Cabinet

_________________________________________________________________________ - Page 1 - Minutes & Decisions CABINET 7pm, Thursday, 23 July 2026 Meeting held at Committee Room 6 - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW Decisions published on: 24 July 2026 Decisions come into effect on: from 5pm, 31 July 2026 or as stated Cabinet Members Present: Steve Tuckwell (Chair) Richard Mills (Vice-Chair) Eddie Lavery Susan O'Brien Wayne Bridges Adam Bennett Nick Denys Douglas Mills (Attendee of the Cabinet meeting as Chief Whip - non-voting) Officers Present: Tony Zaman, Chief Executive Mark Braddock, Senior Democratic Services Manager Daniel Toohey, Monitoring Officer Dan Kennedy, Corporate Director of Residents Services Pete Carpenter, Interim Chief Finance Officer Julie Kelly, Corporate Director of Children's Services 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE All Cabinet Members were present. Officer apologies were received from Matthew Wallbridge, Chief Operating Officer and Sandra Taylor, Corporate Director of Adult Social Care & Health. 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 25 June 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 considered in public and those marked Part 2 in private. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 2 - 5. FORMER HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT - ADULT SOCIAL CARE EARLY INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION RESOLVED: That Cabinet welcomes the insight and findings of the former Health and Social Care Select Committee and: 1) Notes the wo rk in progress between the Council and health and care partners to deliver an early intervention and prevention model intended to reduce, prevent or delay the loss of independence by Hillingdon's adult population associated with an increased need for care and support services in line with the 2014 Care Act; and 2) Agrees that officers be asked to provide the Children, Families, Health and Care Select Committee with updates on the development, delivery and effectiveness of Hillingdon Adult Social Care early in tervention and prevention model over the next 18 months. These updates are to include information on: a. Coproduction of the refresh of the Older People’s Plan [Age Friendly Plan]; b. The development of a framework with regard to data sharing by INTs; c. Communication and information sharing with residents; and d. Collaborative working developments. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Adults, Children, Health and Care introduced the findings of the former Health and Social Care Select Committee’s revi ew into adult social care early intervention and prevention. The review recognised the significant work being undertaken by the Council, NHS and voluntary sector partners to support residents to live independently for longer and reduce the need for more in tensive care. Particular strengths were identified in reablement services, neighbourhood working, support for carers and the development of a more joined -up approach to accessing services. The review also acknowledged the challenges of rising demand, an ag eing population and increasing complexity of need, concluding that prevention and early intervention must remain central to the Council’s approach. The Cabinet Member thanked the former Select Committee and welcomed the recommendation that the new Children , Families, Health and Care Select Committee continue to monitor progress over the next 18 months. Councillor Denys, former Chair of the Select Committee, reflected on the review and highlighted the importance of maintaining a focus on prevention, noting that while many positive initiatives and partnerships were already in place, continued scrutiny would be required to ensure long-term benefits were realised. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 3 - The Leader of the Council welcomed the review as a valuable example of the role of scrutiny in examining key challenges facing residents and services. He emphasised the importance of supporting residents to remain independent for longer, strengthening partnership working and ensuring continued oversight of the programme by the new Select Committee. Cabinet agreed the recommendations. Alternative options considered and rejected Cabinet could have not agreed the select committee’s recommendations. Relevant Committee Children, Families, Health & Care Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Cabinet’s decisions on this matter can be called in by a majority of the Committee by 5pm, Friday 31 July 2026. If not called-in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Nikki O’Halloran / Sandra Taylor Directorate Chief Executive’s Office / Adult Social Care & Health Classification Public - The report and any background papers relating to this decision by the Cabinet are available to view on the Council's website or by visiting the Civic Centre, Uxbridge 6. HILLINGDON GROWTH PLAN RESOLVED: That Cabinet: 1) Approves the adoption of Hillingdon’s Growth Plan (Appendix 1) as the Council’s strategic framework for economic growth and regeneration. 2) Delegates authority to the Di rector of Planning and Sustainable Growth, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to develop and implement detailed delivery programmes and partnerships required to deliver the Growth Plan including the development of a strategic spatial framework. Reasons for decision The Leader of the Council introduced Hillingdon's first Growth Plan, describing it as a significant piece of work that would provide a framework for shaping the borough’s future. He highlighted Hillingdon’s strengths, including Hea throw Airport, the Elizabeth Line, major employment locations, outstanding green spaces, a growing population and a strong business base. However, he noted that economic growth had not always translated into improved productivity, better -paid jobs or wider benefits for residents, and that the Growth Plan sought to address this. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 4 - The Leader thanked officers involved in developing the plan and explained that its vision was to ensure that growth happened for Hillingdon, not simply in Hillingdon. The plan aimed to deliver better jobs, stronger town centres, suitable housing and greater opportunities for residents, with growth viewed as a means of improving lives, strengthening communities and supporting future generations. It was noted that the Growth Plan woul d move the Council towards a more proactive role in shaping growth and was built around three priorities: Innovate, Connect and Thrive. The plan sought to support high -value sectors and business growth, improve connectivity and skills, and create attractiv e places to live through regeneration, housing and investment in communities. The Leader explained that the plan provided a roadmap for the next decade, identifying opportunities to attract investment, support businesses and secure benefits for residents. Delivery would be dependent on strong partnership working with businesses, education providers, investors, infrastructure partners, Heathrow Airport and neighbouring boroughs. New governance arrangements, including a cross-Council Growth Board, would be e stablished to oversee implementation and strengthen engagement with Government, the Greater London Authority and investors. The Corporate Director of Residents Services welcomed the plan as a clear and ambitious framework for growth, noting that it would support improved productivity, inclusive prosperity and stronger employment and skills opportunities for residents. He added that it positioned the Council to take a proactive system leader role in coordinating investment and development across the borough. Cabinet agreed the Hillingdon Growth Plan. Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Cabinet rejected continuing without a dedicated Growth Plan, as this would not have provided a coordinated approach to delivering growth and investment across the Borough. 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 31 July 2026. If not called-in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Mathieu Rogers Directorate Residents Services Classification Public - The report and any background papers relating to this decision by the Cabinet ar e available to view on the Council's website or by visiting the Civic Centre, Uxbridge _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 5 - 7. HILLINGDON AGE FRIENDLY PLAN RESOLVED: That Cabinet: 1) Duly consider the outcome of the consultation and the equality impact assessment; 2) Approve the proposed Hillingdon Age Friendly Plan 2026 -2031 and as the strategic framework for supporting the health and wellbeing of older residents and; 3) Agree that the Plan be reviewed annually and presented to Cabinet. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Adults, Children, Health and Care introduced the final Age Friendly Plan following consultation on the draft plan approved by Cabinet in December 2025. It was explained that the Plan was not a spending programme, but a long-term framework to help the Coun cil and its partners make Hillingdon a better place in which to grow older. With around 43,000 residents aged 65 and over, and this number expected to increase significantly in the coming decades, the plan aimed to support residents to remain healthy, active and independent for longer. The Cabinet Member outlined the consultation findings, which highlighted the importance of social activities, volunteering opportunities and community spaces, whilst also identifying areas for improvement such as tackling lo neliness, improving access to services, increasing digital inclusion and ensuring environments were accessible for older people. In response, the Plan focused on a number of key themes including housing, transport, social participation, community support, information and communication, accessibility and civic participation. Priorities included promoting healthy ageing, supporting independent living, reducing social isolation, improving access to information and services, and encouraging greater community involvement. It was noted that the plan would replace the Older People’s Plan, which had been in place since 2009, and that delivery would be overseen by the Hillingdon Age Friendly Network in partnership with local organisations. All actions would be delivered within existing budgets. The Leader of the Council welcomed the Plan, particularly as the Older People’s Champion, highlighting the importance of supporting older residents to remain independent, connected and active within their communities. He note d that the Plan reflected the Council’s commitment to putting residents first and ensuring older people’s voices remained central to service delivery and future planning. Following consideration of the consultation and the Equalities Impact Assessment, Cabinet agreed the new Age Friendly Plan for Hillingdon. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 6 - Alternative options considered and rejected None. Relevant Committee Children, Families, Health & Care Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Cabinet’s decisions on this matter can be called in by a majority of the Committee by 5pm, Friday 31 July 2026. If not called-in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Gary Collier / Sarah Durner Directorate Adult Social Care & Health Classification Public - The report and any background papers relating to this decision by the Cabinet are available to view on the Council's website or by visiting the Civic Centre, Uxbridge 8. TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION ACTION PLAN MONITORING RESOLVED: That the quarterly update report be duly noted. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Property introduced a report on progress in delivering the Temporary Accommodation Strategy and Action Plan, which h ad been developed in response to significant growth in demand for homelessness services and temporary accommodation. It was noted that around 3,000 households were on the housing register, with just under 1,800 living in temporary accommodation. The Cabine t Member highlighted both the financial cost of temporary accommodation and the impact on residents, particularly families living in accommodation that was often unsuitable for their long-term needs. The Cabinet Member reported that the strategy's five wo rkstreams remained largely on track and had already delivered £2.5 million in savings. Progress had been made in strengthening homelessness prevention activity through increased staffing, earlier intervention, prevention funding and support for residents a t ri sk of eviction or domestic abuse. Prevention rates had improved significantly and were approaching 50%, although further improvement remained a priority. Work to increase private rented sector housing options had also progressed, with stronger engagem ent with landlords, improved payment arrangements and exploration of longer -term leasing models to provide greater stability for both landlords and residents. Measures to reduce the cost of temporary accommodation were performing strongly, with pricing con trols successfully limiting placement costs and savings targets expected to be achieved ahead of schedule. The Cabinet Member advised that the workstream relating to increasing move -on into social housing remained rated amber, reflecting slower turnover within the social _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 7 - housing stock and delays in some acquisition and development opportunities. However, steps were being taken to strengthen relationships with housing associations, increase nomination opportunities and promote downsizing to make better use of e xisting housing stock. Overall, the programme was reported to be performing well, whilst recognising that external factors could continue to affect demand. The Corporate Director of Residents Services advised that the strategy was delivering positive outcomes, with new temporary accommodation placements remaining lower than anticipated, homelessness prevention outcomes improving and the programme contributing significantly to savings and cost avoidance. More residents were also being supported into sta ble and settled accommodation at an earlier stage. The Leader of the Council welcomed the positive progress being made, noting the reduction in temporary accommodation pressures and improved homelessness prevention outcomes. Whilst recognising that challe nges remained, particularly in increasing the supply of settled housing, he stated that the strategy was delivering tangible benefits for residents and helping to place the service on a more sustainable footing. Cabinet duly noted the report. Alternative options considered and rejected None. Relevant Select Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Not for call-in, as noting only. 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 _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 8 - 9. COMMISSIONED THERAPIES FOR EXPERTS AT HAND SERVICE RESOLVED: That Cabinet: 1) Notes the new SEND reforms and accept the Department for Education SEND reforms grant for a three-year period ending 2029/2030. 2) Approves an award of contract to Constellia Publ ic Ltd, for the commissioning of a provider to deliver Speech and Language Therapy and Occupational Therapy capacity, as an alternative to direct recruitment. This approach is recommended to ensure timely implementation, flexibility, and access to a specia list workforce. The contract value will be up to £1.5 million per annum for a period of three years, totalling up to £4.5 million over the contract term. 3) Delegates authority to the Corporate Director of Children’s Services, in consultation with the Cabine t Member for Adults, Children, Health & Care, for the implementation of these therapy services, including the award of any contracts, and any variations in line with procurement regulations and the Council’s standing orders. Reasons for decision The Cabi net Member for Adults, Children, Health and Care introduced a report seeking approval to commission therapy services as part of the Government’s Expert at Hand SEND initiative, which aimed to improve support for children and young people with special educa tional needs and disabilities within mainstream schools. It was explained that the programme aligned closely with Hillingdon’s existing focus on early intervention, inclusion and supporting schools to meet needs at the earliest opportunity. The proposal involved appointing Constellia to undertake a competitive procurement process for specialist speech and language therapy and occupational therapy services. This approach would enable the programme to be operational by the start of the 2026/27 academic year and avoid recruitment challenges affecting therapy services nationally. The model would provide dedicated therapists working across school clusters, focusing on early intervention, staff training, classroom support and whole-school approaches rather than individual casework alone. The Cabinet Member advised that the contract would be fully funded through a ring - fenced Department for Education grant, creating no additional pressure on Council budgets. The initiative was expected to strengthen mainstream inc lusion, improve schools’ ability to support SEND pupils and reduce reliance on specialist placements through earlier intervention. The Corporate Director of Children’s Services welcomed the opportunity to implement a fully funded service that complemented the Council’s SEND and Alternative Provision Strategy. The Corporate Director noted that the service would _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 9 - be integrated within existing locality arrangements and would help ensure more children could be supported successfully in their local schools and communities. The Leader of the Council welcomed the report as a positive example of partnership working, bringing together education, health and specialist expertise to strengthen support for children and young people with SEND while making effective use o f available funding. Cabinet approved the recommendations, including minor amendment to one recommendation, set out on an addendum to the report. Alternative options considered and rejected Cabinet rejected alternative options to ensure the new SEND sup port services could be introduced in time for the Autumn Term and meet new reform requirements. Relevant Committee Children, Families, Health & Care Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Cabinet’s decisions on this matt er can be called in by a majority of the Committee by 5pm, Friday 31 July 2026. If not called-in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Abi Preston / Gary Binstead 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 10. CONSIDERATION OF SETTING A LICENSED DEFICIT BUDGET FOR SCHOOLS IN THE BOROUGH 2026/27 RESOLVED: That the Cabinet approves the applications for a licensed deficit for the schools named in Appendix A for 2026/27. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Adults, Children, Health and Care introduced a rep ort seeking approval for licensed deficit budgets for ten schools. It was explained that, whilst schools are normally required to set balanced budgets, the Council can approve licensed deficits for maintained schools facing exceptional financial pressures where credible recovery plans are in place. School deficits were managed through the Dedicated Schools Grant framework and d id not have a direct impact on the Council’s General Fund. The Cabinet Member advised that declining pupil numbers remained the pri ncipal challenge facing many schools, alongside rising staffing costs, inflation and, in some cases, the legacy of previous restructuring changes. The report presented a mixed _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 10 - picture, with some schools forecasting steady improvement and a return to surplu s positions over the medium term, whilst others continued to face significant pressures where falling rolls were expected to persist. The Council would continue to work closely with school leaders and maintain enhanced financial monitoring and oversight of recovery plans. The Interim Chief Finance Officer noted that an increasing number of schools, both locally and nationally, were experiencing financial difficulties. He highlighted the importance of helping schools move out of licensed deficit positions a nd acknowledged that some schools would require additional support to achieve this. The Leader of the Council recognised the financial challenges facing schools and welcomed the report’s structured approach to supporting them through this period. He stressed the importance of maintaining strong financial oversight whilst ensuring that children and young people continued to receive the high -quality education they deserve. Cabinet approved the recommendations, including minor amendments set out in an addendum to the report. Alternative options considered and rejected Cabinet rejected alternative options as they would not have enabled the schools to set balanced budgets and manage their financial position effectively. Relevant Committee Children, Families, Health & Care Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Cabinet’s decisions on this matter can be called in by a majority of the Committee by 5pm, Friday 31 July 2026. If not called-in by then, Cabinet’s deci sions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Luisa Hansen / Pamela Hawtree Directorate Finance Classification Public - The report and any background papers relating to this decision by the Cabinet are available to view on the Council's website or by visiting the Civic Centre, Uxbridge _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 11 - 11. MONTHLY COUNCIL BUDGET MONITORING REPORT: M2 RESOLVED: That Cabinet: Revenue Monitoring 1) Note the forecast revenue positions for the General Fund (£584k adverse) and Housing Revenue Account (net nil) forecasts for 2026/27 as set out in Sections 1 and 2 and detailed in Appendix A; 2) Note the progress in delivering General Fund savings as set out in the report and detailed in Appendix B; 3) Note that the forecast £646k deficit in the Council Tax Collection Fund for the year would impact in 2027/28 rather than the current financial year and that a lower taxbase would additionally impact on the Medium - Term Financial Strategy [MTFS] assumptions for next year; Fees and Charges / Enforcement Policies 4) Approve the proposed i n-year changes to charges for filming in the borough as per the report and detailed in Appendix C; 5) Approve the amendment of fines applied by the Council for specific environmental offences as set out in this report in paragraph 22; 6) Delegate authority to approve a new policy for civil penalties under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and other housing legislation, as set out in paragraphs 16 and 17, to the Cabinet Member for Community, Environment and Enforcement, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Property; Acceptance of Grant Funding and Contributions 7) Approve acceptance of £2,580,470 of additional grant funding from the Department for Education (DfE) for 2026/27, as set out in the report, to support continued investment in preventative services for children and families through the ongoing implementation of Family Help and Child Protection reforms; 8) Approve the acceptance of Planning Gift Funding contributions totalling £449k to support the costs of the Planning Team, as set out i n the report; 9) Approve acceptance of £2,805,603 of additional ringfenced grant funding from the Department for Education (DfE) to support the implementation of the Experts at Hand model as a key component of Hillingdon’s SEND reform programme. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 12 - Capital Roll-Forward Requests and Monitoring 10) Approve the further capital roll -forward requests of underspends from 2025/26 as detailed in Section 4 of the report; 11) Note the forecast capital forecasts for 2026/27 as summarised in Section 4 of the report and detailed in Appendix D. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Finance introduced the Month 2 budget monitoring report, noting that it reflected continued progress from the stable budget position reported during the latter part of the previous financial year. The budget had been developed to reflect growth pressures and inflation in key demand -led services, with assumptions tested by both the Corporate Management Team and Members. The General Fund position at Month 2 showed a net overspend of £584,000, with further risks and opportunities of £2.7 million. When set against the £10 million contingency built into the budget, this resulted in a net underspend position of £6.6 million. Budget performance continued to be closely monitore d through recruitment and spend control panels. Key risks remained in demand -led budgets, particularly SEND assessments and transport, as well as inflationary pressures, with fuel prices remaining volatile. The savings programme was progressing well, with 61% of savings either delivered or on track. The report also included proposals relating to filming charges, delegated authority for civil penalties arising from the Renters’ Rights Act, acceptance of Department for Education and planning -related grants, and capital rollovers, including schemes supporting additional SEND places in schools. The Housing Revenue Account remained stable, with ongoing capital investment in housing and regeneration schemes. The Cabinet Member thanked the Interim Chief Finance Of ficer and finance team for their continued work in monitoring the Council’s budget. The Interim Chief Finance Officer advised that maintaining a break -even or surplus position was vital in the context of the Council’s wider financial recovery and Exceptional Financial Support arrangements. It was noted that future monitoring reports were likely to change format following the introduction of a new monitoring system, with greater emphasis on service manager commentary. Furthermore, it was advised of the need to keep a close watching br ief on costs and efficiencies throughout the year. The Leader of the Council thanked the Cabinet Member, Interim Chief Finance Officer and wider finance team for the report and for the continued focus on strengthening financial management. The Leader noted that Hillingdon, like councils nationally, continued to face significant financial pressures from rising demand in adult social care, children’s services and homelessness, alongside inflation. However, the Leader stressed that recognising those challenge s was only the starting point, and that the Council’s responsibility was to respond through stronger financial discipline, improved governance, delivery of savings and ensuring that taxpayers’ money was used effectively. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 13 - The Le ader said the Council welcomed external challenge from CIPFA, external auditors, government and the LGA corporate peer challenge process, noting that independent scrutiny had an important role in supporting improvement and the Council would act on any reco mmendations identified . However, the Leader recognised the progress already underway, including tighter financial control, improved savings delivery compared with the previous year and a stronger focus on identifying and managing risk early. It was stressed that the work was not complete, but that the report before Cabinet represented another important step towards long - term financial resilience, transparency, accountability and delivering the best possible outcomes for residents. Cabinet agreed the recommendations in the report. Alternative Options considered and rejected Cabinet rejected taking no action on fees, charges and capital projects, as this would reduce income, weaken compliance and delay key investments that support Council priorities. Relevant Committee Audit, Finance & Performance (scrutiny) 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 majori ty of the Committee by 5pm, Friday 31 July 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Pete Carpenter / Matt Davis / Andy Goodwin 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 12. 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. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 14 - 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. 13. MAJOR PROJECT: NEW CARE HOME FACILITY & HOUSING: REDEVELOPMENT OF 1-10 NELSON LANE, UXBRIDGE RESOLVED: That Cabinet: 1) Approve the redevelopment of the Nelson Lane site UB10 0PY into 2 x 6 bedded Registered Care Homes for Adults with a learning disabilities and complex needs and 2 x affordable general needs houses. 2) Note that the bungalows at 1-10 Nelson Lane are past their useful life, requiring major structural repairs, underpinning and one is fire damaged and therefore the whole site needs complete redevelopment. The site is fully decanted and all properties are secured. 3) Note that Planning Officers have provided preliminary comments and that they require linkage of Nelson Lane scheme with another housing development due to the loss of housing units and, therefore, Nelson Lane is to be linked New Peachey Lane site. The Applications for the two sites are required to be submitted together. It should be noted that Peachey Lane UB8 3SY is a garage site (Site Plan Appendix C ). 4) Approve the redevelopment of New Peachey Lane Garage site into 3 x 4 bed units for affordable rent. 5) Approve the virement of £100k from the 2026/27 Housing Revenue Account Capital budget for 1-10 Nelson Lane into Housing Revenue Account Capital budget for New Peachy Lane and reverse this funding switch in 2027/28 as set out in Table B. 6) Note the proposals in relation to the project and agree for officers to work up the full scheme, progress surveys & reports, finalise design brief, appoint the design team, progress designs to RIBA Stage 4 and Planning Submission. 7) Delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Resident Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Housing & Property, to make any further necessary decisions regarding the project’s implementation. 8) Considers the consultation and equalities impact assessment carried out. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 15 - 9) Approve the capital release of £1,000k from the General Fund 2026/27 budget for the redevelopment of 1-10 Nelson Lane and capital release £130k from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) 2026/27 Budget for Nelson Lane and Peachey Lane to facilitate officers developing the projects as outlined in this report progressing to Planning RIBA Stage 4 early 2027 as detailed in Tables 1-3 (Appendices A, A1 & A2) . Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Property introduced a report and recommendations, which Cabinet agreed, to transform an unused, outdated site into modern, high -quality care provision and two new affordable homes that directly support residents’ needs. Alternative options considered and rejected Cabinet rejected taking no action, as redevelopment offered the best way to bring the vacant site back into use, improv e housing provision and redu ce anti -social behaviour. 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 31 July 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Carmel Hynes / Michael Naughton Directorate Residents Services Classification Private - Whilst the Cabine t'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 (inc luding 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). _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 16 - 14. CONTRACT: INTEGRATED SEXUAL HEALTH SERVICES RESOLVED: That Cabinet: 1) Approve a six -year contract award of integrated sexual health services between 1 April 2030 – 31 March 2036 to a total value of up to £23,772,345 to be funded solely from the Public Health Grant allocation. 2) Note the Service is fully funded through the ring -fenced Public Health Grant and therefore has no impact on the Council’s core budget. 3) Support the relocation of the Integrated Sexual Heal th Service to the Civic Centre, enabl ing the co -location of local public services with partner organisations to deliver a more integrated and accessible offer for residents, while enhancing service delivery, improving access, and generating lease income fo r the Council, and delegate authority for all necessary property arrangements and decisions to give effect to this to the Corporate Director of Residents Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Property. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Adults, C hildren, Health & Care introduced a report and recommendations, which Cabinet agreed, for the continued provision of Hillingdon’s Integrated Sexual Health Service enabling the viability of the relocation of the service to the Civic Centre site to provide more joined-up public services. Alternative options considered and rejected Cabinet rejected alternative options, including ceasing the service, as the Council has a statutory duty to provide public health services. Relevant Committee Children, Families, Health & Care Expiry date for any scrutiny call-in / date decision can be implemented (if no call-in) Cabinet’s decisions on this matter can be called in by a majority of the Committee by 5pm, Friday 31 July 2026. If not called-in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Sharon Stoltz / Nick Sinclair Directorate Adult Social Care & Health Classification Private - Whilst the Cabinet's decisions above are always made public, the offic er 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 th e 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). _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 17 - 15. CONTRACT: LABORATORY ANALYSIS ON BEHALF OF THE IMPORTED FOOD OFFICE (HEATHROW AIRPORT) RESOLVED: That the Cabinet: 1) Accept the tender from Public Analyst Scientific Services Limited for the provision of laboratory testing, and various other laboratory tests to the London Borough of Hillingdon for a four -year period from 1 December 2026 to 30 November 2030 and at the estimated value of £1,994,357. 2) Furthermore, agree that this includes the provision to extend the contract for a two-year period (six years in total), del egating approval of any extension t o the Cabinet Member for Community, Environment & Enforcement, in consultation with the Corporate Director of Residents Services and at a total contract value of £2,991,535 over the full six years. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Community, Environment & Enforcement introduced a report and recommendations, which Cabinet agreed, to award a contract for the provision of laboratory testing services to an accredited company in support of monitoring imported food and feed controls into the UK at H eathrow Airport, as a Border Control Post. The Leader noted this as another example of a unique obligation for Hillingdon. Alternative options considered and rejected Cabinet rejected alternative options as they would r isk essential border controls and could prevent the Council from meeting its statutory duties as a Border Control Post. 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 c alled in by a majority of the Committee by 5pm, Friday 31 July 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Samantha Doherty 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 affa irs of any particular person (inclu ding 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 _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 18 - of Part 1 of Schedule 1 2 (A) to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). 16. CONTRACT: COMMUNAL PASSENGER & GOODS LIFTS MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS SERVICES RESOLVED: That the Cabinet: 1) Accept the tender from Elevator Repairs Specialists Ltd and award contract for the provision of The Communal Passe nger & Good Lift Maintenance & Repairs Services Contract for a period of 3 years from 1st November 2026 to 31st October 2029 and at the value of circa £306k per annum: and; 2) Agree that this includes the provision to exten d the contract for a 2 + 2 - year period (3 + 2 + 2 = 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 Pl anning, Housing & Property introduced a report and recommendations, which Cabinet agreed, to award a contract for the provision of The Communal Passenger & Good Lift Maintenance & Repairs Services to approximately 116 communal passenger lifts within housing blocks, the Civic Centre and other corporate buildings. Alternative options considered and rejected Cabinet rejected in -house delivery or not carrying out inspections, as these options would increase costs or fail to meet statutory safety requirements. 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 C ommittee by 5pm, Friday 31 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 relatin g 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 _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 19 - information) and the public interest in withholding the information outweighed the public interest in disclosing it in accordance with Section 100(A) and paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). 17. CONTRACT: TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICE RESOLVED: That the Cabinet: 1) Approves the division of the Tree Maintenance Services contract into three Lots: a. Lot 1 – North Highways and Borough -wide Out of Hours Emergency Works; b. Lot 2 – South Highways; c. Lot 3 – Housing and Corporate Sites. 