mt of residual municipal waste might require diversion, suggesting a possible capacity shortfall of 1.44Mt. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residual-waste-infrastructure-capacity- note/residual-waste-infrastructure-capacity-note 18 WLWP Climate Change Topic Paper BPP Consulting October 2025 Page 30 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan 5.21 Maximising carbon reduction benefits requires applying the hierarchy from the top down, rather than progressing from the bottom step by step. The scale of benefit varies according to the material involved (biogenic vs non- biogenic), the use to which it is put (for example, anaerobic digestion of organic waste producing biogas for heating or transport compared with composting for soil conditioning, or glass going back to remelt rather than aggregate production), and the transport requirements associated with different management methods. 5.22 Beyond the hierarchy, general mitigation measures include improving energy efficiency and increasing the supply and use of renewable and low- carbon energy and heat. Development should identify opportunities to source energy from decentralised systems and facilitate co-location of potential heat customers and suppliers, for example by linking waste management facilities with district heating networks. 5.23 Adaptation measures involve planning development in ways that avoid increasing vulnerability to climate change impacts. Where new development occurs in areas that are already vulnerable, risks must be managed through appropriate adaptation measures to ensure facilities remain resilient and effective in the long term. 5.24 Waste planning also has a direct influence over provision of management facilities available for waste. The spatial distribution of facilities is particularly important. From a mitigation perspective, spatial strategy can reduce emissions by locating facilities closer to major sources of waste, reducing the need for road transport, and encouraging use of rail or water freight. It can also promote co-location of waste operations that share energy or resources, and create synergies with other types of development, such as supplying heat and power to nearby commercial or residential development. From an adaptation perspective, spatial planning can guide waste development away from areas of existing or future vulnerability to flooding, water resource stress, water quality issues, Page 31 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan coastal erosion, and land instability, consistent with the sequential approach set out in national planning guidance. 5.25 Development type, design, layout and operation are further areas where planning policy can exert influence. In terms of mitigation, this includes promoting the waste hierarchy by minimising landfill, maximising recycling, and enabling development of the lowest-carbon waste management solutions. Built facilities should be designed for energy efficiency, utilise renewable and low-carbon energy sources (including those generated on site), and connect to local energy networks where possible. Waste management facilities can also support wider decarbonisation by providing electric vehicle charging infrastructure or generating biogas for vehicles or injection into the gas grid. 5.26 In terms of adaptation, the design and operation of facilities can mitigate risks associated with climate change. This may involve incorporating flood resistance and resilience measures such as raised floor levels, protected utilities, and appropriate site layouts. Processes should be enclosed to reduce odour, dust, and litter, ensuring healthy conditions for staff in extreme weather. Water efficiency measures, including process water recycling and rainwater harvesting for on-site dust suppression, should be adopted, supported by sustainable drainage systems or other water storage solutions to manage runoff. Finally, planning conditions can require the implementation of dust, flood, and emergency management plans to ensure operational resilience under changing climate conditions. The Proximity Principle and Net Self Sufficiency 5.27 The proximity principle is set out in paragraph 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. This is within the context of the requirement for mixed municipal waste collected from private households to be disposed of, or recovered, in one of the nearest appropriate installations, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies, in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health. Page 32 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan 5.28 This is to be achieved by establishing an integrated and adequate network of installations for disposal and recovery of mixed municipal waste collected from private households. The requirement also extends to where the collection includes similar types of waste collected from non-household sources (e.g. waste from offices and retail). 5.29 The network of installations is to be designed in such a way as to enable movement towards the aim of self-sufficiency in the disposal and recovery of waste at a national level, while giving consideration to geographical circumstances and or the need for specialised installations for certain types of waste. 5.30 This principle is to be applied when decisions are taken on the location of facilities for the management of mixed municipal waste collected from private households and similar waste (see above) by disposal or recovery. This is recognised in NPPW that expects waste planning authorities to: “...plan for the disposal of waste and the recovery of mixed municipal waste in line with the proximity principle, recognising that new facilities will need to serve catchment areas large enough to secure the economic viability of the plant.” 5.31 The NPPW requires local planning authorities, with responsibility for waste planning for their area, to include policies in their development plans which set out an overall strategy for the pattern and scale of waste development, ensuring sufficient provision is made for infrastructure for waste management, and energy that may be produced (including heat). 5.32 When planning for waste, the NPPW expects WPAs to assess whether the unmet needs of other areas could be met within their respective areas. Regional Policy – The London Plan 5.33 This WLWP needs to be in general conformity with the London Plan to be found sound. Hence this section presents a summary of the key requirements of the current adopted London Plan (2021) this Plan needs to address. Page 33 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan 5.34 The administrative geography of London is overseen at a regional level by the Greater London Authority (GLA). There are thirty-three administrative areas within London: twelve inner boroughs, twenty outer boroughs, and the City of London. There are no inner-city boroughs within the WLWP area. 5.35 The London Plan provides strategic planning policy for the whole of London and sets out how certain matters, including waste, should be addressed in Local Plans including waste local plans. 5.36 The London Plan states that London should manage as much of its waste within its boundaries as practicable, aiming to achieve waste net self- sufficiency by 2026 in all waste streams except for excavation waste. To meet this aim, the London Plan 2021 forecasts arisings of Local Authority Collected Waste (referred to as household waste) plus Commercial and Industrial waste (C&I waste) for London by borough to 2041, collectively referred to as household, industrial and commercial waste (HIC). These forecasts are used as a basis to apportion quantities of this waste for management to each borough (‘the borough apportionments’) so that the overall goal of managing the equivalent of 100 per cent of London’s waste within London i.e. net self-sufficiency by 2026 (Policy SI 8) is achieved. Excavation waste is excluded from the London Plan net self-sufficiency target as it is difficult to recycle and it is more difficult for London to provide sites for management or beneficial use. Hence provision for its management has been considered separately in this Plan. 5.37 The borough apportionments were derived by the GLA through an assessment process that included assessment of existing capacity in each borough along with a number of other factors that are considered to determine the ability of a particular borough to accommodate additional management capacity. The quantities arrived at are referred to as the London Plan apportionments (LP apportionments for short). The types of capacity considered to count towards the management of apportioned Page 34 Regulation 19 Proposed Submission West London Waste Plan waste (hereinafter referred to as qualifying capacity) is defined in paragraph 9.8.4 of the London Plan as follows: • energy recovery in London • production of solid recovered fuel (SRF) and refuse derived fuel (RDF) in London • sorting or bulking for re-use or recycling including anaerobic digestion. The reuse or recycling may take place within or outside London providing the sorting and bulking capacity is located within London • reuse or recycling including anaerobic digestion within London 5.38 The London Plan forecasts of arisings and apportionments of HIC waste for the west London Boroughs to which this Plan relates are set out in Table 1 below. There are no separate forecasts or apportionments for the area falling under the jurisdiction of the OPDC – although Mayoral Development Corporations such as OPDC are to cooperate with host boroughs to meet identified waste needs in line with London Plan policy. Table 1: London Plan Forecast HIC Waste Arisings & Apportionments for the West London Boroughs (tonnes per annum) Local Planning Authority Waste Arising 2021 Waste Arising 2041 Waste Apportionm ents 2021 Waste Apportionme nts 2041 Brent 259,000 274,000 412,000 437,000 Ealing 291,000 306,000 542,000 576,000 Harrow 188,000 205,000 160,000 170,000 Hillingdon 347,000 365,000 423,000 449,000 Hounslow 260,000 275,000 407,000 432,000 Richmond upon Thames 179,000 190,000 148,000 157,000 Total 1,524,000 1,615,000 2,092,000 2,221,000

Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Only the start of this long document is shown here. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.

📄 Appendix B - Regulation 18 Plan Consultation Statement , item 8. PDF 1 MB
Read the text of this document (72 pages)
Regulation 18 Plan Consultation Statement Final 2.2 Date: May 2026 Appendix B 2 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 Purpose................................................................................................................... 1 2 Plan Production Timeline ..................................................................................... 2 Key Local Plan Stages Undertaken ........................................................................ 2 3 Summary of Regulation 18 Consultation Process ................................................ 5 Bodies and persons invited to make representations under Regulation 18 ............ 5 How bodies and persons were invited to make representations ............................. 6 Other consultation activity ....................................................................................... 7 4 Outcome of Consultation - Summary of Main Issues Raised ............................... 8 Appendix 1: Analysis of Comments received to Regulation 18 consultation on the Draft West London Waste Plan from December 2025 to February 2026 Appendix 2: Call for Sites - Assessment of submissions 1 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.1 19.05.26 1 Introduction Purpose 1.1 This Consultation Statement sets out how the West London local planning authorities (WLLPAs), comprising the London boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Richmond upon Thames, and the Old Oak & Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) have engaged with stakeholders in preparing the West London Waste Plan (WLWP) in accordance with Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (the ‘plan making Regulations’). 1.2 This Consultation Statement has been prepared to accompany the publication of the Proposed Submission WLWP in accordance with Regulation 19 of the plan making Regulations. The Statement is intended to demonstrate that consultation undertaken during the preparation of the WLWP has been in accordance with the relevant Regulations and the ‘West London Waste Plan Consultation Protocol’(the WLWP Consultation Protocol). 1.3 The WLWP Consultation Protocol sets out the overarching approach to consultation and communication taken during the preparation of the Plan including how the West London local planning authorities consult and involve the public, statutory consultees and other organisations when preparing the WLWP, reflecting the approaches taken in each LPA's Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The latest version of the WLWP Consultation Protocol can be viewed on the consultation website. This statement therefore considers the actual consultation activities undertaken so far. 1.4 This Consultation Statement comprises four sections as follows:  Section 1: Introduction;  Section 2: The timeline which has been followed in preparing the West London Waste Plan which is in accordance with the LPAs’ Local Development Schemes;  Section 3: Summary of the consultation process.  Section 4: Summary of the main issues raised during the consultation carried out under Regulation 18 and how each of the comments received have been considered by the WLLPAs and taken account of in the drafting of the Regulation 19 Proposed Submission version of the WLWP. Section 4 is supported by Appendix 1 which provides more detail concerning the comments received and WLLPAs’ responses. 2 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 2 Plan Production Timeline 2.1 The creation of a new Waste Local Plan requires thorough and robust consultation. Engagement with the local community, businesses and organisations helps develop a Plan that is tailored to meeting the needs of the Plan area in terms of strategy and the policies required to deliver it. 2.2 The timetable below outlines the main stages of preparing the WLWP, including publication of the Proposed Submission WLWP for representations in accordance with Regulation 19 of the plan making Regulations. Key Plan Production Stages Stage 1: Identify issues and collect evidence 2.3 In Autumn 2024, the WLLPAs agreed to jointly update the adopted West London Waste Plan (2015). Preparation of the draft WLWP (Regulation 18 draft) involved the following steps:  Review of policies in the adopted West London Waste Plan and the adopted and emerging LPA Local Plans;  Review of national and regional policy, in particular:  National Planning Policy Framework (2024)  National Planning Policy for Waste (2014)  The London Plan (2021)  Undertaking a Waste Needs and Capacity Assessment to establish the extent to which existing waste management capacity would be able to meet requirements for waste management over the Plan period, including the London Plan apportionments for Household, Industrial & Commercial waste. 2.4 From the above, the WLLPAs identified the issues that needed to be addressed by the WLWP and approaches to addressing them. 2.5 A draft Vision and Strategic Objectives were prepared setting out how the WLLPAs envisage land being used for waste in west London to 2041. Planning policies to be used when determining proposals for planning permission were drafted to promote the pattern of use desired. Text was also drafted for inclusion in the Plan to set out the vision and objectives, explain what each of the policies is intended to achieve, and how each is to be used. 2.6 The draft WLWP was also subject to Integrated Impact Assessment and a Habitats Regulations Assessment which also informed development of the policies. 