2) Accepts the tender of Pro Landscapes for Lot 1 at a total maximum value of £2,470,269.19 for the period 1 September 2026 to 31 August 2029. (year 1 cost £807,172.00). 3) Accepts the tender of Glendale Countryside Ltd for Lot 2 at a total maximum value of £1,823,46 8.65 for the period 1 September 2026 to 31 August 2029. (year 1 costs £595,826.90). 4) Accepts the tender of John O'Conner Grounds Maintenance Ltd for Lot 3 at a total maximum value of £546,618.04 for the period 1 September 2026 to 31 August 2029. (year 1 costs £178,610). 5) Notes that the combined estimated value of the contracts is a maximum of £4,840,355.88 over the initial three-year term. The actual spend will be determined by the allocated budget under the Council’s Medi um Term Financial Strategy as well as factors relating to urgency that may require use of reserves or prudential borrowing to ensure the completion of works necessary for public safety reasons. 6) Notes that expenditure will be closely monitored and managed within the approved budget provision for the Tree Maintenance Service, and that any requirement for additional budget provision to be referred to Cabinet for consideration and approval, or as part of the MTFS process. 7) Agrees that the contracts include the option to extend for a further two years and delegates authority to approve any extension to the Cabinet Member for Residents Services, in consultation with the Corporate Director of Residents Services. _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 20 - Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Reside nts Services introduced a report and recommendations, which Cabinet agreed, to award three contracts for the provision of tree maintenance services across the Borough, noting that the contract will enable safety and also provide wider social value. Alternative options considered and rejected Cabinet rejected alternative procurement and maintenance options due to service, cost and quality risks, with the recommended approach providing the most efficient way to maintain the Council's trees safely. 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 31 July 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Jordan Groves / Chris Wheeler / Sophie Coughlan Directorate Residents Services Classification Private - Whilst the Cabinet's decisions above are always made public, the officer report re lating 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 int erest 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). _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 21 - 18. ASSETS: CORPORATE DISPOSALS PROGRAMME 2026/27 - GARAGES DISPOSAL STRATEGY UPDATE RESOLVED: That Cabinet: 1) Agrees to retain seven of the 39 sites that were previously approved for disposal by Cabinet on 15 January 2026 (Appendix 1). 2) Declares that a further five site s listed in Appendix 2 are surplus to requirements 3) Approves the sale of these five sites either by auction or private treaty. 4) Notes that after these changes, there are now a total of 37 garage sites in the disposals programme with the full list set out in Appendix 3. 5) Delegates authority to the Corporate Director of Residents Services, in consultation with the Corporate Director of Finance / s151 Officer and Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Property, to make further necessary decisions with regards the sale or use of these properties. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Property introduced a report and recommendations, which Cabinet agreed, to update to the Council’s ongoing strategy for reviewing garage sites within its pr operty portfolio by retaining seven sites previously approved for disposal and adding 5 sites for disposal. Alternative options considered and rejected Cabinet rejected selling the original seven sites or retaining the five additional garage sites, as th ese options would either deliver lower value or mi ss the opportunity to secure a greater return through development. 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 31 July 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Philip Hoodless 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). _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 22 - 19. ASSETS: CORPORATE DISPOSALS PROGRAMME 2026/27 - FLATS AT 17 FRITHWOOD AVENUE, NORTHWOOD RESOLVED: That Cabinet: 1) Declares the three properties (Flats 1,2 & 4 at 17 Frithw ood Avenue, Northwood, HA6 3LY) surplus to the current operational needs of the Council and the Housing Revenue Account. 2) Approves the sale of the freehold interest and the three dilapidated properties which are currently not mortgageable. Reasons for decision The Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Property introduced a report and recommendations, which Cabinet agreed, to dispose of 3 flats in a larger building that did not meet modern housing standards. Alternative options considered and rejected Cabinet rejected options to sell, refurbish or retain the properties, as these offered poor value and carried risks of failed sales, ongoing deterioration and financial loss. Disposal was considered the best way to meet the Council's duty to maximise value from surplus assets. 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 5p m, Friday 31 July 2026. If not called -in by then, Cabinet’s decisions can then be implemented. Officer(s) to action Richard Mortimer Directorate Residents Services Classification Private - Whilst the Cabinet's decisions above are always made public, the officer report relating to this matter is not b ecause 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). _________________________________________________________________________ - Page 23 - 20. ANY OTHER ITEMS THE CHAIRMAN AGREES ARE RELEVANT OR URGENT There were no urgent items. The meeting closed at 7.55pm 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 31 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 relevan t 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 the ir 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 cha nnel 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 informat ion about the decisions of the Cabinet, please contact the Council below: democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk Democratic Services: 01895 250636 Media enquiries: 01895 250403

Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Cabinet Priorities 2026-2030 Cabinet Member Lead Leader of the Council (Cllr Tuckwell) Consulting Cabinet Member All Cabinet Members Chief Officers responsible Corporate Management Team Report author Mark Braddock / Chief Executive’s Office Report classification and reason Public For General Release Relevant Committee All Electoral Ward All Wards 1. Executive Summary This report sets out the Cabinet’s priorities for Hillingdon for 2026–2030 and its clear ambition to make Hillingdon an even better place to live, work and invest. Achieving this ambition means delivering excellent public services, maintaining strong governance and financial resilience, investing in our communities and ensuring the Council is fit to meet the challenges and opportunities of the future. The priorities set out below are a reflection of both ambitions for the Borough and expectations of service standards for residents. Underpinning these is the well-documented work to ensure the financial resilience and sustainability of the C ouncil which will provide the un derlying framework within which they are delivered. The six priorities are: 1. being easy to deal with; 2. being brilliant at the basics; 3. putting our residents first; 4. delivering Hillingdon homes for Hillingdon people; 5. supporting future generations; and 6. being open for business. Together, the priorities focus the Council on delivering excellent everyday services, supporting thriving communities and creating new opportunities for residents and businesses. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Once approved by Cabinet, the priorities will guide the whole Council. They will shape future policies and services, support a strong resident -focused culture among staff and provide a clear basis for communicating what the Council stands for and intends to deliver. The emerging Council Plan will turn Cabinet’s ambition and priorities into action. It will set out the outcomes the Council is working towards, how the priorities will be delivered and how progress will be measured. Delivery will be aligned with the Medium Term Financial Strategy and annual budget process, ensuring that the Council’s ambitions are supported by clear plans, appropriate resources and sound financial management. 2. Recommendation(s) That Cabinet: 1) Approves the Cabinet Priorities 2026–2030, as set out in Appendix 1, to support the ambition of making Hillingdon an even better place to live, work and invest; 2) Commits the Council to service delivery against these priorities over the next four years, providing a clear direction for the emerging Council Plan, future policy, service delivery, organisational culture and communications; and 3) Agrees that the emerging Council Plan will establish a coordinated framework for delivering the priorities and measuring progress, aligned with the Medium Term Financial Strategy and the Council’s business and budget planning arrangements. 3. Reasons for decision Approval will provide a clear and positive direction for the Council, centred on Cabinet’s ambition to make Hillingdon an even better place to live, work and invest. The priorities will give the whole Council a shared focus for future policy, service delivery, organisational culture and communications, while making clear to residents, businesses and partners what the Council intends to achieve. The emerging Council Plan will translate the priorities into clear outcomes, actions, responsibilities and measures of progress. Aligning this work with the Medium Term Financial Strategy and the Council’s business and budget planning arrangements will support coordinated and financially sustainable delivery. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public 4. Proposal 4.1 Our ambition for Hillingdon Cabinet’s ambition is to make Hillingdon an even better place to live, work and invest . This means delivering excellent public services, maintaining strong governance based on financial resilience, investing in communities and ensuring the Council is fit to meet the challenges and opportunities of the future. The priorities combine a strong focus on the everyday services residents rely on with longer-term ambitions for housing, young people, economic growth and a Council that is accessible, responsive and easy to deal with. They are set out in Appendix 1. 4.2 The six priorities • Easy to deal with: making services simpler to access, improving digital convenience, providing clear and accessible information, responding promptly and bringing services together. • Brilliant at the basics: getting core services right first time, maintaining clean and safe neighbourhoods, roads and green spaces, providing reliable waste collections and taking firm enforcement action. • Putting our residents first: supporting healthy and independent lives, protecting vulnerable residents, strengthening partnerships, standing up for communities and listening to residents. • Hillingdon homes for Hillingdon people: supporting the delivery of affordable housing, maintaining and improving Council housing, holding landlords to account and ensuring development reflects local need and community character. • Future generations: supporting education, apprenticeships, skills, employment, digital inclusion and modern libraries, leisure facilities and youth opportunities. • Open for business: promoting Hillingdon as a place to invest, supporting innovation and businesses of all sizes, revitalising town centres and improving access to employment and skills. 4.3 From ambition to delivery Cabinet is setting the ambition and strategic priorities for the Council. The emerging Council Plan will turn them into action by establishing a practical framework for delivery, including clear outcomes, activities, responsibilities and measures of progress. The Council Plan will also provide the link between the priorities and the Council’s business and service planning arrangements. This will help services and staff understand how their work contributes to the overall ambition and ensure that activity across the Council is focused on delivering better outcomes for residents. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public The priorities will provide a consistent foundation for communications and engagement. Clear and accessible language will help residents, businesses and partners understand the Council’s direction, what it intends to deliver and how individual policies, services and projects contribute to its wider ambition. 4.4 Organisational approach Delivering the ambition and priorities will require a Council -wide approach based on excellent public services, sustainable economic growth, strong governance and financial resilience, investment in communities and an organisation fit for the future. The priorities will establish a shared sense of purpose across the Council and strengthen a culture in which staff put residents first, work collaboratively across organisational boundaries and take collective responsibility for delivering excellent and reliable services. They will be reflected in leadership, decision- making, service design, partnership working, staff communications and the behaviours expected across the organisation. Subject to Cabinet’s approval, future decision reports will also identify how proposals contribute to the priorities where relevant. 4.5 Financial alignment Approval of the priorities does not, in itself, commit the Council to new expenditure. The emerging Council Plan will identify how the priorities are to be delivered, with the associated resource requirements and financial choices aligned with the Medium Term Financial Strategy and annual budget process. Individual policies, programmes and investment proposals arising from the priorities will be developed and considered through the appropriate governance and decision-making routes. This will ensure that the Council’s ambition is supported by deliverable pl ans, appropriate resources and continued financial resilience. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public 5. Corporate implications Financial (mandatory) Y Equalities impact assessment Y Legal (mandatory) Y Workforce Y Alternative options (mandatory) Y Public Health Y Risk management (mandatory) Y External partners Y Heathrow Expansion Y Communications Y Asset Committee comments Procurement & contract social value Digital Y Planning Growth agenda Y Climate Change Other a) Financial The approval of the priorities has no direct financial impact and any communication internally or externally of the priorities will be minimal and within budgets. The financial implications of specific delivery proposals will be identified through the emerging Council Plan, Medium Term Financial Strategy, annual budget-setting and the Council’s established approval processes. b) Legal The report does not itself authorise any specific projects, expenditure or commitments. Any proposals arising from these priorities will be subject to the Council’s normal good governance, constitutional and decision- making requirements, with specific legal implications considered as part of those future reports and decisions. c) Alternative options Alternative Options Rationale for rejecting option Defer approval until the Council Plan is complete This would delay a clear statement of Council’s direction and reduce the opportunity for the priorities to shape the Plan from the outset. Adopt a more detailed delivery plan at this stage Detailed outcomes, measures and resources are better developed through the Council Plan and Medium-Term Financial Strategy, following further corporate activity. Do nothing The Council would lack an agreed, current statement of the Administration’s direction for 2026-2030. Cease activity This would prevent the Council from setting a clear forward direction and aligning policy, planning and communications around shared priorities. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public d) Risk management Risk Mitigation The priorities remain broad and are not translated into visible delivery The emerging Council Plan will set out detailed outcomes, activity, ownership and measures, supported by service planning and performance monitoring. Delivery ambitions are not aligned with available resources Financial implications and choices will be integrated with the Medium Term Financial Strategy and annual budget process. Individual proposals will follow established approval routes. Residents or staff do not understand how the priorities affect them A clear communications and engagement approach will use the priorities consistently and explain how policies, services and projects contribute to them. Competing priorities lead to inconsistent implementation Corporate and service planning will provide a coordinated framework, with leadership oversight and clear accountability for delivery. e) Other implications As the Cabinet priorities set the Council’s overall strategic direction, they will influence activity across all corporate areas. At this stage, the implications most directly relevant to their approval are summarised below. More detailed implications will be assessed as the priorities are translated into the Council Plan and brought forward through individual policies, programmes and decisions: • Workforce: Internally, the priorities will establish a clear shared direction and strengthen a culture in which staff put residents first. It will form the golden thread by which staff work across organisational boundaries and take collective responsibility for delivering excellent and reliable services. • Equalities and Public Health: The prioritie s include improving outcomes for residents, supporting healthy and independent lives, protecting vulnerable people and widening opportunities. Equality and health impacts will be assessed as specific policies and delivery proposals are developed. • Communications and engagement: A coordinated approach will present the priorities consistently to residents, businesses, partners and staff, and connect future announcements and delivery activity to the Council’s overall ambition. • Digital: The commitment to being easy to deal with includes improving digital access and convenience, alongside clear and accessible information. Detailed digital requirements will be developed through relevant programmes and service plans. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public • Heathrow expansion: Any potential expansion would have significant financial, environmental, infrastructure and service implications across Hillingdon, particularly for communities in the areas most affected. These implications will be continually monitored including through the Council Plan, budget and all other relevant future decisions. • Growth agenda / external partners: The priorities place sustainable growth at the heart of Hillingdon’s future and align with the recently approved Growth Plan, using the borough’s connectivity and strengths to attract investment, support businesses, revitalise town centres and create employment and skills opportunities for local people. This supports our work with external partners. 6. Consultation & engagement No consultation is required for Cabinet, as the Council’s executive leadership, to set its strategic priorities and direction for the Council. The priorities reflect the Administration’s ambition for Hillingdon and will guide the development of the emerging Council Plan. Wider consultation and engagement with residents, businesses, partners, Members and staff will take place as part of developing the Council Plan, which will set out how the priorities will be delivered. Any subsequent policies or service changes requiring specific consultation will be considered through the relevant decision-making process. 7. Timetable for implementation Subject to Cabinet approval and the scrutiny call-in period, the priorities will take immediate effect as the strategic direction for 2026- 2030. They will inform development of the emerging Council Plan and the Medium Term Financial Strategy, and will be progressively reflected in corporate and service planning, decision reports, communications and future policy proposals. The Council Plan, once developed, is classed a policy framework document, that will require consultation and review by select committees, before final adoption by the full Council. List of appendices attached Appendix 1: Cabinet Priorities 2026-2030 List of Background Papers NIL

EASY TO DEAL WITH We will make it simpler for you to We will make it simpler for you to access the services you need.access the services you need. Enhancing our digital services to give you more access and convenience. Giving you clear , and accessible information. Responding to you quickly when you need us. Bringing services together to make it easier for you to use them. BRILLIANT AT THE BASICS We strive to get the basics right, first We strive to get the basics right, first time, every time.time, every time. Being a provider of services that make you feel proud to live in Hillingdon. Keeping your neighbourhoods, roads and green spaces clean, safe and well maintained. Providing reliable weekly waste collections. Taking tough enforcement action against those who harm our communities. PUTTING OUR RESIDENTS FIRST We will continue to put residents at We will continue to put residents at the heart of every decision we make.the heart of every decision we make. Supporting you to live healthy and independent lives. Protecting vulnerable residents. Leading strong partnerships to improve outcomes for residents and communities. Being on your side and standing up for communities. Listening to your views to shape what we do. HILLINGDON HOMES FOR HILLINGDON PEOPLE We will put local people at the heart of We will put local people at the heart of housing and development decisions.housing and development decisions. Supporting the delivery of affordable homes. Maintaining and improving our housing. Holding landlords to account to protect tenants from poor conditions. Ensuring development reflects local need and community character . FUTURE GENERATIONS We will support every young person to We will support every young person to reach their full potential.reach their full potential. Delivering excellent education opportunities by working closely with schools, colleges and universities. Expanding apprenticeships, skills and employment opportunities for local young people. Ensuring every child has access to the technology and digital skills they need to succeed. Providing modern libraries, leisure facilities and youth opportunities that support learning, wellbeing and aspiration. OPEN FOR BUSINESS We will harness our global connectivity We will harness our global connectivity to drive local prosperity. to drive local prosperity. Promoting Hillingdon as a place for investment. Supporting high-growth industries, innovation through partnerships, and businesses of all sizes to thrive. Revitalising your town centres and public spaces and improving connectivity. Enabling residents to access employment and skills. PRIORITIES 2026-2030 OUR AMBITION: To make Hillingdon an even better place to live, work and invest. Your council is committed to delivering excellent public services, strong governance based on financial resilience, investing in communities, and ensuring the organisation is fit to meet the challenges of the future. Sustainable economic growth | Excellent public services | Strong governance based on financial resilience | Investment in our communities | An organisation fit for the future

Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Consultation Response to the Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement Cabinet Member Lead Leader of the Council (Cllr Tuckwell) Chief Officer responsible Corporate Director of Residents Services Report author Ian Thynne Head of Environmental Specialists Report classification and reason Public For General Release Relevant Committee Residents' Services Electoral Ward Heathrow Villages & All Wards 1. Executive Summary The report presents the Council's response to the Government's consultation on the draft Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement (HENPS), which would establish the national planning framework for determining future proposals for a third runway at Heathrow Airport. The Council remains firmly opposed to expansion and does not consider that the evidence presented demonstrates a compelling case for a third runway. The claimed economic and connectivity benefits remain uncertain and heavily dependent on assumptions, whilst the potential impacts on communities, public health, the environment and infrastructure are significant and well established. Notwithstanding this position, the response recognises that decisions on Heathrow expansion will ultimately be taken by Government and Parliament. It therefore identifies substantial changes that would be required should expansion proceed, including stronger policy tests, clear pass and fail criteria, improved governance and enforcement arrangements, and greater protection for affected communities. The Council also proposes the introduction of a Community Impact Test to ensure that community impacts are given equal weight alongside economic, climate, air quality and noise considerations. The response raises concerns across a broad range of issues including air quality, noise, climate change, public health, transport, heritage, biodiversity, flood risk, community compensation and the impact on local authority services. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public There are no direct financial implications arising from submission of the consultation response. However, the report highlights that expansion could place substantial costs and resource pressures on local authorities and wider public services that are not adequately recognised within the draft HENPS. This is a comprehensive response that seeks to protect the interests of Hillingdon residents and secure the strongest possible safeguards should Government decide to proceed with Heathrow expansion. 2. Recommendation(s) That the Cabinet: 1) Note the Council’s consultation response on the Draft Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement (Draft HENPS); 2) Authorise officers to continue engaging with the Department for Transport following the close of the consultation period (1 September 2026) to secure changes to the Draft HENPS in line with the Council's consultation response. 3. Reasons for decision The recommendations are proposed to enable Cabinet to note the Council's consultation response to the Draft Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement (Draft HENPS) and to authorise officers to continue engaging with the Department for Transport following the close of the consultation period to seek changes that reflect the Council's recommendations. The Council considers that the Draft HENPS contains significant deficiencies and requires substantial amendment to provide adequate protection for Hillingdon's residents, communities and environment. The anticipated laying of the HENPS before Parliament in November 2026 provides an opportunity for officers to continue discussions with the Department for Transport and advocate for changes consistent with the Council's consultation response. 4. Proposal Background 4.1. The Department for Transport is consulting on a draft Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement (HENPS), which would replace the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) and establish the planning policy framework for any future Heathrow expansion proposal. The final HENPS will set the strategic justification for expansion, define the principal tests Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public that expansion proposals must satisfy, and establish the decision making framework that would apply during any future Development Consent Order process. 4.2. The consultation closed on 1 September 2026 and provided an opportunity for the Council to challenge the draft framework, seek amendments and secure stronger protections for residents, communities and the environment before the HENPS is designated by Parliament. 4.3. In its response, the Council maintains its opposition to Heathrow expansion and considers that the Government's own evidence increasingly calls into question the strategic case for doing so. Nevertheless, recognising that the final decision rests elsewhere, the Council has sought substantial amendments to the draft HENPS. If expansion is to proceed, it should be under a robust and balanced framework that contains genuine safeguards, clear tests and meaningful routes to refusal, rather than a framework weighted heavily in favour of a future promoter. Summary of Principal Concerns Strategic Failure 4.4. The draft HENPS fails in its core purpose. It does not demonstrate that the case for expansion has been made, does not establish clear tests that must be satisfied before expansion can proceed, and does not provide a robust framework of safeguards to protect communities and the environment. 4.5. More fundamentally, the draft HENPS fails to demonstrate that Heathrow expansion remains the correct strategic response to the challenges identified by Government. Whilst presented as a new National Policy Statement, it largely carries forward the conclusi ons of the ANPS and the Airports Commission despite significant changes in the intervening period. The economic case has weakened considerably, environmental constraints have become more pressing and substantial additional airport capacity has been delivered elsewhere in the South East. The Council considers that these changes require a fundamental reassessment of need and alternatives. Rather than asking whether Heathrow expansion remains justified, the draft HENPS appears to assume that it is and focuses on how that outcome can be delivered. In doing so, it gives insufficient weight to evidence that increasingly challenges the conclusions reached by the Airports Commission and reflected in the ANPS. 4.6. The Council remains opposed to Heathrow expansion and considers the HENPS should not be designated in its current form. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public A Framework That Cannot Say No 4.7. A recurring concern throughout the draft HENPS is that it places significant reliance on future assessments, future mitigation measures and future technological improvements. Whilst applicants are expected to demonstrate effort, there are few clear requirements to achieve specific outcomes. As drafted, the framework provides considerable flexibility to promoters but limited certainty for affected communities. Weak Decision-Making Tests 4.8. The four principal tests proposed by Government (economic growth, air quality, noise and climate change) lack meaningful pass or fail criteria. Government's own evidence identifies significant uncertainty and potentially adverse effects in several areas, yet the draft provides little clarity on the circumstances in which development consent would be refused. The Council considers that clear thresholds, red lines and enforceable requirements are required before expansion can be supported. 4.9. Parliament is being asked to support Heathrow expansion in the hope that a future promoter can prove it is acceptable, rather than in the knowledge that it is. The draft HENPS transfers uncertainty to the Development Consent Order stage, weakens protections for communities and the environment, and narrows the circumstances in which a decision maker can conclude that expansion should not proceed. Communities Bear the Risk 4.10. Many of the most significant impacts of expansion would fall on local communities through increased noise, air pollution, loss of homes and community facilities, pressure on public services, changes to transport networks and wider environmental impacts. The draft HENPS places insufficient emphasis on community wellbeing and contains no dedicated test requiring Heathrow to demonstrate that affected communities will be better off as a consequence of expansion. Governance, Accountability and Compensation 4.11. The draft relies heavily on Heathrow monitoring and reporting its own performance, with limited independent oversight and little clarity regarding consequences if commitments are not achieved. The Council considers that independent monitoring, statutory targets, intervention mechanisms and enforceable sanctions are required. In addition, Heathrow should be required to fund long term community compensation and mitigation measures rather than transferring costs and risks to local authorities, public services and taxpayers. 4.12. Lessons should be learned from Terminal 5. Heathrow's growth has not consistently translated into better outcomes for neighbouring communities because the airport was not Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public required to deliver them. The result has been continued environmental harm, missed opportunities and benefits that have too often accrued elsewhere. If expansion is to proceed, Heathrow must be subject to clear, enforceable obligations that ensure local co mmunities share directly in the benefits of growth. Competing Expansion Proposals 4.13. The existence of competing Development Consent Order proposals introduces significant additional complexity and uncertainty. The draft HENPS does not establish a credible framework for managing competing promoters, conflicting evidence bases or differing compensation arrangements. Clear governance arrangements and assessment processes are required to ensure residents and public bodies are not disadvantaged. Key Changes Sought by the Council 4.14. The Council's consultation response seeks substantial revision of the HENPS, including: • Clear pass and fail criteria for all strategic tests. • Stronger protections for communities, health and the environment. • A new Community Impact Test. • Robust and enforceable mitigation requirements. • Independent monitoring and oversight arrangements. • Stronger compensation and community benefit provisions. • A clear framework for managing competing expansion proposals. • Greater certainty regarding surface access, climate change and environmental outcomes. 5. Corporate implications Financial (mandatory) Y Equalities impact assessment Legal (mandatory) Y Workforce Alternative options (mandatory) Y Public Health Risk management (mandatory) Y External partners Heathrow Expansion Y Communications Asset Committee comments Procurement & contract social value Digital Planning Other Climate Change Other Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public a) Financial There are no direct financial implications arising from the recommendations to note the Council’s response to the Draft HENPS consultation or to authorise officers to continue engagement with the Department for Transport following the close of the consultation period. Officer time and associated costs relating to the ongoing engagement and consultation activities will be met from existing approved budgets. Future costs will arise across a range of Council Services as the Heathrow expansion proposals progress through subsequent planning and development stages, any financial commitments or resource requirements will be subject to separate approval through detailed business cases and the Council's established governance processes. Revenue resource requirements are expected to be funded from relevant income streams and external contributions where available. b) Legal The proposed Heathrow expansion is a large-scale development and is categorised as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (“NSIP”). The Planning Act 2008 sets out the legal framework for NSIPs and removes the decision- making process from local authorities , placing the legal obligation on central government to undertake consultation with local authorities. The draft HENPS is a statutory planning policy designed to guide the assessment of any proposals for expanding Heathrow Airport. The Council was invited to respond to the government’s consultation, and although it was not mandatory to do so, a decision not to respond could have reduced its ability to influence and shape the development of key planning policy. Legal Services has therefore considered the content of the report and its recommendations in the light of the Council’s statutory rights and role in the engagement and consultation process with the Department for Transport regarding the draft HENPS. There are no issues which legal services consider need to be brought to the specific attention of Members. c) Alternative options Alternative Options Rationale for rejecting option Option A – Respond to the Consultation – oppose expansion only Rejected. The Council is not the decision maker on Heathrow expansion, ultimately the Government is. As the decision maker they would need to complete the planning balance and reach a conclusion on whether to move forward with expansion or not. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Whilst the Council remains opposed to expansion, it must also seek to influence the policy framework that would govern any future decision. Failure to engage on the content of the HENPS could result in expansion being considered under a framework that lacks adequate safeguards, clear decision making tests and sufficient protection for residents, communities and the environment. Option B – Respond to the Consultation – oppose expansion but also provide commentary on an improved HENPS Recommended Option Do nothing Rejected. It would forgo the opportunity to influence the content of the HENPS and safeguard the interests of Hillingdon's residents, communities and environment. d) Risk management Risk Mitigation Seen to weaken opposition of Heathrow Expansion By recommending a decision making framework to ensure a better outcome for Heathrow Expansion, it could be seen that the Council is reducing its opposition to the proposals. The Council remains strongly opposed and the Response is heavily caveated that any commentary on what the draft HENPS should say is secondary to it not being adopted at all. There is a greater risk to communities should the Council simply maintain opposition and not engage on what the HENPS should say. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public e) Heathrow Expansion The response has been prepared by the Council's Planning Service because the HENPS establishes the planning policy and decision making framework for Heathrow expansion. As the principal policy document supporting any future expansion proposal, it will play a significant role in the examination and determination of subsequent Development Consent Order applications and is therefore directly relevant to the Council's ongoing engagement in the expansion process. 6. Consultation & engagement The response has been circulated among planning colleagues for commentary in line with usual procedures to response to National Policy. Separately, residents have been encouraged to provide their own consultation responses through various channels including social media and Hillingdon People. 7. Timetable for implementation The Response has been submitted in liaison with the Leader of the Council. It is expected that the final HENPS will be laid before Parliament in November. Officers, assuming the recommendation is approved, will liaise with the Department of Transport and others to promote the response conclusion and seek the necessary changes. List of appendices attached Consultation Response List of Background Papers Nil

Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement Consultation Response by the London Borough of Hillingdon September 2026 1 Contents 1 Foreword ............................................................................................................................... 3 2 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 4 2.1 The Council's Position ..................................................................................................................................4 2.2 The Draft HENPS Does Not Provide a Robust Basis for Expansion...............................................................4 2.3 Heathrow's Local Balance Sheet Has Never Been Assessed ........................................................................4 2.4 A Framework Focused on Managing Harm Rather Than Testing Acceptability ...........................................5 2.5 If Government Remains Minded to Support Expansion ..............................................................................5 2.6 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................5 3 Summary of Policy Concerns and Required Changes ........................................................... 6 4 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................................8 4.2 Legal .............................................................................................................................................................8 4.3 Structure ......................................................................................................................................................8 5 Position Statement ............................................................................................................... 9 5.1 Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................9 5.2 Amending the draft HENPS ..........................................................................................................................9 6 Hillingdon as the Host Authority ......................................................................................... 11 6.1 The Host Authority Relationship ................................................................................................................11 6.2 Existing Impacts on the Borough ...............................................................................................................11 6.3 Implications of Expansion ..........................................................................................................................13 6.4 Assessment of Local Authority and Public Services ...................................................................................14 6.5 The Way Forward – Outside the HENPS ....................................................................................................15 6.6 The Way Forward – Inside the HENPS .......................................................................................................18 7 Procedural Matters ............................................................................................................. 20 7.1 Consultation Process ..................................................................................................................................20 7.2 How Competing DCOs will be Managed ....................................................................................................20 7.3 How Competing DCOs will be Assessed .....................................................................................................21 7.4 Governance, Monitoring and Enforcement ...............................................................................................21 7.5 Evaluation of Need .....................................................................................................................................22 7.6 Assessing Alternatives ................................................................................................................................24 8 Assessment Principles ......................................................................................................... 26 8.1 Critical National Growth Infrastructure Designation .................................................................................26 8.2 Compliance with the Four Tests ................................................................................................................27 8.3 The Economic Test .....................................................................................................................................28 8.4 The Air Quality Test ....................................................................................................................................31 8.5 The Noise Test ............................................................................................................................................35 2 8.6 Climate Change ..........................................................................................................................................39 8.7 A Fifth Community Impact Test .................................................................................................................41 8.8 Heathrow Expansion alongside London Plan Growth ................................................................................43 8.9 Surface Access and Rail Infrastructure.......................................................................................................43 8.10 Environmental Impact Assessment .......................................................................................................46 8.11 Equalities Impact Assessment ...............................................................................................................47 8.12 Criteria for Good Design for Airports Infrastructure .............................................................................48 8.13 Costs ......................................................................................................................................................48 8.14 Health ....................................................................................................................................................49 8.15 Placemaking ..........................................................................................................................................50 9 Assessment of Impacts ....................................................................................................... 52 9.1 General.......................................................................................................................................................52 9.2 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................................52 9.3 Noise ..........................................................................................................................................................57 9.4 Climate Change Mitigation ........................................................................................................................62 9.5 Economic Growth Across the Country .......................................................................................................65 9.6 Surface Access ............................................................................................................................................68 9.7 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation .......................................................................................................71 9.8 Land Use Including Open Space, Green Infrastructure and Green Belt .....................................................73 9.9 Home Office Assets ....................................................................................................................................76 9.10 Resource and Waste Management .......................................................................................................77 9.11 Flood Risk ..............................................................................................................................................79 9.12 Water Resources and Water Quality.....................................................................................................80 9.13 Historic Environment ............................................................................................................................82 9.14 Landscape and Visual Impacts ..............................................................................................................85 9.15 Community Compensation ...................................................................................................................87 9.16 Community Engagement .......................................................................................................................90 10 Other Matters ................................................................................................................ 