3 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 Stage 2: Reg 18 Draft West London Waste Plan consultation – 11th December 2025 – 6th February 2026 2.7 The WLLPAs consulted on a draft version of the WLWP under Regulation 18 for an eight-week period between Thursday 11th December and Friday 6th February 2026 (taking account of the consultation period extending over Christmas). Evidence base and other supporting documents, including an Integrated Impact Assessment, were published alongside the draft WLWP. The documents published are listed below:  Draft West London Waste Plan for consultation  Integrated Impact Assessment for Reg 18 WLWP  Habitats Regulations Assessment for Reg 18 WLWP  Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for Reg 18 WLWP  Integrated Impact Assessment Scoping Report  Climate Change Topic Paper  Circular Economy Topic Paper  Waste Management Topic Paper  Strategically-significant Waste Flows Report  Assessment of Existing Capacity  Assessment of Safeguarded Sites for Release  Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste arising to 2041  Hazardous Waste Arising to 2041  Consultation Protocol  Frequently Asked Questions  Response Form  Call for Sites Form  Listing of Consultation Events & Locations  Privacy Statement 4 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 Stage 3: Plan amendments and evidence base update – February 2025 - May 2026 2.8 The WLLPAs considered comments and representations received during the draft WLWP Regulation 18 consultation. The evidence base and other documents, including the Integrated Impact Assessment, Capacity Assessment and Assessment of Sites for Release from Safeguarding Report have been updated as necessary to reflect this. In addition, the small number of sites proposed in the Call-for-Sites were assessed, in the context of there being a surplus of capacity and so no strategic need to allocate additional sites through the Plan. The Plan was updated to take account of comments and ensure that it is both sound and legally compliant. The draft Regulation 19 Proposed Submission WLWP will be considered by each WLLPA (via Committee, Cabinet and/or full Council/Board as dictated by each Constitution) during the period May to July 2026 prior to publication. Stage 4: Publish the Plan (Submission Plan Reg 19) – Mid/Late 2026 2.9 In accordance with Regulation 19 of the plan making Regulations, a Proposed Submission version of the WLWP will be made available for representations on its soundness and legality to be made for a minimum period of 6 weeks. In accordance with the Local Plan Regulations, this consultation is statutory, seeking comments specifically on the Plan’s soundness and legal compliance for examination. Stage 5: Submission to the Secretary of State: December 2026 2.10 The WLLPAs will assess the representations received during the Regulation 19 formal consultation and submit a version of the WLWP they deem to be sound for examination by an independent inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. Stage 6: Examination: Early-mid 2027 2.11 The Plan will be examined by an independent Planning Inspector. Stage 7: Adoption - Late 2027 2.12 Subject to the Plan being found sound and legally compliant by the Inspector, the Plan will be adopted by each of the WLLPAs during 2027. 5 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 3 Summary of Regulation 18 Consultation Process 3.1 A draft Plan was published for consultation for a period of eight weeks between 11th December 2025 and 6th February 2026. The Plan, the evidence base and other supporting documents were made available for viewing online and hard copy documents were made available in each constituent local planning authority area. Organisations and persons were invited to make representations under Regulation 18. 3.2 A wide range of organisations and individuals were sent notifications about the consultation and invited to make comments during the consultation period. These included the following:  all 31 London Borough Councils, Westminster City Council and the City of London Council.  24 Waste Planning Authorities outside of London where strategic flows of waste from west London were identified  the operators/owners of existing waste sites in west London as representatives of the waste management industry  representatives from statutory and non-statutory consultees and other bodies prescribed under the Duty to Cooperate including: - Affinity Water - Cadent Gas - Canal & River Trust - Civil Aviation Authority - Environment Agency - NHS - Historic England - Homes England - Marine Management Organisation - Mining Remediation Authority - National Highways - National Rail - Natural England - Network Rail - Office of Rail & Road - Sport England - Thames Water Utilities - Theatres Trust - Transport for London - UK Power Networks - organisations and individuals on each of the WLLAPs' planning contact databases. 6 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 How bodies and persons were invited to make representations 3.3 A range of engagement methods were used to raise awareness of the consultation and encourage engagement of different groups in the Plan production process. 3.4 All contacts on each of the WLLPAs’ planning consultee databases, including statutory consultees, interested stakeholders and waste related organisations were notified of the consultation directly via email. All emails included details of the consultation, how to make comments, and an invitation to attend events (drop-ins and online event). 3.5 Public notices about the consultation were published in the local news publications and the WLLPA’s also published information on their social media channels. 3.6 The Regulation 18 public consultation on the WLWP was facilitated using a consultation website hosted by the London Borough of Ealing (https://haveyoursay.ealing.gov.uk/en-GB/projects/wlwp-consultation ). All consultation documents were available to view on the website from 11th December 2025. 3.7 Hard copies of the draft WLWP were made available for inspection at each of the WLLPA main offices and selected local libraries in each local planning authority area. 3.8 Two online consultation sessions were held (using Microsoft Teams) which took place on at 12.30pm on 16th December 2025 and 17.00pm on 21st January 2026. An event recording was made available for viewing on the consultation website. 3.9 Further information about the WLWP and the consultation was set in ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ which were published on the consultation website. 3.10 A feedback form was provided specifically for use in submitting comments and queries either by email or post. 3.11 Drop-in sessions were held in each WLLPA area during the consultation period as detailed below. These sessions were attended by officers engaged in the preparation of the WLWP and allowed anyone to request further information about the WLWP in-person. 7 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 Location Date Time Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ 08/01/2026 1400-1800 Ealing Council Offices, Perceval House, 14-16 Uxbridge Road, W5 2HL 27/01/2026 1500-1800 Wealdstone Library 38-40 High St, Harrow HA3 7AE 15/01/2026 1400-1800 Uxbridge Library, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW 13/01/2026 1200-1700 Hounslow House, 7 Bath Road, Hounslow, TW3 3EB 19/01/2026 1400-1800 Oaklands Social, Oaklands Rise, 19 Green St, London NW10 6FT (OPDC) 20/01/2026 1500-1900 Civic Centre, 44 York Street, Twickenham, TW1 3BZ 20/01/2026 1200-1600 Other engagement activity 3.12 Representatives of the WLLPAs attended the London Waste Planning Forum (the regional forum attended by planning officers of the London WPAs, and representatives of the industry and adjoining regions) and were able to inform its members of the upcoming consultation and to remind them when the consultation was taking place. Meetings were held in January and April 2026. 3.13 To date 4 meetings with the Greater London Authority (GLA), the body responsible for coordination of waste planning across London, primarily concerning general conformity with the London Plan, have taken place. Meetings covered the assessment of capacity, definition of existing waste sites, the proposed approach to release of sites from safeguarding, and the prospect of change presented by the imminent review of the London Plan. 3.14 Meetings were held in late 2025, and further correspondence took place with representatives of Tower Hamlets Council and Westminster City Council to explore their requests to share capacity to meet unmet needs. 8 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 4 Outcome of Consultation - Summary of Main Issues Raised 4.1 77 responses were received in total with the following breakdown of respondents: Type of respondent/consultee Number London Boroughs 4 Mayoral Development Corporations 1 Joint waste disposal authorities in London 1 Waste Planning Authorities outside of London 2 Local Planning Authorities outside of London 2 Occupiers/owners of existing sites 9 Government Agencies 6 Infrastructure Operators and Utilities 4 Non-Governmental Organisations 3 Individuals 41 Residents’ Associations or local networks 4 4.2 A table has been prepared which summarises each of the issues raised in response to the consultation, and how these issues have been addressed, as appropriate, in preparing the Regulation 19 Submission WLWP. This is included in Appendix 1 of this document. 4.3 A summary of the main issues raised is included below: 4.4 Method used to assess site capacity: Some agreement and disagreement regarding deviating from use of the 5-year peak throughput (referred to in London Plan para 9.9.2) and requests to increase or decrease assessed capacity based on Permit, planning permission or actual/realistic throughput, questioning of methodology/data sources used and definition of existing waste sites; 4.5 Proposed release of select sites without direct compensation provision; 4.6 Sharing of surplus capacity including requests to provide for unmet needs and the need for formal mechanism to provide for sharing of surplus capacity including through Statements of Common Ground; 4.7 Requests for removal of safeguarding from specified sites, on the basis of lack of waste management activity taking place at the site and unauthorised use taking place; 4.8 Requests for safeguarding to be expanded to include amended site boundaries (reflecting planning permission or ownership) and the addition of particular existing sites; 4.9 Request for an additional policy concerning wastewater treatment capacity (Thames Water Utilities Ltd); 9 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 4.10 Need for cross-boundary engagement on waste and movements and capacity, especially landfill; 4.11 Add more emphasis on sustainable transport modes and routes (raised by non-governmental organisations and agencies); 4.12 Evidence base/need assessment to consider implications of major infrastructure projects on waste arisings, potential for re-use (C, D & E waste) and effects on existing waste sites to be safeguarded plus facilities outside WLWP area Colnbrook Energy from Waste facility ; 4.13 Add reference/more detail to issues to be considered in determining applications including biodiversity, heritage and archaeology, birdstrike, infrastructure assets (raised by government agencies and non-governmental organisations); 4.14 Issues of detail regarding site ownership, boundaries, throughput and waste types (raised by owners/operators); 4.15 Requests to discuss specific issues, including proposals for re-location and removal of safeguarding, offered by a number of representors. 4.16 Of the 77 responses received forty five were from individuals, residents or representatives of organisations including residents’ associations and local networks. A range of views are expressed in terms of the agreement or disagreement with the Vision, Objectives and policies. 4.17 Specific comments and issues raised include:  Format and style – too long and difficult to understand especially the local implications;  Fails to address need for more and accessible household recycling centres given increasing demand from new housing;  Numerous objections to Arlington Works (Site R04) being safeguarded due to inappropriate location and impacts on amenity in a residential area, and the site no longer being in use. Call for Sites 4.18 While the evidence base demonstrates that there is sufficient waste management capacity to meet needs to 2041, and so no need for additional sites to be allocated in the WLWP has been identified, the consultation also included an invitation, through a separate Call for Sites form, for additional sites to be put forward for consideration. 4.19 The sites proposed were: 10 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26  Broadwater Lake in Hillingdon proposed by Tarmac: Proposal for inert fill (non-hazardous C, D & E waste) in restored quarry  High View Farm in Hillingdon proposed by Envar Composting Ltd: 3 plots around the existing waste site for expansion of consented composting area, and possible relocation of Waste Transfer Station.  McGovern House Wet Waste in Hounslow proposed by Wet Waste Company: Operational site ancillary to plant hire business, seeking ‘reference and protection ‘ (safeguarding) for operation undertaking screening/washing of road sweeping sludges to recover materials that benefits from an environmental permit. 4.20 The merits of each of the three proposed sites, and their proposed waste use, were considered including assessment against criteria. The assessments and a summary are included in Appendix 2. 4.21 Overall, having assessed the cases for each of the three sites set out in each of the responses, no justification was found for the inclusion of additional allocated sites (for additional waste development) in the Regulation 19 version of the WLWP . Strategic Cooperation 4.22 Engagement has taken place primarily with the GLA through a number of meetings. Next Steps 4.23 The WLLPAs intend to reach out to the London WPAs that have made initial requests to discuss sharing surplus capacity. 4.24 Engagement with GLA is expected to continue, with the possibility of a Statement of Common Ground being agreed nearer to Plan Examination 4.25 A separate Engagement Activity Statement will be prepared post Regulation 19 which will itemise each specific action and outcomes. 11 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.1 19.05.26 Appendix 1: Analysis of Comments received to Regulation 18 consultation Draft WLWP December 2025 to February 2026 Abbreviations:  CCS - Carbon Capture and Storage  CCUS - Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage  CDE - Construction, Demolition, and Excavation waste  EA – Environment Agency  EfW – Energy from Waste  GLA – Greater London Authority  LP – London Plan  NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework  SIL – Strategic Industrial Location  SRN – Strategic Road Network  WLWA – West London Waste Authority  WPA – Waste Planning Authority 12 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 Part of Plan (references to Draft Plan Reg 18) Subject of representation Representor Response 1. Executive Summary Para 1.7 No expectation for self-sufficiency in the provision of management capacity for hazardous waste in west London and therefore Arlington Works (a hazardous waste management site) does not need to be retained. Sharp Refinery Service Ltd/Arlington Works No change proposed. The London Plan identifies a need to protect London’s hazardous waste treatment capacity (paragraph 9.8.18 of the London Plan 2021). As detailed in paragraph 5.42 of the Reg.18 version of the WLWP national policy does not include an expectation for Plan areas to achieve net self-sufficiency for the management of hazardous waste, due to its diverse nature and the need for regionally significant facilities to have an extensive catchment to capture a critical mass of waste. 2. Introduction and Background Para 2.9 Draft policies should not be used to determine applications as too early in plan preparation British Land Change Proposed - Appropriate weight can be given to emerging plans in accordance with the factors set out in the NPPF. Para 2.9 wording intended to apply once WLWP is adopted. Wording amended to clarify. 3. The Plan Context Para 3.10 Positive to note that the importance of the waterborne freight network is acknowledged and plan seeks to exploit opportunities for this. The opportunity to utilise the canal network should be clearly and consistently referenced for each of the areas for example in para 3.10 reference is made to the River Thames but not to the Grand Union Canal. Canal & Rivers Trust Change Proposed. Support Noted and welcomed. Reference added to Grand Union Canal offering multi- modal options. Para 3.13 Need for integration of the Waste Plan with other local and regional strategies Hayes Town Partnership, Resident, Swifts Local Network No change proposed. Once adopted this WLWP forms part of the Development Plan against which any applications for planning consent are to be determined. As local plans and the London Plan also form part of the Development Plan consideration of the policies and objectives of this Plan will be integrated into each 13 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 Part of Plan (references to Draft Plan Reg 18) Subject of representation Representor Response development management decision where relevant. See Figure 3 of this Plan to show inter relationship. 