92 10.1 Recycling T5 mitigation .........................................................................................................................92 10.2 Early Growth .........................................................................................................................................93 10.3 Programme Failings ...............................................................................................................................93 3 1 Foreword Hillingdon Council remains unequivocally opposed to expansion. For the people of Hillingdon, Heathrow expansion is not a policy debate or a piece of infrastructure. It directly impacts their homes, their communities and their quality of life. Our residents have already lived with decades of noise, pollution, congestion, blight and uncertainty, and are now being asked to accept even greater impacts in return for benefits that remain uncertain and heavily disputed. The draft Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement has not altered that view. It does not strengthen the case for expansion. It exposes its weaknesses. The economic case is uncertain, heavily caveated and reliant on assumptions that may never materialise. The benefits remain speculative. The harms do not. On any objective reading of the evidence, the case for a third runway simply has not been made. However, the Council also recognises a difficult reality. Whilst we remain firmly opposed to a third runway, the final decision will be taken by others. This response has therefore been prepared with two objectives in mind. First, to explain why the Council continues to believe Heathrow expansion should not proceed. Second, to identify the substantial changes required to the draft HENPS to meaningfully mitigate and protect those communities who will have to continue living alongside Heathrow should Government remain minded to support expansion. With that in mind, the Council believes the final draft HENPS must provide the strongest possible safeguards given the scale of harm expansion would cause. Yet the draft policy fails in one of its most fundamental tasks. It does not explain what would actually prevent a third runway from proceeding. The Government's four tests contain no meaningful red lines, no clear failure points and no obvious route to a decision of "no". As drafted, the framework appears designed to make expansion possible rather than determine whether it is acceptable. Without stronger safeguards, tougher assessment criteria and genuine consequences for failure, there is a real risk that the principle of expansion at all costs has been accepted before the evidence has been properly tested. Throughout this document, the Council has sought to strengthen the policy framework, close obvious gaps and ensure that any future applicant is required to do far more than is currently proposed. For too long, local communities have been expected to absorb the impacts of Heathrow's success whilst receiving only a fraction of its benefits. If the airport is to grow again, it cannot do so on the same terms as before. The communities of Hillingdon deserve a planning framework that protects them, invests in them and demands far more from the airport than has ever previously been required. That is the purpose of this response and the standard against which the draft HENPS should be judged. Councillor Steve Tuckwell Leader of the London Borough of Hillingdon 4 2 Executive Summary 2.1 The Council's Position 2.1.1 The London Borough of Hillingdon remains unequivocally opposed to Heathrow expansion and does not consider that a compelling case for a third runway has been demonstrated. The draft Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement (HENPS) does not strengthen the justification for expansion; rather, it highlights the significant uncertainties, risks and unresolved issues that continue to surround the proposal. The Government's own evidence identifies uncertainty regarding the scale and distribution of the economic benefits, while the impacts on local communities, public services, health, transport networks and the environment are clear, substantial and, in many cases, unavoidable. Without a robust, evidence-based case for expansion, and without clearly identifying, securing, and funding the mitigation needed to address its impacts, the Council considers that the case for Heathrow expansion has not been made. Furthermore, the proposed approach to Heathrow is unique amongst nationally significant infrastructure projects. No other major infrastructure scheme would be permitted to generate such extensive impacts beyond its red line boundary while leaving responsibility for addressing many of those impacts to others. 2.2 The Draft HENPS Does Not Provide a Robust Basis for Expansion 2.2.1 The Council's principal concern is that the draft HENPS fails in one of its most important functions: to provide Parliament with confidence that Heathrow expansion is justified in principle. Instead, the document repeatedly identifies uncertainty, acknowledges unresolved impacts and defers critical questions to a future Development Consent Order process. The result is a framework that asks Parliament to endorse expansion first and establish whether it is acceptable later. The Council considers this approach fundamentally flawed. 2.2.2 The Government's four tests for economic growth, air quality, noise and climate change contain no meaningful failure points, no clear red lines and no obvious route to a decision of "no". As drafted, the policy appears designed to facilitate expansion rather than determine whether it should proceed. A decision-making framework that contains no realistic mechanism for refusal cannot be regarded as a robust test of acceptability and inevitably downplays the importance of mitigation measures and safeguards. 2.3 Heathrow's Local Balance Sheet Has Never Been Assessed 2.3.1 The Council is particularly concerned that Heathrow's relationship with its host authority is characterised more by assumption than evidence. Whilst the airport's national economic contribution is frequently cited, there has been no equivalent assessment of its overall impact on the communities, public services and local government finances of the borough that hosts it. Government has assessed the national balance sheet. It has not assessed the local one. Consequently, the draft HENPS assumes Heathrow works for host communities 5 without first establishing whether that is actually the case and how this needs to be addressed. 2.4 A Framework Focused on Managing Harm Rather Than Testing Acceptability 2.4.1 Across a wide range of topics, including air quality, noise, climate change, surface access, biodiversity, public services, placemaking and community compensation, the draft HENPS frequently identifies significant adverse impacts but then relies on future mitigation, future technologies or future actions by third parties to justify them. In many cases, the policy is stronger at identifying harm than determining whether that harm is acceptable. The consequence is a framework that appears capable of approving expansion without demonstrating that the communities affected will be adequately protected. 2.5 If Government Remains Minded to Support Expansion 2.5.1 Whilst the Council remains opposed to Heathrow expansion, it recognises that the final decision rests with Government and Parliament. The response therefore identifies substantial changes required to create a more balanced and robust policy framework. These include stronger policy tests, meaningful safeguards, independent oversight, enforceable mitigation, a Host Authority Impact Assessment, a Host Authority Funding Agreement and a fairer approach to sharing the benefits of nationally significant infrastructure with the communities that host it. 2.6 Conclusion 2.6.1 The draft HENPS does not provide Parliament with a sound basis on which to endorse Heathrow expansion. The evidence remains uncertain, the decision-making framework remains weak and many of the key questions have been deferred to a later stage. The Council considers that expansion should not proceed. If Government nevertheless remains minded to support a third runway, the final HENPS must be substantially strengthened to ensure that impacts are properly tested, public services are adequately funded, communities are effectively protected and those bearing the greatest impacts receive a fair and demonstrable share of the benefits. 6 3 Summary of Policy Concerns and Required Changes Topic Principal Concern Required Changes Need Case The need for expansion remains unproven and reasonable alternatives have not been adequately reassessed against current circumstances. Re-test the need case against current evidence and undertake a comprehensive assessment of alternatives. Competing Promoters and DCOs The draft HENPS provides no clear framework for managing, assessing or governing competing expansion proposals. Establish clear governance, evidence and assessment requirements for competing promoters and schemes. Environmental Impact Assessment The assessment could underestimate impacts by excluding dependent infrastructure, ancillary development or later phases. Require assessment of the full development, associated infrastructure and ultimate operational scheme from the outset. Equality Impact Assessment The policy is stronger on process than outcomes and lacks clear equality benchmarks. Define acceptable equality outcomes and require equality impacts to influence decision making. Critical National Growth Infrastructure Designation is unsupported by the evidence and risks prejudging the outcome. Remove the designation or provide a clear evidence-based justification and decision- making framework. The Four Tests The tests contain no meaningful failure points, red lines or route to refusal. Introduce clear pass/fail criteria and define the consequences of failing a test. Economic Growth Economic benefits are uncertain, poorly evidenced and could simply redistribute growth. Require economic benefits to be additional, measurable, independently verified and shared with affected communities. Consider appropriate mechanisms to capture local growth. Air Quality The test focuses on legal compliance rather than protecting public health. Strengthen the framework to prioritise health outcomes, population exposure and future environmental standards. Noise The test manages contours rather than protecting people and communities. Align with the latest ANAS evidence, strengthen mitigation and focus on health and quality of life outcomes. Climate Change The climate case relies heavily on uncertain future technologies and assumptions. Require robust testing against pessimistic scenarios and stronger governance and mitigation measures. Community Impact Test Community impacts are not given equivalent weight to the Government's four tests. Introduce a Fifth Community Impact Test with measurable and enforceable outcomes. Host Authority Relationship Heathrow's overall impact on Hillingdon has never been comprehensively assessed and addressed. The impact and needs of the host authority should be a core policy consideration with a 7 requirement for coordinated strategic planning, funding and mitigation. Surface Access Expansion relies on unproven transport assumptions and modal shift targets. Link airport growth to transport performance and secure infrastructure before capacity is released. Biodiversity Excessive reliance on compensation and biodiversity metrics. Prioritise avoidance, local delivery and long- term environmental enhancement. Land Use and Green Belt Significant land take and loss of community assets without adequate safeguards or a requirement for integrated regional planning. Minimise land take, strengthen replacement requirements and improve protection of community assets. Flood Risk and Water Environment The framework focuses on mitigating harm rather than delivering environmental improvement. Require net environmental gain, resilience and long-term management arrangements. Flood Risk The framework focuses on offsetting flood risk rather than improving flood resilience for communities and catchments. Require a net reduction in flood risk, catchment scale assessment and long-term management arrangements. Water Resources and Water Quality Insufficient emphasis on forever chemicals (i.e. PFAS), water quality, water stress and long-term water resource management. Require comprehensive PFAS assessment, protection of water quality, water efficiency, reuse and water neutrality measures. Historic Environment Significant heritage loss is treated as largely unavoidable. Require stronger avoidance, greater justification for loss and a positive heritage legacy. Landscape and Visual Impact Cumulative landscape effects are underestimated and fragmented mitigation risks poor outcomes. Require a coherent landscape strategy and long-term enhancement of affected areas. Public Services and Costs The public sector costs of expansion are largely ignored. Require a Public Sector Impact and Cost Assessment and full funding of additional burdens. Health The framework focuses on assessment processes rather than health outcomes. Introduce clear health-based objectives and capacity assessments for health services. Community Compensation Compensation is inadequate, inconsistently justified and overly reliant on promoter discretion. Establish stronger compensation, community investment and