4. Waste Management in West London Figure 3 Improve by being larger scale and cross-reference site numbers in Appendices 2 and 3 Colne Valley Regional Park Change Proposed - Purpose of Figure 3 is to demonstrate the spatial distribution of waste facilities to show a network of sites exists across the Plan area and scale of plan considered adequate. Site reference numbers added. 5. The Policy Context Para 5.53 Draft policies should not be used to determine applications as too early in plan preparation British Land Change Proposed - reference to ‘following adoption’ of the WLWP added. 14 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 Part of Plan (references to Draft Plan Reg 18) Subject of representation Representor Response 6. Vision & Objectives WLWP strategy and scope must not conflict with delivery of nationally significant Heathrow Expansion Project. Expansion of Heathrow will increase waste arisings, impact/remove safeguarded sites, and affect use of regional capacity, integration with circular economy networks, and low carbon transport. Heathrow Airport Change Proposed - Additional text added to reference the possibility of airport expansion during the Plan period added (para 3.3). Clarity and further details needed on cross-boundary waste flows and Heathrow-related contingencies. Spelthorne Borough Council Change Proposed- text added. Para 4.24-4.26 addresses cross boundary waste flows. Add reference to joint monitoring of environmental impacts and transport implications for neighbouring authorities. Spelthorne Borough Council No change proposed. The Monitoring Framework (Appendix 1 to the Plan) includes indicators intended to capture the environmental impacts of consented waste related development and this is considered to provide sufficient detail to monitor plan implementation effectively. It is not clear from the representation what type of joint monitoring is being sought. In most cases day to day operation of waste facilities is monitored by the Environment Agency, which is a national enforcement body for England. Blanket safeguarding of existing waste sites should not apply where there is surplus capacity. L&B Holdings No change proposed. The Plan’s starting position is to safeguard all existing waste sites that meet the Plan’s existing waste site definition (paragraph 9.8). These are listed in Appendix 2 of the Plan. Sites proposed to be released have met strict criteria set out in the ‘Assessment of Safeguarded Waste Sites to be Released’ report. While certain other sites have been proposed for release in the representations received, they do not meet the criteria and so cannot currently be released without compensatory capacity being provided. 15 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 Part of Plan (references to Draft Plan Reg 18) Subject of representation Representor Response Agree with the Vision, especially the promotion of sustainable waste transport options and low emission collection vehicles Port of London Authority Support noted and welcomed. There is support for the Plan's vision but a call for more proactive focus on the "upper tiers" of the waste hierarchy (prevention and reuse) rather than just management and incineration. Residents (x4) Support noted and welcomed. Promoting the management of waste up the hierarchy is embedded within the Plan, particularly the vision. Para 6.4 Capacity safeguarded even though capacity is met through well-located regional facilities, therefore the site is no longer needed and ought to be released. Sharp Refinery Service Ltd/Arlington Works No change proposed. The London Plan identifies a need to provide capacity for the management of London’s hazardous waste and to safeguard all existing facilities for hazardous waste treatment or disposal (paragraph 9.8.18 Policy SI9 D of the London Plan 2021). Site continues to be retained as safeguarded as site meets the WLWP safeguarding criteria/definition. Para 6.5 Over capacity (hazardous waste) and no shortfall therefore the site is not needed and ought to be released. Sharp Refinery Service Ltd/Arlington Works No change proposed. The London Plan identifies a need to provide capacity for the management of London’s hazardous waste and to safeguard all existing facilities for hazardous waste treatment or disposal (paragraph 9.8.18 of the London Plan 2021). “Without sustained action, there remains the risk of a major shortfall in our capacity to treat and dispose of hazardous waste safely.” Site continues to be retained as safeguarded as site meets the WLWP safeguarding criteria/definition. 16 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 Part of Plan (references to Draft Plan Reg 18) Subject of representation Representor Response Strategic Objectives SO1 Support reference to 'Agent of Change' which is considered important in safeguarding capacity, capability and potential of waste facilities. Port of London Authority Support noted and welcomed SO3 Support aim to use sustainable transport by safeguarding railhead and wharves Port of London Authority Support noted and welcomed Support for using waterways (canals) for waste transport, respondents raised concerns about the practicalities and localised impacts of waste movement. Residents (9) Plus Twickenham Park Residents Association, Hayes Town Partnership & Hillingdon Canals Partnership. Support noted and welcomed SO4 Strategic Objective 4 requires best practice for protection of the environment and amenity and minimisation of adverse effects. Portakabin site suffers from litter and vermin from adjacent use and parking impact on access, so these principles need to be implemented. Portakabin No change proposed. Site specific matters would be considered through the Development Management process, including the impact on residential amenity, health, transport etc., and it’s monitoring and enforcement of conditions. Where uses change, the Plan recognises the need for ‘Agent of Change’ principles to be applied and consideration of the impact on neighbour amenities. The Plan should set pan-London minimum biodiversity standards rather than deferring to individual borough policies. Explicitly include requirements for integrated "swift boxes" (citing NPPG Natural Environment 2025). Swifts Local Network: Swifts & Planning Group No change proposed. Setting of biodiversity standards should relate to all development and as such is beyond scope of WLWP . Para 1.5 sets out it should be read alongside adopted local plans, so where boroughs have specified specific biodiversity standards these will be taken into account when assessing new waste development. 17 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 7. Future Requirements for Waste Management Capacity Part of Plan (references to Draft Plan Reg 18) Subject of representation Representor Response General Concerns regarding the methodology used to calculate capacity - Table 2 (In the Assessment of Existing Waste Capacity in West London document) shows a number of sites where the capacity assessed is based on the capacity assessed in the existing WLWP or the Environmental Permit - which is at odds with guidance in the London Plan (para 9.9.2) and concerned that this does not reflect the true capacity at the relevant sites. The Mayor of London/GLAtherefore has concerns about the estimates of waste capacity in the WLWP , and that it may not have the capacity to meet apportionment targets. This would amount to a general conformity issue if not resolved at Reg 19 consultation stage. Mayor of London/GLA Change Proposed - Some site-specific entries have been amended for consistency, and the methodology has been clarified in Capacity Assessment Report. WLLPAs remain of the view that 5-year peak prescribed in the London Plan is only intended to be used as a starting point to determine the quantum of compensatory capacity to be provided at the time of an application to release through the Development Management process. This differs to the assessment of capacity to meet apportionments . Para 8.3 If the principle of releasing waste sites is established, they should be offered to boroughs with a shortfall of waste capacity before being released (refer to London Plan para 9.8.6) and further evidence of discussions with such boroughs should be provided prior to the Reg 19 consultation. Mayor of London/GLA Change proposed. As set out in Paragraph 7.8 the WLLPAs invited all London WPAs to submit representations on the Regulation 18 WLWP . Three requests to share capacity were received. The WLLPAs will continue to engage with those WPAs that have made requests to share capacity and seek further details where required to fully understand the extent of the unmet needs to which such requests relate. This is with a view to enter into agreements through mechanism such as Statements of Common Ground as set out in Paragraph 7.9. 18 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 8. Future Waste Management Capacity in West London Part of Plan (references to Draft Plan Reg 18) Subject of representation Representor Response Para 8.3 The draft WLWP proposes the release of six existing waste sites. The assessment for waste site release is predicated on the plan area having a sufficient capacity to meet waste needs and their continued safeguarding jeopardising wider planning and regeneration objectives for specific areas. London Plan Policy SI8 is clear about the safeguarding of existing waste sites, and SI9 sets out that the proposed loss of a waste site will only be supported where appropriate compensatory capacity is made that must be at or above the same level on waste hierarchy and at least meet maximum achievable throughput of the site proposed to be lost. It appears that compensatory capacity has not been sought for the sites proposed for release. Note that the Quattro site in OPDC is non-operational and the OPDC Local Plan states that waste uses have been relocated to other sites in West London - request further details on where the capacity has been relocated to. For the other sites, the loss of the waste capacity without compensatory capacity would likely raise a general conformity issue. Mayor of London/GLA No change proposed. Compensatory capacity is provided for the proposed plan- led site release by virtue of the capacity surplus identified. This is in accordance with LP policy that release should be 'plan-led'. The assessment of waste capacity and of site release demonstrates that the WLWP area has sufficient qualifying capacity to accommodate the London Plan apportionments and other London Plan targets, and the limited release of sites through the plan-led approach will not compromise this. Quattro has submitted representations on the WLWP confirming that it no longer has an interest in the site in terms of land ownership or operation. Prior to this, it has also submitted representations on OPDC Local Plan to confirm that the waste uses on its former site are now accommodated on other sites in west London. Strong support for releasing Atlas Wharf, Atlas Road, and Quattro (Victoria Road) from safeguarding to allow for 8,000+ new homes and commercial district development OPDC No change proposed. Support noted and welcomed. Both sites are proposed for release, as detailed in the Assessment of Existing Waste Sites to be Released. 19 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 Part of Plan (references to Draft Plan Reg 18) Subject of representation Representor Response Quattro formally operated a site at Regency Street, Park Royal, NW10 6NR. The site comprised a combined waste management and concrete batching facility. The entirety of the facility was subject to a compulsory purchase order due to the land being required for HS2 purposes. Quattro vacated the site in October 2018. The site at Victoria Road, Park Royal was formerly operated by Quattro (referenced within the Draft West London Waste Plan as ‘Quattro, Victoria Road (OPDC). It is identified as being proposed for release from safeguarding on the basis that the Plan area has sufficient capacity for waste management and is identified for redevelopment in the Local Plan for non-waste uses. Quattro no longer has an interest in the site in terms of land ownership or operation. The loss of this site identifies further lost capacity in the area and underpins Quattro’s need and requirement for other available waste sites in the WLWA area. Quattro No change proposed. Quattro no longer has an interest in the site. Based on previous representations on OPDC Local Plan, it has confirmed that the waste uses on the site are now accommodated on other sites in west London. Sites operated by Quattro including Horn Lane site (E07) and Western International Market (H02) are proposed to be safeguarded through the new WLWP . The Plan also identifies surplus capacity for C& D waste that supports the site’s release. 20 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 9. Proposed Policies Part of Plan (references to Draft Plan Reg 18) Subject of representation Representor Response Para 9.28 Should refer to assessment of impact on water quality, biodiversity and landscape Colne Valley Regional Park Change proposed. Text added Para 9.28 Should refer to biodiversity impacts Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust Change proposed. Text added Para 9.48 Should refer to Colne and Crane Valleys Green Infrastructure Strategy 2019 Colne Valley Regional Park No change proposed. The Colne and Crane Valleys Green Infrastructure Strategy does not have formal status as part of the Development Plan, but would be a material consideration for development proposals (waste-related, or other) that come forward. It can be referenced through Local Plans where relevant. Para 9.5 Need to be satisfied that ‘capacity increases at waste sites over plan period' are likely to be delivered if reliance placed on them as justification for repurposing land/release of sites Essex County Council No change proposed. Reliance is instead being placed on the extensive pool of existing waste sites to be safeguarded through the WLWP , so the Plan is not dependent on these particular circumstances. Para 9.5 Additional supporting text needed to make clear that calculations of required capacity and net self sufficiency should be carried out at least over plan period based on plan-long capacity assessment Essex County Council Change Proposed - Text added to strengthen commitment to production of regular AMRs for plan period in Monitoring Section (Appendix 1- Monitoring Framework) and linkage with GLA data on monitoring net self sufficiency for London as a whole. Para 9.6 Support use of assessed capacity of sites vs 5-year peak input as it uses actual capacity rather than throughput Essex County Council Support noted and welcomed 21 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 Policy WLWP 1: Safeguarding and Optimising the Waste Site Network Part of Plan (references to Draft Plan Reg 18) Subject of representation Representor Response Definition of existing waste sites Definition of existing waste sites not consistent with London Plan British Land No change proposed. The WLWP sets out the locally relevant definition of a waste site to be applied to ensure the effective safeguarding of critical waste management capacity. This approach ensures all lawful waste sites are protected from unintended loss and supports long-term waste management capacity provision to ensure the Plan’s Strategic Objectives are met. See further details in the response to the Mayor of London/GLA comment regarding the definition. It is noted that the difference in interpretation does not actually impact on the case of release for the Hannah Close site (to which British Land' representation primarily relates), as the site is subject to a planning permission for a waste use, which means it qualifies for safeguarding both under the London Plan and the proposed definition included in the new WLWP . Support definition of a waste site which aligns with ELJWP approach East London Boroughs Support noted and welcomed. WLWP definition of existing waste site not in conformity with London Plan and Site does not meet proposed WLWP definition anyway Sharp Refinery Service Ltd/Arlington Works No change proposed. Site in question subject to CLUED so would meet proposed definition to be included in WLWP . as set out in Para 9.7 of the Plan. The WLWP explains the locally relevant definition of a waste site to ensure the effective 22 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 safeguarding of critical waste management capacity. The London’s Plan reliance on an Environment Agency permit and/or express planning permission alone creates a risk that lawful waste sites could fall outside of safeguarding if a permit is surrendered. The WLWP therefore includes sites with extant planning consent, a certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLEUD), lawful use established through passage of time, or where waste activity is ancillary to a wider lawful use. This approach ensures all lawful waste sites are protected from unintended loss and supports long-term retention of waste management capacity. See further details in the response to the Mayor of London/GLA comment regarding the definition. Site in question is safeguarded through the adopted WLWP and will be retained as it meets the qualifying criteria as it is subject to CLEUD for a waste use. Discrepancies between the definitions of waste sites in the WLWP and 2021 London Plan. The London Plan defines waste sites as those with planning permission for waste use or a permit for a waste use, whereas WLWP uses a wider definition. This includes existing waste sites which are subject to an extant planning consent for waste use; have been granted a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use for Development for waste, ancillary waste uses; and for a waste use that has become lawful through the passage of time under planning legislation. Definitions should be Mayor of London/GLA No change proposed. The proposed WLWP definition reflects established land- use planning principles by recognising that waste uses taking place on land benefiting from:  extant planning permission;  Certificates of Lawful Existing Use or Development;  that have become lawful through the 23 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 aligned with London Plan. passage of time; or  those ancillary to other uses should be safeguarded in principle. Sites that are only subject to an Environmental Permit for waste use and do not also benefit from the above are not included. This is because EA permits operate outside of the land use planning system and relate to pollution control. The issuing of environmental permits by the Environment Agency is undertaken with no consideration of the lawfulness of the use in land-use planning terms, with permitting being an entirely separate regulatory regime. Environmental permits are also specific to the operator and may therefore be lost, rather than being tied to the land. The London’s Plan reliance on an Environment Agency permits and/or planning permission creates a risk that sites could fall outside of safeguarding if a permit is surrendered. Also safeguarding sites based on a permit alone could risk legitimising sites which may be located in inappropriate areas, for example on land for which planning permission for a waste use has been refused or is subject to enforcement action against a waste use. The WLWP approach ensures all lawful waste sites are protected from unintended 24 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 loss and supports long-term retention of waste management capacity avoiding incremental loss over the Plan period within the context of strong development pressure from competing land use across west London. It is considered this approach is in general conformity with the 2021 London Plan. The WLLPAs note that the current London Plan definition may be revisited as part of the review of the London Plan. Recognise the flexibility to allow release of sites where there is sufficient capacity. Heathrow Airport Support noted but Clause G has been deleted in light of GLA concerns.. Note no new sites are proposed to be allocated, which is welcomed. Use of greener transport modes should be prioritised. Scope for increase in natural screening planted to create habitat. Natural England Support noted and welcomed. Sustainable transport options are promoted in the Plan’s vision and Strategic Objectives (SO3). The purpose of Policy WLWP 1 is to protect, enhance and optimise the network of existing waste sites where transport routes are already well established. Policy WLWP 2 details the requirement that proposals for new waste related development should make to the use of more sustainable transport modes where possible. Support safeguarding of existing sites. Port of London Authority Support noted and welcomed 25 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 Part of Plan (references to Draft Plan Reg 18) Subject of representation Representor Response Part C Clarify that should planning permission be granted for further temporary or permanent development then such sites will continue to be safeguarded Quattro No change proposed. It is considered that this matter is already addressed through part (B) of Policy WLWP 1, which supports the continued safeguarding of existing waste sites and capacity and is in general conformity with the approach set out in the London Plan 2021. No modification is therefore considered necessary. Part E Confirm support for clause E of WLWP1 encouraging co- location of other compatible industrial uses Quattro Support noted and welcomed - clause E refers to ‘complementary activities’. Confirm co-located concrete batching plant is supported in principle as this makes use of recycled aggregate from waste facility Quattro Change Proposed - Part (E) of Policy WLWP 1 is primarily concerned with the co- location of waste uses with complementary activities. , ITo provide further clarity, a footnote has been added to explain the types of “complementary activities” that may be appropriate in this context. Part J Support clause j with regard to Agent of Change to safeguard sites from proximate development. Add reference to NPPF on Agent of Change in footnote Port of London Authority Change Proposed - Support noted and welcomed. Footnote amended to include NPPF reference and noting NPPF versions may change over time. Support. Residential encroachment is an increasing issue and welcome reference to Agent of Change Veolia Support noted and welcomed 26 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 Part of Plan (references to Draft Plan Reg 18) Subject of representation Representor Response Part G Concerned that this policy is based on a misreading of the LP2021 and may amount to a general conformity issue. Part G is in direct conflict with 2021 London Plan Policy SI9 which is clear that a plan-led approach to releasing waste sites should be taken rather than an ad-hoc one. WLWP1 supports release of waste sites through the development management process without compensatory provision being secured. Adhoc release creating uncertainty that boroughs will be able to maintain meeting apportionment requirements throughout the plan period. Mayor of London/GLA Change Proposed - Part G has been deleted from Policy WLWP 1 to ensure alignment with the 2021 London Plan. The Plan now clearly supports a plan-led approach to the release of sites, consistent with Policy SI 9 of the London Plan, and does not promote site release through development management without appropriate strategic consideration of compensatory provision. Clause I There are a number of existing waste management sites in proximity to canal network which are proposed to be safeguarded and potentially expanded. Powerday Wharf, Scrubs Lane (OPDC/LBH&F) is hugely important as the only canal wharf available in West London, used until recently for barge-delivered waste from Camden Market and otherwise used for spoil and construction waste. It does not appear to be safeguarded. Canal & River Trust No change proposed. Powerday Wharf, Scrubs Lane falls outside WLWP area (Hammersmith & Fulham) and is therefore not included in the Plan. Not clear whether clause I is supposed to be read as saying blanket safeguarding for railheads and wharves regardless of whether they are identified on the proposals maps. Further clarity needed for future decision makers. If the intention is for these facilities to be identified on proposals maps, then should engage with Powerday to discuss whether the wharf warrants safeguarding within the Plan. Canal & River Trust Change Proposed - making safeguarding of railheads and wharves through this Plan specific to waste use, and only for the duration that such uses are associated with a waste site subject to safeguarding. Powerday Wharf, Scrubs Lane falls outside WLWP area and is therefore not included in the Plan. Policy intent of clause I not clear - Is capacity based on capacity for train movements? If so, how can this be applied through safeguarding. Capacity will depend on rail capacity and train paths, available freight trains and Day Group No change proposed. Part (I) of Policy WLWP 1 is not intended to quantify rail capacity (for example in terms of train movements or throughputs), but 27 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 wagons, ability of receptor sites to accept waste. Not clear how safeguarding for waste interacts with safeguarding for other freight uses. The Site is also safeguarded as a minerals railhead. rather to recognise the presence of rail-(and water) linked infrastructure and ensure that this is retained for as long as an associated waste use remains lawful. The policy does not address safeguarding of rail freight or mineral infrastructure, which are addressed through separate policy frameworks. Remove reference to 'capacity for waste transportation' in WLWP1 clause I. Amend clause I to 'the safeguarding of the associated railhead or wharf for waste use will also cease' Day Group Change Proposed - policy wording amended as suggested Supporting text to clarify that any loss of railhead/wharf safeguarding relates to waste functions only and capacity for other uses remain safeguarded Day Group Change Proposed - policy wording amended as suggested Overlooks potential use of railheads/wharves for transhipment of aggregates - safeguarding should be retained even when waste use is lost in accordance with London Plan Environment Agency Change Proposed - policy wording amended. The policy does not seek to address wider issues relating to rail freight capacity or mineral safeguarding, which are considered through separate policy frameworks. Clause I. Does not consider feasibility of use of railheads for waste use. British Land Change Proposed - The Plan does not assume all railheads are suitable for waste use; any potential use would be subject to site-specific feasibility and operational considerations Clause (I) is intentionally flexible and includes caveat 'where it does not conflict with other existing or planned uses'. Text amended to clarify that it is the railhead/wharf itself that is safeguarded to enable waste transport and the capacity will depend on a range of factors that need to be considered, rather than setting hard 28 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 rules. Policy WLWP 2: Provision of Additional Waste Management Capacity Part of Plan (references to Draft Plan Reg 18) Subject of representation Representor Response Policy WLWP 2 seeks to support proposals for waste capacity in principle where certain criteria are met. This includes where ‘The site is otherwise suitable for the proposed use and is consistent with the relevant development plan and its spatial strategy' . The Plan does not necessarily need to repeat existing policies but this part of WLWP2 seems to be taking on a significant burden in terms of the protection of the local area and environment. It would therefore be good to see recognition in the supporting text that policies (relevant development plan and spatial strategy) will need to be considered when determining for example whether proposals protect heritage, character, biodiversity, and green and blue infrastructure. Canal & River Trust No change proposed. The Plan sets out that it is to be read alongside the rest of the Development Plan, this includes adopted local plans i.e. relevant development plan and spatial strategies. Support given expansion will generate more waste in construction and operation Heathrow Airport Support noted and welcomed. Specifically require consultation with Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service and where necessary undertake archaeological assessment and where appropriate mitigation Historic England No change proposed. Local and London Plan policies will apply – it is considered that there is no need to repeat in WLWP . Reference to archaeology added to para 8.42 Clause F3 of Policy WLWP 2 cross-refers to the need to conform with the development plan. Intensification of existing sites rather than allocation of new sites is positive. Natural England Support noted and welcomed. Support non-road routes (F5) and preferred locations close to railheads and wharves or SRN (para 9.23) Port of London Support noted and welcomed. 29 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 30 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 Part of Plan (references to Draft Plan Reg 18) Subject of representation Representor Response No immediate need for additional capacity noted but confirmation sought that Heathrow expansion and Colnbrook EfW closure risks have been factored in to contingency planning Spelthorne Borough Council The possibility of Heathrow expansion during the Plan period has now been explicitly acknowledged through addition of text, see further details in the response to the Heathrow Airport comment on the Vision. Colnbrook EfW not principal plant used for management of West London’s residual LACW - c17,000 tonnes of total c95,000tonnes sent to incineration in 2024 (to 7 different EfW plants). Policy WLWP 3: Residual Waste Management & Energy Recovery Clause A2 Provision could provide qualification re sustainable transport options from outside of Plan area esp. exports of residual and Refuse Derived Fuel Environment Agency Change Proposed - Wording for suggested qualifier text added to clause C5 of Policy WLWP 2 to promote facilities using sustainable transport methods whose catchment may extend beyond west London (to reciprocate for export of residual LACW to EfW in South Gloucestershire). Clause A3. Reasonable to accept waste from nearby areas Environment Agency No change proposed. The principal driver to provide additional capacity is to meet any unmet need within the Plan area but not to exclusion of allowing some imports. Clause B. Inconsistent with long-term arrangements that WLWA has with Suez set out at para 5.63 (Reg 19)- clarify in text. Environment Agency Change Proposed - Not considered inconsistent as "net self sufficiency" is "net" i.e. waste may leave the Plan area for management as long as an equivalent amount is received. Terms of West London Waste Authority (WLWA) contract clarified in text may reduce minimum tonnage. 31 | P a g e Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Statement Version: Final v2.2 28.05.26 Part of Plan (references to Draft Plan Reg 18) Subject of representation Representor Response Clause C Local need should be flexible considering WLWA exports to Avonmouth & provision for reciprocity if required. Environment Agency No change proposed. As above re: "net" - exports are to South Gloucestershire not Avonmouth, although WDI24 shows LB Lewisham accepted 41,675t (SELCHP) and LB Sutton 19,608t (Beddington). i.e. c60,000t managed in London (qualifying capacity under London Plan definition) Clause E. Part 1 not necessary as implies double-regulation of Energy from Waste facilities Environment Agency No change proposed. It is considered Part 1 is necessary for LPAs as WPAs to satisfy themselves that a facility is and will remain recovery and not become disposal and meet the efficiency performance standards for such plants set out in the London Plan. Part 2 be more explicit about plant being Carbon Capture for Use or Storage (CCUS)-ready Environment Agency No change proposed. Part 2 - concern is that being CCUS -ready will not actually mean CCUS is in place on day 1 which it ought to be. This echoes the ongoing concern around UK EfW plants being built as 'CHP ready', but many not having ever actually put heat supply in place. Any future EfW proposals should include carbon capture and local heat network integration Spelthorne Borough Council No change proposed. Noted - WLWP3 Clause D covers energy supply and Clause E2 covers CCUS.

Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Only the start of this long document is shown here. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.

📄 Appendix C - Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan Regulation 19 Consultation , item 8. PDF 6 MB
Read the text of this document (398 pages)
Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan Regulation 1 9 Consultation West London Waste Planning Authorities Final report Prepared by LUC May 2026 Appendix C Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 Land Use Consultants Limited Registered in England. Registered number 2549296. Registered office: 250 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8RD. Printed on 100% recycled paper Version Status Prepared Checked Approved Date 1 Draft E Westcott G Currie T Livingston T Livingston 06/05/2026 2 Final E Westcott G Currie T Livingston T Livingston 14/05/2026 Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 3 Contents Chapter 1 9 Introduction Geographical context for the West London Waste Plan 10 West London Waste Plan 16 Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment 17 Health Impact Assessment 18 Equalities Impact Assessment 19 Habitats Regulations Assessment 20 Approach to Integrated Impact Assessment 20 Where the SEA Regulations are addressed in this IIA Report 22 Structure of the IIA Report 26 Chapter 2 28 Methodology SA Stage A: Scoping 29 SA Stage B: Developing and refining options and assessing effects 32 SA Stage C: Preparing the Sustainability Appraisal report 35 SA Stage D: Consultation on the Local Plan and the IIA Report 35 SA Stage E: Monitoring implementation of the Local Plan 36 IIA framework 36 Difficulties and data limitations 39 Chapter 3 41 Sustainability context Introduction 41 Key sustainability issues 58 Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 4 The IIA framework 64 Chapter 4 77 Reasonable alternatives considered for the emerging WLWP Issues and Options for emerging WLWP 77 Potential waste site options 85 Chapter 5 88 IIA of the Regulation 19 West London Waste Plan Vision and strategic objectives 89 Policies 104 Recommendations 129 Equalities Impact Assessment and Health Impact Assessment 129 Chapter 6 135 Cumulative effects Introduction 135 Total effects of the WLWP 135 Chapter 7 146 Monitoring and other reporting requirements Chapter 8 151 Conclusions and next steps Next steps 152 Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 5 Appendix A 153 Review of relevant plans, policies and programmes Appendix B 232 Responses from Statutory Consultees to the Regulation 18 WLWP Responses from Statutory Consultees to the WLWP Scoping Report (as presented in Appendix B of the Regulation 18 draft IIA) Appendix C 246 Baseline Information Appendix D 317 Site Assessment Criteria Appendix E 343 IIA findings for reasonable alternative policy approaches and site options References 378 Table of Tables Table 2.1: IIA effects symbols 37 Table 3.1: Key national plans and programmes of relevance for the emerging WLWP 45 Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 6 Table 3.2: Key GLA policies, strategies and guidance 51 Table 3.3: Key Local plans, programmes and policies 52 Table 5.1: Summary of IIA findings for the WLWP Vision and Strategic Objectives 93 Table 5.2: Summary of IIA findings for the Regulation 19 WLWP policies 106 Table B.1: Historic England 232 Table B.2: Natural England 233 Table B.3: Environment Agency 233 Table B.4: Marine Management Organisation 234 Table B.5: Ministry of Defence 234 Table B.6: National Highways 235 Table B.7: Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust 236 Table B.8: Historic England 237 Table B.9: Natural England 238 Table B.10: Environment Agency 239 Table C.1: CO2 emissions estimates in the WLWP Area 2005-2023 (Kt) 255 Table C.2: CO2 emissions estimates by West London Borough (per capita, tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) 256 Table C.3: Energy Consumption in London by type - 2005 to 2023 258 Table C.4: Energy Consumption in Brent - 2005 to 2023 258 Table C.5: Energy Consumption in Ealing - 2005 to 2023 259 Table C.6: Energy Consumption in Harrow - 2005 to 2023 259 Table C.7: Energy Consumption in Hounslow - 2005 to 2023 260 Table C.8: Energy Consumption in Hillingdon - 2005 to 2023 260 Table C.9: Energy Consumption in Richmond - 2005 to 2023 261 Table C.10: Population change in the WLWP area from 2011- 2021 269 Table C.11: Fly-tipping incidents reported by local authorities in WLWP area 2024/2025 273 Table D.1: IIA objective 1 assumptions and justifications for IIA effects 318 Table D.2: IIA objective 2 assumptions and justifications for IIA effects 319 Table D.3: IIA objective 3 assumptions and justifications for IIA effects 321 Table D.4: IIA objective 4 assumptions and justifications for IIA effects 322 Table D.5: IIA objective 5 assumptions and justifications for IIA effects 326 Table D.6: IIA objective 6 assumptions and justifications for IIA effects 328 Table D.7: IIA objective 7 assumptions and justifications for IIA effects 330 Table D.8: IIA objective 8 assumptions and justifications for IIA effects 332 Table D.9: IIA objective 9 assumptions and justifications for IIA effects 334 Table D.10: IIA objective 10 assumptions and justifications for IIA effects 336 Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 7 Table D.11: IIA objective 11 assumptions and justifications for IIA effects 338 Table D.12: IIA objective 12 assumptions and justifications for IIA effects 340 Table E.1: Summary of IIA findings for the reasonable alternative policy approaches to the emerging WLWP 344 Table E.2: Summary of IIA findings for the potential site options in relation to IIA objective 1 352 Table E.3: Summary of IIA findings for the potential site options in relation to IIA objective 2 353 Table E.4: Summary of IIA findings for the potential site options in relation to IIA objective 3 355 Table E.5: Summary of IIA findings for the potential site options in relation to IIA objective 4 356 Table E.6: Summary of IIA findings for the potential site options in relation to IIA objective 5 358 Table E.7: Summary of IIA findings for the potential site options in relation to IIA objective 6 359 Table E.8: Summary of IIA findings for the potential site options in relation to IIA objective 7 360 Table E.9: Summary of IIA findings for the potential site options in relation to IIA objective 8 362 Table E.10: Summary of IIA findings for the potential site options in relation to IIA objective 9 363 Table E.11: Summary of IIA findings for the potential site options in relation to IIA objective 10 364 Table E.12: Summary of IIA findings for the potential site options in relation to IIA objective 11 365 Table E.13: Summary of IIA findings for the potential site options in relation to IIA objective 12 367 Table E.14: Summary of IIA findings for the emerging WLWP (Regulation 18) Vision and Strategic Objectives 371 Table E.15: Summary of the IIA findings of the policies for the emerging WLWP (Regulation 18) 375 Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 8 Table of Figures Figure 2.1: Corresponding stages in plan-making and SA 28 Figure C.1: Flood Risk 305 Figure C.2: Indices of Deprivation 306 Figure C.3: Transport Network 307 Figure C.4: Open Spaces 308 Figure C.4a: Historic Environment - Brent 309 Figure C.4b: Historic Environment - Ealing 310 Figure C.4c: Historic Environment - Harrow 311 Figure C.4d: Historic Environment - Hillingdon 312 Figure C.4e: Historic Environment - Hounslow 313 Figure C.4f: Historic Environment - Richmond upon Thames 314 Figure C.4g: Historic Environment - Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) 315 Figure C.5: Biodiversity 316 Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 9 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 LUC was commissioned in October 2023 to undertake an Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), comprising Sustainability Appraisal (SA) incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Health Impact Assessment (HIA), Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA), and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the Regulation 19 West London Waste Plan (WLWP). 1.2 Production of the WLWP is a collaborative venture between the following local planning authorities: ◼ London Borough of Brent; ◼ London Borough of Ealing; ◼ London Borough of Harrow; ◼ London Borough of Hillingdon; ◼ London Borough of Hounslow; ◼ London Borough of Richmond upon Thames; and ◼ the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC). 1.3 This document is the IIA of the Regulation 19 WLWP. The IIA appraises the likely effects of the vision, objectives and policies. This document will be published as part of the consultation on the Regulation 19 WLWP. 1.4 An IIA of the emerging draft WLWP was prepared and issued for consultation as part of the Regulation 18 requirements from December 2025 to February 2026. This updated Regulation 19 version of the IIA incorporates comments received as part of the Regulation 18 consultation process and takes account of updates made to the WLWP following the Regulation 18 consultation. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 10 1.5 It should be noted that this report is in an ‘Accessible format’, which means it has been formatted to meet the requirements of the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations (2018), as set out in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1). This means it must have larger font, larger spacing between lines and headings, less information presented in tables, ‘alt text’ provided for all figures and it is able to be read by screen-reading software. Geographical context for the West London Waste Plan 1.6 The WLWP area is formed by the six westerly London Boroughs: Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond upon Thames. The emerging WLWP also includes the area covered by the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) within Brent and Ealing. The OPDC is a Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC), established by the Mayor of London to secure the regeneration of the Old Oak and Park Royal Opportunity area, spanning land in three London boroughs – Ealing, Brent, and Hammersmith and Fulham. 1.7 The administrative geography of London is overseen at a regional level by the Greater London Authority (GLA). There are 33 administrative areas within London: 12 inner boroughs, 20 outer boroughs, and the City of London. The WLWP area sits within outer London. The plan area is bordered within London: ◼ To the east by the London Borough of Barnet and the London Borough of Camden; and ◼ To the southeast by the London Borough of Westminster, the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, the London Borough of Kingston upon Thames, and the London Borough of Wandsworth. 1.8 The Plan area shares borders with planning authority areas outside London as follows: Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 11 ◼ To the north within the county of Hertfordshire, are the districts of Three Rivers and Hertsmere. ◼ To the west are the unitary authorities of Buckinghamshire, Slough, and Windsor and Maidenhead, as well as the Surrey county districts of Spelthorne and Elmbridge. 1.9 The population of the WLWP area has grown from 1.6m in the 2011 Census to over 1.75m in the 2021 Census [See reference 1]. The London Plan predicts that the population of London as a whole is projected to increase by 70,000 every year, reaching 10.8 million in 2041, and growth in West London will be supported by the development of High Speed 2 (HS2), Crossrail 2 and within the OPDC area [See reference 2]. 1.10 West London is a diverse area, including urban centres, industrial hubs, transport corridors, and extensive green spaces. Waste management development in this area is principally affected by: ◼ Strategic industrial clusters providing key locations for waste management facilities; ◼ Major regeneration areas have been identified for significant new development of homes and employment space, which could increase waste production and impact waste sites but also create opportunities to plan for innovative and sustainable waste solutions; ◼ Development constraints such as: ◼ Residential areas and other conflicting land uses; ◼ Green Belt; ◼ Metropolitan Open Land (MOL); ◼ Heritage and conservation designations; ◼ Ecological designations; ◼ Flood risk zones; ◼ Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs); and Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 12 ◼ Transport infrastructure, including key road and rail freight networks and interchanges, that affect waste logistics. Borough by Borough Summary Profile (alphabetical order) 1.11 The London Borough of Brent (LBB) is located in the north east of the plan area, with Harrow to the north and Ealing to the south. There are currently 15 permitted waste management facilities operational within the Borough. ◼ Key industrial locations for waste management development include Wembley Strategic Industrial Location (SIL) and Alperton Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS). East Lane SIL and other industrial areas may also offer opportunities for waste development in the future. ◼ The main growth and regeneration areas including Wembley, Alperton and the Neasden Stations Growth Area will grow through high-density development, requiring integrated waste solutions to facilitate management of separate waste streams. ◼ Major transport routes are provided by the North Circular (A406), A5, and M1, but, like all of the plan area, congestion is an issue across the Borough. ◼ Designations such as the borough-wide AQMA, Air Quality Focus Areas (AQFAs), the Welsh Harp reservoir SSSI and flood risk along the River Brent and Wealdstone Brook may limit further waste development. 1.12 The London Borough of Ealing (LBE) is located in the central section of the plan area with Harrow and Brent to the north, Hillingdon to the west, and Hounslow and Richmond to the south. There are currently 19 permitted waste management facilities operational within the Borough. ◼ The main locations for waste transfer and recycling facilities are the Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL) and Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS) in Greenford, Perivale, Northolt, and Southall. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 13 ◼ Regeneration pressures in the Southall Opportunity Area is expected to increase waste production and require integration with the circular economy. ◼ The main transport routes are the A40, A406 and Uxbridge Road. There is potential for the development of rail-based freight locations for waste transport. ◼ The designated borough-wide AQMA, Green Belt and potential flood risk along the River Brent, and in Southall and Acton may limit further waste development. 1.13 The London Borough of Harrow is located to the north of the plan area with Brent, Ealing and Hillingdon to the south. There are two permitted waste management facilities operational within the Borough. ◼ There is relatively limited industrial land within the Borough. The main areas are Wealdstone (SIL and LSIS) and Honeypot Lane. ◼ Harrow and Wealdstone is identified in the London Plan as an Opportunity Area (OA) which are significant locations with development capacity to accommodate new housing, commercial development and infrastructure (of all types), linked to existing or potential improvements in public transport connectivity and capacity. The Harrow and Wealdstone OA is part of the Highspeed 2/Thameslink Growth Corridor. Growth in these town centres is expected to increase waste production, but space for new stand alone waste management facilities is limited. ◼ Compared to the other Boroughs in the plan area, a lack of major highway or rail freight connections, make waste transport more reliant on local road networks. ◼ The borough-wide AQMA and Green Belt land may limit further waste development. 1.14 London Borough of Hillingdon (LBHi) sits to the west of the plan area with Harrow and Ealing to the east, and Hounslow to the south. There are 34 permitted waste management facilities operational within the Borough. ◼ The key industrial and transport hubs are Heathrow Airport and Hayes & West Drayton Corridor which produce significant quantities of commercial and industrial (C&I) waste. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 14 ◼ There are existing waste infrastructure locations at West Drayton Waste Transfer Station, South Hillingdon Recycling Centre and Harmondsworth Quarry/Sipson (historic mineral workings). ◼ Key transport routes include the M4, A40, M25 and West Drayton Rail Freight Terminal. There is potential for waste transport by rail and already one rail transfer station at Victoria Road. There is also the potential to transport waste by water freight and key transport routes could include the Grand Union Canal, River Thames and Brentford wharf. ◼ The designated AQMA covering three quarters of the borough, Green Belt, and potential flood risk from the River Colne and Grand Union Canal may limit further waste development. 1.15 The London Borough of Hounslow (LBHo) sits to the south west of the plan area, with Richmond to the south east and Hillingdon and Ealing to the north. There are currently 12 permitted waste management facilities operational within the Borough. ◼ The key Strategic Industrial Locations for waste management facilities are the Great West Corridor, North Feltham Trading Estate, and Brentford. ◼ Regeneration opportunities in the Great West Corridor Opportunity Area and the Hounslow part of the Heathrow Opportunity Area (aka the ‘West of the Borough’ area, which includes Feltham Town Centre) are expected to increase waste management requirements. ◼ Strategic road connections include the M4 and rail freight at Brentford sidings and rail transfer station at Transport Avenue. ◼ The designated borough-wide AQMA, Green Belt, and potential flood risk from the River Thames and its tributaries, as well as surface water and groundwater influenced flooding may limit further waste development. 1.16 The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (LBR) is located in the very south of the plan area, with Hounslow to the north. There are four permitted waste management facilities located within the borough but only three of these sites are currently operational. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 15 ◼ Smallest industrial base in West London - Limited industrial land, with waste facilities concentrated at Townmead Road Household Waste and Twickenham Depot. ◼ Regeneration and waste growth - Mortlake (Stag Brewery redevelopment), Twickenham and Richmond town centre redevelopment are expected to increase waste generation. ◼ Other key development constraints include: ◼ Borough-wide AQMA, ◼ Richmond Park (NNR, SSSI and SAC, Historic Park and Garden), Bushy Park and Home Park (SSSI, Historic Park and Garden), Kew Gardens (UNESCO World Heritage Site), ◼ Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and Other Open Land of Townscape Importance (OOLTI), and ◼ Flood risk from the River Thames and its tributaries, as well as surface water and groundwater influenced flooding, which can also lead to sewer overflows. ◼ Transport considerations - limited road capacity for HGV waste transport and although there is potential to transport waste by water freight practicalities of accessing the river from waste sites and potential costs involved limit the extent of its use. 1.17 The Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) is a Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC), established by the Mayor of London to secure the regeneration of the Old Oak and Park Royal Opportunity area, spanning land in three London boroughs – Ealing, Brent (within the WLWP area), and Hammersmith & Fulham. ◼ The OPDC contains London’s largest SIL which accommodates over 2,000 businesses. Key sectors include transport and logistics, food manufacturing and creative industries. ◼ The 2022 adopted OPDC Local Plan identifies the potential to deliver up to 19,850 new homes and space for 36,350 jobs up to 2038 with more planned in later stages. It includes one of the UK’s largest regeneration projects at Old Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 16 Oak, which includes planned construction of infrastructure and up to 9,000 new homes and thousands of new jobs, with opportunities to use advanced waste solutions and apply circular economy principles. ◼ Existing waste management sites are located in SIL or outside of this, within proposed major, mixed-use neighbourhoods. ◼ Key transport routes include the A40 and A406. There are multiple existing and future planned rail connections which provide potential for non-road based waste transport. ◼ The designated AQMA covering the whole OPDC, proximity to Wormwood Scrubs Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and potential flood risk from the Grand Union Canal, alongside surface water flooding, may limit development. Development may also be impacted temporarily by HS2 construction. 1.18 Due to the location of the plan area, the WLWP area benefits from strategic transport links including access to the M1, M4 and M25 motorways, and the A3, A4, A30, A40 and A406. West London Waste Plan 1.19 The current version of the WLWP was adopted in 2015 [See reference 3] and set out to meet the requirements of the national policy and the London Plan (2011), to plan effectively for waste across the WLWP area and London's wider needs as set out in the apportionments in the London Plan, as amended by the Further Alterations to the London Plan (2015). There have been two iterations of the London Plan since adoption of the West London Waste Plan: the London Plan (2016), and the current adopted London Plan (2021). A new version of the Draft London Plan (2026) is due to be published for consultation this summer. 1.20 The adopted WLWP was prepared under the original National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012), the National Waste Plan for England (2013), and the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW, 2014). To meet the London Plan apportionments for municipal solid waste (MSW) and commercial and industrial (C&I) waste, the adopted WLWP allocated seven existing waste sites already managing Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 17 MSW and C&I waste identified as capable of redevelopment to increase their waste recovery capacity, and an additional suitable site not currently developed for waste management use. 1.21 No allocations were made in the adopted WLWP for construction and demolition (C&D) waste facilities or for hazardous waste management. The plan was designed to be flexible to allow for developments and improvements in waste management technologies and the changing habits of consumers and waste producers. 1.22 The WLWP is now being reviewed, and once adopted, the new WLWP will supersede the adopted WLWP and form part of the development plan against which planning applications for waste management facilities across the plan area will be determined. The evidence base prepared for the emerging WLWP does not indicate that additional capacity is needed, which would justify the allocation of additional land for the development of new waste facilities in the plan. Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment 1.23 Under the amended Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 [See reference 4], SA is mandatory for Development Plan Documents. For these documents it is also necessary to conduct an environmental assessment in accordance with the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (European Directive 2001/42/EC) as transposed into law in England by the SEA Regulations [See reference 5], which currently remain in force despite the UK exiting the European Union in January 2020. Therefore, it is a legal requirement for the WLWP to be subject to SA and SEA throughout its preparation. 1.24 The requirements to carry out SA and SEA are distinct, although it is possible to satisfy both using a single appraisal process (as advocated in the national Planning Practice Guidance [See reference 6]), whereby users can comply with the requirements of the SEA Regulations through a single integrated SA process – this is the process that is being undertaken for the WLWP, as part of the wider IIA. From Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 18 here on, the term ‘SA’ should therefore be taken to mean ‘SA incorporating the requirements of the SEA Regulations’. 1.25 The SA process comprises a number of stages, which are being undertaken as part of the IIA, as shown below. The SA is currently at Stage D, which is a second round of consulting on the WLWP and the SA Report (the first was at the Regulation 18 stage from December 2025 to February 2026). Stage A: Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope. Stage B: Developing and refining options and assessing effects. Stage C: Preparing the SA (or IIA) Report. Stage D: Consulting on the WLWP and the SA (or IIA) Report. Stage E: Monitoring the significant effects of implementing the WLWP. Health Impact Assessment 1.26 Although not a statutory requirement, Health Impact Assessment (HIA) aims to ensure that health-related issues are integrated into the plan-making process. The HIA of the WLWP has been carried out as part of the IIA by ensuring that the IIA objectives against which the Plan is appraised address relevant health issues. Recommendations will be made if relevant in relation to how the health-related impacts of the Plan can be optimised as the options are developed into detailed policies. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 19 Equalities Impact Assessment 1.27 The requirement to undertake formal Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) of development plans was introduced in the Equality Act 2010 but was abolished in 2012. Despite this, authorities are still required to have regard to the provisions of the Equality Act, namely the Public Sector Duty which requires public authorities to have due regard for equalities considerations when exercising their functions. 1.28 The Equality Act identifies nine ‘protected characteristics’ and seeks to protect people from discrimination based on these characteristics. It presents three main duties: to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct that is prohibited under the Act; to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations between persons who share relevant protected characteristics and persons who do not share it. The nine protected characteristics identified through the Act are: ◼ Age: Children (0-4), Younger people (aged 16-24), older people (aged 65 and over); ◼ Disability: Disabled people, people with physical and mental impairment; ◼ Gender reassignment; ◼ Marriage and civil partnership; ◼ Pregnancy and maternity; ◼ Race; ◼ Religion or belief; ◼ Sex; and ◼ Sexual orientation. 1.29 A number of the waste planning authorities also recognise care experience and socio-economic status as protected characteristics. In fulfilling the Equality Act duty, many authorities still find it useful to produce a written record of how equality issues have been considered. In this IIA report, the potential for equality impacts on the protected characteristics (both under the Act and recognised locally) are considered Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 20 within the IIA appraisal framework (set out in Chapter 3). The potential equalities impacts are also summarised in a separate section within Chapter 5. Habitats Regulations Assessment 1.30 The requirement to undertake Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of development plans was confirmed by the amendments to the Habitats Regulations published for England and Wales in July 2007 and updated in 2010 and again in 2012 and 2017 [See reference 7]. The Regulations translate Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats Directive) and 79/409/EEC (Birds Directive) into UK law and currently remain a legal requirement despite the UK exiting the European Union. 1.31 The purpose of HRA is to assess the impacts of a land-use plan against the conservation objectives of any designated Habitats Sites (Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas and Ramsar site) present within or in proximity to a plan area, and to ascertain whether it would adversely affect the integrity of that site. 1.32 The HRA has been undertaken and reported on separately but the findings have been taken into account in the IIA where relevant. Approach to Integrated Impact Assessment 1.33 The methodology for this IIA report is explained in Chapter 2, and the framework for the appraisal process is set out at the end of Chapter 3. In accordance with the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance on SEA/SA, the IIA Report is proportionate and relevant to the WLWP, focussing on what is needed to assess likely significant effects [See reference 8]. It also takes account of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the emphasis it places on achieving sustainable development. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 21 1.34 This IIA Report follows and takes account of key legislation, policy and guidance including: ◼ Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans, and programmes on the environment i.e., the SEA Directive [See reference 9]; ◼ The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/1633) [See reference 10], as amended by the Environmental Assessments and Miscellaneous Planning (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 (SI 2018/1232) [See reference 11]; ◼ Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal National Planning Practice Guidance [See reference 12]; ◼ A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive [See reference 13]; ◼ Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Strategic Environmental Assessment [See reference 14]; ◼ Guidance on Strategic Environmental Assessment / Sustainability Appraisal and the Historic Environment [See reference 15]; ◼ Strategic Environmental Assessment: Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Strategic Environmental Assessment / Sustainability Appraisal for land use plans [See reference 16]; ◼ Draft Guidance on Assessing Health Impacts in Strategic Environmental Assessment [See reference 17]; and ◼ Health Impact Assessment in spatial planning: A guide for local authority public health and planning teams [See reference 18]. 1.35 The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA 2023) [See reference 19] provides for changes to the planning system, including the replacement of the current environmental reports regime. These changes have not been brought forward through secondary legislation at the time of writing this report. Any future changes to the planning system through the LURA will be picked up at later stages of the IIA process, where it is appropriate to do so. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 22 Where the SEA Regulations are addressed in this IIA Report 1.36 The relevant sections of the IIA Report that are considered to meet the SEA Regulations requirements are signposted below. This information will be included in the IIA Report at each stage of the IIA to show how the requirements of the SEA Regulations have been met through the IIA process. 1.37 SEA Guidance recognises that data gaps will exist but suggests that where baseline information is unavailable or unsatisfactory, authorities should consider how it will affect their assessments and determine how to improve it for use in the assessment of future plans. Where there are data gaps in the baseline these are highlighted in the text. The collection and analysis of baseline data is regarded as a continual and evolving process, given that information can change or be updated on a regular basis. Relevant baseline information will be updated during the appraisal process as and when data are published. The waste baseline information reflects the evidence prepared in support of the plan. Preparation of an environmental report 1.38 Preparation of an environmental report in which the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme, and reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and geographical scope of the plan or programme, are identified, described and evaluated (Reg. 12). The information to be given is (Schedule 2): ◼ a) An outline of the contents and main objectives of the plan or programme, and of its relationship with other relevant plans and programmes. ◼ Covered in Chapters 1 and 3 and Appendix A of this IIA Report. ◼ b) The relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan or programme. ◼ Covered in Chapter 3 and Appendix C of this IIA Report. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 23 ◼ c) The environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected. ◼ Covered in Chapters 1 and 3 and Appendix C of this IIA Report. ◼ d) Any existing environmental problems which are relevant to the plan or programme including those relating to any areas of a particular environmental importance, such as areas designated pursuant to Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC. ◼ Covered in Chapter 3 and Appendix C of this IIA Report. ◼ e) The environmental protection objectives established at international, community or national level that are relevant to the plan or programme and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been considered during its preparation. ◼ Covered in Chapter 3 and Appendix A of this IIA Report. Chapter 3 describes the IIA Framework, which shows how the objectives have been considered. ◼ f) The likely significant effects on the environment, including on issues such as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape, and the interrelationship between these issues. (Footnote: These effects should include secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium and long-term permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects.) ◼ Covered in Chapters 5 and 6 of this IIA Report. ◼ g) The measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme. ◼ Covered in Chapters 5 and 6 of this IIA Report. ◼ h) An outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with and a description of how the assessment was undertaken, including any difficulties (such as technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered in compiling the required information. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 24 ◼ Information about how the assessment was undertaken, including the alternatives dealt with and difficulties encountered is covered in Chapter 2 of this IIA Report. ◼ An outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with is provided in Chapter 4 of this IIA Report. ◼ i) A description of measures envisaged concerning monitoring in accordance with Regulation 17. ◼ Covered in Chapter 7 of this IIA Report. ◼ j) A non-technical summary of the information provided under the above headings. ◼ A separate non-technical summary document has been prepared to accompany this Regulation 19 IIA Report. ◼ The report shall include the information that may reasonably be required considering current knowledge and methods of assessment, the contents and level of detail in the plan or programme, its stage in the decision-making process, and the extent to which certain matters are more appropriately assessed at different levels in that process to avoid duplication of the assessment (Reg. 12(3)). ◼ This is addressed throughout the IIA Report. Consultation requirements ◼ Authorities with environmental responsibility, when deciding on the scope and level of detail of the information which must be included in the environmental report (Reg. 12(5)). ◼ Focused consultation on the scope and level of detail of the IIA was carried out via an IIA Scoping Report, with the Environment Agency, Historic England, and Natural England for the statutorily required 5 weeks in June- July 2025. The consultation responses and how they were addressed in the Regulation 18 IIA Report are presented for reference in Appendix B. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 25 ◼ Authorities with environmental responsibility, and the public, are required to be given an effective opportunity within appropriate time frames to express their opinion on the draft plan or programme and the accompanying environmental report before the adoption of the plan or programme (Regulation 13). ◼ The consultation responses on the Regulation 18 WLWP and IIA and how they have been addressed in this report are presented in Appendix B. ◼ Public consultation is being undertaken on the Regulation 19 WLWP commencing summer/autumn 2026. The Regulation 19 WLWP is accompanied by this IIA Report. ◼ EU Member States, where the implementation of the plan or programme is likely to have significant effects on the environment of that country (Reg. 14). ◼ The WLWP is not expected to have significant effects on any EU Member States. Taking the environmental report and the results of consultation into account in decision making (Reg. 16) 1.39 When the plan or programme is adopted, the public and any countries consulted under Reg. 14 must be informed and the following made available to those so informed: ◼ The plan or programme as adopted; ◼ A statement summarising how environmental considerations have been integrated into the plan or programme and how the environmental report, the opinions expressed, and the results of consultations entered have been considered, and the reasons for choosing the option set out in the plan or programme as adopted, in the light of the other reasonable alternatives dealt with; and ◼ The measures decided concerning monitoring. ◼ To be addressed after the WLWP is adopted. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 26 Monitoring ◼ Monitoring of the significant environmental effects of the plan’s or programme’s implementation (Reg 17). ◼ Suggested monitoring indicators are set out in Chapter 7 of this IIA Report. Quality assurance ◼ Environmental reports should be of a sufficient standard to meet the requirements of the SEA Regulations. ◼ This IIA Report has been produced in line with current guidance and best practice for SEA/SA and this section has demonstrated where the requirements of the SEA Regulations have been met. Structure of the IIA Report 1.40 This chapter describes the background to the production of the Regulation 19 WLWP and the requirement to undertake SA and the other assessment processes included in the IIA. The remainder of this IIA Report is structured into the following sections: ◼ Chapter 2 describes the approach that is being taken to the IIA of the WLWP. ◼ Chapter 3 describes the relationship between the WLWP and other relevant plans, policies and programmes; summarises the social, economic and environmental characteristics of the WLWP area and identifies the key sustainability issues. It also presents the IIA framework of sustainability objectives used to assess the potential effects of the emerging and updated WLWP. ◼ Chapter 4 presents the alternative policy and site options considered for inclusion in the WLWP. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 27 ◼ Chapter 5 presents the IIA findings, including the EqIA and HIA for the various elements of the Regulation 19 WLWP, including the vision, objectives and updated policies. ◼ Chapter 6 describes the cumulative effects of the WLWP considered in terms of the plan as a whole, and in relation to other plans. ◼ Chapter 7 summarises recommendations for monitoring the effects of the WLWP. ◼ Chapter 8 sets out the key conclusions and next steps to be undertaken in the IIA of the WLWP. ◼ Appendix A presents a review of relevant plans, policies and programmes. ◼ Appendix B presents the consultation comments received in relation to the IIA work issued alongside the Regulation 18 WLWP as well as the IIA Scoping Report and explains how they have been addressed. ◼ Appendix C presents baseline sustainability information for the plan area. ◼ Appendix D presents the site assessment criteria developed for the IIA objectives that have been used to appraise the potential site options. ◼ Appendix E presents a summary of the IIA findings for the reasonable alternative policy and site options considered during preparation of the WLWP. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 28 Chapter 2 Methodology 2.1 In addition to complying with legal requirements, the approach being taken to the IIA of the West London Waste Plan (WLWP) is based on current good practice and the guidance on SA/SEA set out in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance [See reference 20]. This calls for IIA to be carried out as an integral part of the plan- making process and Figure 2.1 sets out the main stages of the plan-making process and shows how these correspond to the IIA process. Figure 2.1: Corresponding stages in plan-making and SA Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 29 2.2 The sections below describe the approach that has been taken to the IIA of the WLWP to date and provide information on the subsequent stages of the process. SA Stage A: Scoping 2.3 The Scoping stage of IIA involves understanding the social, economic and environmental baseline for the plan area as well as the sustainability policy context and key sustainability issues and using these to inform the appraisal framework as follows. Review other relevant policies, plans and programmes to establish policy context 2.4 The WLWP is not prepared in isolation; rather it is prepared within the context of other policies, plans and programmes. The SEA Regulations require the Environmental Report to describe the relationship of the plan with other relevant plans and programmes. It should also be consistent with environmental protection legislation and support attainment of sustainability objectives that have been established at the international, national, and regional/sub-regional levels. 2.5 The IIA Scoping Report contained a review of other policy documents relevant to the scope of the emerging WLWP and to the sustainability objectives it should seek to support. This review was updated as part of the IIA. The review is presented in Appendix A. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 30 Collect baseline information to establish sustainability context 2.6 Information on existing environmental, social and economic conditions in the plan area provides the baseline against which the plan’s effects can be assessed in the IIA and monitored during the plan’s implementation. 2.7 Baseline information can also be combined with an understanding of drivers of change that are likely to persist regardless of the WLWP to understand the likely future sustainability conditions in the absence of the WLWP. 2.8 The SEA Regulations require the Environmental Report to describe relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and how they are likely to evolve without the plan. An understanding of this likely future, together with the assessed effects of the plan itself, additionally allows the IIA to report on cumulative effects, another requirement of the SEA Regulations. 2.9 The SEA Regulations require assessment of effects in relation to the following ‘SEA topics’: biodiversity, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage (including architectural and archaeological heritage), landscape, and the inter-relationship between these. Baseline information was therefore collected in relation to the SEA topics and additional sustainability topics were also addressed, covering broader socio-economic issues such as housing, access to services, crime and safety, education and employment. This reflects the integrated approach that is being taken to the IIA and SEA processes. Baseline information for the authorities is collected and updated as part of the preparation of each iteration of the IIA and is presented in Appendix C. Identify sustainability issues 2.10 The baseline information also allows the identification of existing sustainability issues, including problems, as required by the SEA Regulations. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 31 2.11 Sustainability issues and their likely evolution without the WLWP are detailed in Appendix C and summarised in Chapter 3. Develop the IIA framework 2.12 The relevant sustainability objectives identified by the review of other policies, plans and programmes together with the key sustainability issues facing the authorities, identified by the collection and review of baseline information in the IIA Scoping Report, informed a set of sustainability objectives (the 'IIA framework') against which the effects of the Plan have been assessed. These objectives also take into account the types of issues that are capable of being affected by the land use planning system. 2.13 Development of the IIA framework is not a requirement of the SEA Regulations but is a recognised way in which the likely sustainability effects of a plan can be transparently and consistently described, analysed and compared. The IIA framework comprises a series of sustainability objectives and supporting criteria that are used to guide the appraisal of the policies and proposals within a plan. The IIA framework that was used in this way throughout the plan-making process is presented at the end of Chapter 3. Consult on the scope and level of detail of the SA 2.14 Public and stakeholder participation is an important element of the IIA and wider plan-making processes. It helps to ensure that the IIA Report is robust and has due regard for all appropriate information that will support the WLWP in making a contribution to sustainable development. 2.15 The SEA Regulations require the statutory consultation bodies (the Environment Agency, Historic England, and Natural England) to be consulted “when deciding on the scope and level of detail of the information that must be included” in the IIA Report. The scope and level of detail of the IIA is governed by the IIA framework and the statutory consultees have therefore been consulted on this when it was Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 32 developed as part of the scoping process for the IIA Report. The IIA Scoping Report was sent to the statutory consultees for consultation in June and July 2025. 2.16 Comments that were received on the IIA Scoping Report were considered and accommodated within the next iteration of the IIA (Regulation 18). A small number of amendments were made to update the review of policies, plans, and programmes in Appendix A and update small sections of the baseline information in Appendix C. The Environment Agency also suggested some additions to the IIA framework to ensure it referred to the wider benefits of green infrastructure and aquatic habitats in addition to land-based biodiversity features. Additional appraisal questions for IIA objectives 4, 7 and 10 were also added into the IIA framework. All consultation responses and how each comment was addressed is provided in Appendix B of this IIA report. SA Stage B: Developing and refining options and assessing effects 2.17 The consideration of reasonable alternatives is a key focus of attention within the IIA process. Developing options (alternatives) for a plan is an iterative process, usually involving a number of consultations with the public and stakeholders. Consultation responses and the IIA can help to identify where there may be other ‘reasonable alternatives’ to the options being considered for a plan. 2.18 In relation to the IIA report, Part 3 of the SEA Regulations 12 (2) requires that: “The report must identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects on the environment of— (a) implementing the plan or programme; and (b) reasonable alternatives, taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme.” Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 33 2.19 Schedule 2 (h) of the SEA Regulations requires that the Environmental Report includes a description of: “(h) an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with.” Developing and refining options 2.20 The SEA Regulations require that the alternative policies or spatial options considered for inclusion in a plan are ‘reasonable’ if they are to be subject to IIA; therefore, alternatives that are not reasonable do not need to be subject to appraisal. Examples of unreasonable alternatives could include policy options that do not meet the objectives of the plan or national policy (e.g. the NPPF) or site options that are unavailable or undeliverable. 2.21 Following a review of national, regional and local policies and strategies, the vision and strategic objectives were drafted for the WLWP. A set of key strategic issues to be addressed by the emerging WLWP were identified under each of the strategic objectives. A number of alternative policy approach options were identified for each key issue during the preparation of the emerging WLWP (Regulation 18). 2.22 The emerging WLWP does not allocate new waste sites because the evidence suggests that there is sufficient waste management capacity within existing waste sites to manage forecast waste arisings in West London. Therefore, site options for new waste site allocations were not considered at Regulation 18, however, options relating to whether to identify new site allocations or rely on safeguarding existing waste sites were. 2.23 Although the WLWP does not require new waste sites to be allocated, the consultation for the emerging WLWP at Regulation 18, did provide an opportunity for organisations to respond and put forward a site for a specific waste management development through a ‘Call for Sites’ exercise. Three sites were put forward under Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 34 the Call for Sites and upon review of these, two sites were considered in the IIA as reasonable alternatives. 2.24 Further explanation of the policy and site options identified for the WLWP and whether they were considered to be reasonable alternatives for the purpose of the IIA is provided in Chapter 4. Assessing the effects of the Plan and reasonable alternatives 2.25 The reasonable alternative policy and site options have been assessed and the IIA findings are presented in Appendix E. The draft vision, strategic objectives and six policies in the Regulation 18 WLWP were appraised against the IIA objectives in the IIA framework and the findings are also summarised in Appendix E. The IIA appraisal of the vision, strategic objectives and seven policies in the Regulation 19 WLWP are presented in Chapter 5. The potential cumulative effects of the WLWP are described in Chapter 6. Making recommendations for the Plan 2.26 The IIA and HRA team had the opportunity to comment and make recommendations on the Regulation 18 WLWP policies as they were being drafted. This resulted in the strengthening of some policies through more comprehensive mitigation requirements within Policies WLWP 2 and 4. 2.27 IIA findings are not the only factors taken into account when determining a preferred option to take forward in a plan. There will often be an equal number of positive or negative effects identified by the IIA for each option, such that it is not possible to rank them based on sustainability performance in order to select a preferred option. Factors such as public opinion, deliverability and conformity with national policy will also be taken into account by plan-makers when selecting preferred options for their plan. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 35 SA Stage C: Preparing the Sustainability Appraisal report 2.28 This IIA report describes the process that was undertaken to date in carrying out the IIA of the WLWP. It contains an appraisal of the vision and objectives for the plan, and seven policies. The focus of the appraisal was the identification of significant effects, whether positive or negative, in accordance with the SEA Regulations. 2.29 This IIA report is intended to meet all the reporting requirements of Schedule 2 of the SEA Regulations. SA Stage D: Consultation on the Local Plan and the IIA Report 2.30 The Regulation 18 draft WLWP and accompanying IIA Report were published for consultation between 11 December 2025 and 5 February 2026. Appendix B lists the comments that were received on the IIA during the consultation period and describes how each comment was addressed within this updated IIA. 2.31 The seven waste planning authorities are now inviting comments on the WLWP (Regulation 19 Proposed Submission version) and this accompanying IIA Report. These documents will be published on the West London Waste Plan website for consultation during summer/autumn 2026. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 36 SA Stage E: Monitoring implementation of the Local Plan 2.32 Recommendations for monitoring the likely significant social, environmental and economic effects of implementing the WLWP are presented in Chapter 7 of this IIA Report. IIA framework 2.33 The development of a set of IIA objectives (known as the IIA framework) is a recognised way in which the likely environmental and sustainability effects of a plan and reasonable alternatives can be described, analysed and compared. The IIA framework for the WLWP is presented at the end of Chapter 3 and was developed by LUC from the analysis of national, regional and local policy objectives, baseline information, and key sustainability issues identified in the Plan area. 2.34 The IIA framework comprises a series of IIA objectives, each accompanied by a set of guide questions that are used to appraise the performance of the emerging WLWP and its reasonable alternatives against the IIA objectives. The relationship between the key sustainability issues, the IIA objectives, the SEA Topics and Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics is set out within Chapter 3. Key to IIA effects symbols 2.35 The findings of the IIA are presented as colour coded symbols showing an effect for each option against each one of the IIA objectives along with a concise justification for the effect given, where appropriate. The colour coding is shown in Table 2.1 below. Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 37 Table 2.1: IIA effects symbols Symbol Effect ++ Significant positive effect likely ++/- Mixed significant positive and minor negative effects likely + Minor positive effect likely +/- Mixed minor effects likely ++/-- Mixed significant effects likely - Minor negative effect likely --/+ Mixed significant negative and minor positive effects likely -- Significant negative effect likely 0 Negligible effect likely ? Likely effect uncertain N/A Not applicable or relevant 2.36 Where a potential positive or negative effect is uncertain, a question mark was added to the relevant symbol (e.g. +? Or -?) and the symbol was colour coded as per the potential positive, negligible or negative effect (e.g. green, white, yellow, pink, etc.). Negligible effects are recorded where a policy or site allocation is considered to have no effect in contributing to achievement of the IIA objective. This is usually the case when an objective or policy is focused on a very narrow topic and would only affect two or three IIA objectives, with the rest being recorded as negligible. 2.37 The likely effects of options and policies need to be determined and their significance assessed, which inevitably requires a series of judgments to be made. The appraisal has attempted to differentiate between the most significant effects and Integrated Impact Assessment for the West London Waste Plan May 2026 LUC | 38 other more minor effects through the use of the symbols shown above. The dividing line in making a decision about the significance of an effect is often quite small. Where either (++) or (--) was used to distinguish significant effects from more minor effects (+ or -) this is because the effect of an option or policy on the IIA objective in question is considered to be of such magnitude that it will have a noticeable and measurable effect taking into account other factors that may influence the achievement of that objective. However, effects are relative to the scale of proposals under consideration. 2.38 Mixed effects have only been presented where directly opposing effects (i.e. positive and negative) have been identified through the appraisal (e.g. +/-, ++/-, --/+ and ++/--). For some IIA objectives, it is possible that a policy might have a minor positive effect in relation to one aspect of the policy and a significant positive effect in relation to another aspect (giving a score of +/++). However, in these instances, only the significant score is shown in the appraisal tables. Similarly, if a policy could have a minor and significant negative effect (-/--) for the same IIA objective, only the significant negative score is shown in the appraisal tables. The justification text relating to the appraisal describes where the various elements of the policy or site being appraised might have potential to result in effects of differing magnitude. 2.39 For the appraisal of potential waste site options, an additional set of criteria were developed for the appraisal questions in the IIA framework. Generally, when predicting the likely effects of developing a site option for a waste management use, it is the relative proximity of the site to various sensitive receptors, e.g. housing or schools, biodiversity sites or heritage assets that will cause the impact, either during construction or operation of the waste management facility. There are also some assumptions that can be made about the likely effects of different types of waste management, e.g. possible odour or release of biospores from open air composting, release of emissions from energy from waste facilities or the potential for vermin, noise or odour from a non-inert landfill. The site assessment criteria used in this IIA for each IIA objective are set out in Appendix D.

Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Only the start of this long document is shown here. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.

Relevant Committee
Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in)
Officer(s) to action
Directorate
Classification
9. Public Preview of Confidential Reports PDF 256 KB
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 Leader of the Council introduced the public preview report outlining items to be considered 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 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 Cabinet are available to view on the Council's website or by visiting the Civic Centre, Uxbridge.
📄 Public Preview of Confidential Reports PDF 256 KB
Read the text of this document (5 pages)
Executive Decision Report Cabinet Thursday, 25 June 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Public Preview: Matters to be considered later in private Cabinet Member Lead All Cabinet Members Report author Mark Braddock – Democratic Services Report classification and reason Public For General Release Relevant Committee All Electoral Ward N/A 1. Executive Summary The Council is committed to openness, with most Cabinet decisions taken in public. In some cases, reports are considered in private where they contain sensitive information, helping to protect the Council’s interests and secure the best outcomes for residents. To ensure transparency, the Council provides advance notice of these items, publishes decisions after the meeting, and - through this preview report - offers a clear public summary of the matters to be discussed in private, so residents are informed while confidentiality is appropriately maintained. 2. Recommendation(s) 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. 3. Information Why are some reports considered in private? The Council is committed to being open and transparent. Most Cabinet reports are discussed in public (Part 1 of the agenda). However, some items need to be considered in private (Part 2). This is usually because they include sensitive information, such as:  Details about contracts or tenders  Property or land transactions  Commercial or financial information Making this information public could affect the Council’s ability to get the best value for residents or could unfairly impact other organisations or individuals. This type of information is known as “exempt information.” The law allows it to be conside red in private when the need to keep it confidential outweighs the benefits of making it public. Executive Decision Report Cabinet Thursday, 25 June 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public How can the public find out more about these private reports? The Council takes steps to keep the process as open as possible: Forward Plan Upcoming decisions are listed in advance on the Cabinet Forward Plan (published on the Council’s website), with a summary and reasons for any private consideration. You can view the Plan here. Public Preview Teport This report – it provides a useful summary of the items to be discussed in private, including the main issues and the type of decisions being considered without releasing any confidential information. Live broadcast The discussion of this report is broadcast live on the Council’s YouTube channel (Hillingdon London) and available to watch afterwards. Published decisions After the meeting, the final decisions on private items are published on the Council’s website alongside decisions made in public. 4. Corporate implications a) Legal 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. b) Alternative options Alternative Options Rationale for rejecting option To publish all confidential reports Cabinet can choose to make a private report public in rare and exceptional cases, if it decides that sharing the information is in the public interest. However, usually reports are confidential for the reasons set out above. To not publish a public preview report The Council wishes to support transparency in a consistent way, so it uses this public preview report to give an overview of private items before they are discussed and decided on. List of appendices attached Public Preview of Reports Executive Decision Report Cabinet Thursday, 25 June 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Appendix Public Appendix For General Release Public Preview of Reports ITEM 10 – CONTRACT FOR THE SERVICING, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS OF DOMESTIC LIFTS AND HOISTS IN HOUSING PROPERTIES Relevant Cabinet Member Cllr Denys Relevant Ward(s) N/A Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Information This report seeks approval to award a contract for the ongoing servicing, maintenance and repair of domestic lifts and hoists in Council housing properties. The purpose is to ensure these essential systems remain safe, reliable and compliant with legal requirements, supporting residents , particularly those who rely on lifts and hoists to live independently in their homes. The report outlines the outcome of a competitive procurement process to appoint a specialist contractor to deliver this service, ensuring the Council continues to meet its safety obligations and maintain high standards across its housing services. ITEM 11 – DATA BACKUP & CYBER RECOVERY SOLUTION Relevant Cabinet Member Cllr R Mills Relevant Ward(s) N/A Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Information This report asks Cabinet to approve investment in a modern data protection and cyber recovery solution to strengthen the Council’s digital resilience and protect essential services. The proposal aims to ensure that, in the event of a cyber incident, the Council can safely protect its data and restore services quickly, reducing disruption for residents and maintaining access to important services such as housing, benefits and social care. It also supports the Council’s wider ambition to be a modern, digitally enabled organisation, improving the reliability and security of its systems while safeguarding critical information. Executive Decision Report Cabinet Thursday, 25 June 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public ITEM 12 – CONTRACT FOR THE SERVICING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION OF DOMESTIC GAS FIRED HEATING SYSTEMS IN HOUSING PROPERTIES Relevant Cabinet Member Cllr Denys Relevant Ward(s) N/A Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Information This report seeks approval to award a new contract for the servicing, maintenance and installation of domestic gas heating systems in Council housing. The contract will ensure that gas appliances in residents’ homes are regularly inspected, maintained an d repaired, helping to keep homes safe, warm and compliant with legal requirements. It supports the Council’s duty as a landlord and its commitment to providing safe and well - maintained housing, while delivering reliable services and value for money. ITEM 13 – FLEET REPLACEMENT PROGRAMME Relevant Cabinet Member Cllr Bridges Relevant Ward(s) N/A Relevant Select Committee Residents Services Information This report seeks approval to replace part of the Council’s operational vehicle fleet to ensure services continue to run efficiently and reliably. The proposal focuses on replacing 32 older vehicles that have reached the end of their working life, helping to reduce maintenance costs, improve reliability and support the delivery of key frontline services for residents. The Council is committed to reducing emissions and moving towards electric vehicles (EVs). While EVs are not yet practical for th e whole fleet due to current infrastructure and costs limitations, this approach provides a n vital current solution, with a plan to further transition to EVs going forward. Executive Decision Report Cabinet Thursday, 25 June 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public ITEM 14 – CORPORATE DISPOSALS PROGRAMME 2026/27 – DISPOSAL OF LAND AT CONWAY HALL, HAYES Relevant Cabinet Member Cllr Denys Relevant Ward(s) Pinkwell Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Information This report seeks approval to dispose of and sell a Council-owned site, formerly called Conway Hall, in Hayes that is no longer in use. The site is sandwiched between Denbigh Drive and Conway Drive. The site has been vacant for several years and no suitable community or operational use has been identified. The proposal aims to bring the land back into productive use while generating a capital receipt that can be reinvested in services. The sale would also remove ongoing maintenance costs and help improve the local environment by addressing an unused and overgrown site.

Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.

Relevant Committee
Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in)
Officer(s) to action
Directorate
Classification
10. Contract: The Servicing, Maintenance & Repair of Domestic Lifts & Hoists
RESOLVED: That the Cabinet: 1) Accept the tender from Caretech UK Ltd and award contract for the provision of The Service, Maintenance & Repair of Domestic Lifts & Hoists for a period of 3 years from 1 September 2026 to 31 August 2029 and at the value of circa £107k per annum: and; 2) Agree that this includes the provision to extend the contract for a 2 + 2 year period (7 years in total), delegating authority to agree any extensions to the Corporate Director for Residents Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Property. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Property introduced a report and recommendations, which Cabinet agreed, to award a contract for the ongoing servicing, maintenance and repair of domestic lifts and hoists in Council housing properties following a competitive tender process. Alternative options considered and rejected Doing nothing was rejected as it would have breached statutory inspection requirements, and delivering in-house was not pursued as it would have been more costly than using the existing contractor. Relevant 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 Committee by 5pm, Friday 3 July 2026. If not called-in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action John Phillips 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) 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).
Relevant Committee
Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in)
Officer(s) to action
Directorate
Classification
11. Contract: Data Backup & Cyber Recovery Solution
RESOLVED: That the Cabinet: 1) Accept the single tender from Rubrik via their partner Cisilion Ltd via the SBS Digital Workplace Solutions Framework for the provision of Rubrik Data Protection and Cyber Recovery suites across On-Premise, Cloud (Microsoft Azure), M365, and Account Identity infrastructure to deliver NCSC Cyber Assessment Framework (CAF) aligned cyber recovery capability for a 3 year period from 13 th July 2026 to 12 th July 2029 and at the value of £1,123,454. 2) Delegates any further decisions required to implement this to the Chief Operating Officer, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Digital & Transformation. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Transformation & Digital introduced a report and recommendations, which Cabinet agreed, to award a contract in a modern data protection and cyber recovery solution. The Cabinet Member advised this would strengthen the Council’s digital resilience, ensure best practice and protect essential services. Alternative options considered and rejected The alternatives were rejected as extending existing systems would not address critical cyber recovery gaps or risks, a full procurement would have caused delay and uncertain outcomes, and doing nothing would have left the Council exposed to significant financial, operational and compliance risks. Relevant 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 Committee by 5pm, Friday 3 July 2026. If not called-in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Michael Clarke Directorate Corporate 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) 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).
Relevant Committee
Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in)
Officer(s) to action
Directorate
Classification
12. Contract: The Servicing & Repair of Domestic Gas Boilers
RESOLVED: That the Cabinet: 1) Approve the award of the contract to Oakray Ltd, for the provision of the Servicing, Repairs, Maintenance and Installation of Domestic Gas fired heating installations to the London Borough of Hillingdon for a period of 4 years at an estimated value of £2.54m per annum. 2) Furthermore, that this includes the provision to extend the contract for a period of 2 years (6 years in total), delegating authority to agree any extension to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Property, in consultation with the Corporate Director for Resident Services. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Property introduced a report and recommendations, which Cabinet agreed, to award a contract for the Servicing, Repairs, Maintenance and installation of Domestic Gas fired heating installations following a competitive tender exercise. The Cabinet Member advised there were 8,700 boilers in the housing stock and that this contact would ensuring the safety of residents and housing properties. Alternative options considered and rejected None, as the Council would be in breach of its requirements under the Gas Safety (Installation & Use) Regulations 1998 if it chose not to complete the gas servicing requirements within its housing stock. Relevant 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 Committee by 5pm, Friday 3 July 2026. If not called-in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Nick Green 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) 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).
Relevant Committee
Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in)
Officer(s) to action
Directorate
Classification
13. Procurement of Fleet Vehicles
RESOLVED: That the Cabinet: 1) Accept the tenders from Vauxhall Motors Ltd via Stellantis &You UK Ltd dealership for the one-off purchase to supply: a. 15 x Small LCV vehicles (Lot 1) at a total cost of £299,462. b. 5 x Medium LCV vehicles (Lot 2) at a total cost of £119,088 c. 2 x 3.5t Tipper vehicles (Lot 3) at a total cost of £71,334 d. 10 x 3.5t Tip & T.Pod vehicles (Lot 4) at a total cost of £373,290 2) Approve the capital release of £863,174 to purchase 32 diesel vehicles from the 2026/27 Purchase of Vehicles budget (Appendix A). Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Residents Services introduced a report, which Cabinet agreed, to replace 32 end?of?life vehicles in the Council’s operational fleet that were subject to daily ULEZ charges, ensuring services continue to run efficiently and reliably. The Cabinet Member noted that, subject to sufficient EV charging infrastructure and grid capacity, the fleet would transition from diesel to electric vehicles over time. Alternative options considered / risk management Doing nothing was rejected due to high operating costs, reliability risks, and ongoing hire and ULEZ costs, while leasing was discounted as it would have been more expensive and risked additional damage charges. Relevant Committee Residents Services 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 Committee by 5pm, Friday 3 July 2026. If not called-in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Jordon Groves 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) 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).
Relevant Committee
Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in)
Officer(s) to action
Directorate
Classification
14. Corporate Disposals Programme 2026/27 - Former Conway Hall Site, Hayes
RESOLVED: That the Cabinet: 1) Declares the former Conway Hall site known as land between Denbigh Drive and Conway Drive, Hayes, UB3 1QD, as shown edged red on the plan in Appendix A, as surplus to requirements. 2) Approves the disposal of the freehold interest of the site on the open market on the terms and conditions as outlined in this report. 3) Delegates all other necessary decisions regarding the disposal and final sale to the Corporate Director of Residents Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Property Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Property introduced a report and recommendations, which Cabinet agreed, to dispose of and sell a Council-owned site, formerly called Conway Hall, in Hayes that had been vacant for several years and no suitable community or operational use had been identified by the Council. Alternative options considered and rejected Retaining the site was rejected as it remained vacant with no viable use, while housing development was not pursued for the reasons set out in the confidential report. Relevant 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 Committee by 5pm, Friday 3 July 2026. If not called-in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Tom Prevezer 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) 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).
Relevant Committee
Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in)
Officer(s) to action
Directorate
Classification
15. Any other items the Chair agrees are relevant or urgent
There were no urgent items. The meeting closed at 7.29pm 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, Friday 3 July 2026 However, this is subject to the decision not being called in by Councillors on the relevant 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 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) 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
Internal Use only*
When can these decisions be implemented by officers?
Councillor scrutiny call-in of these decisions
Notice
Page Updated: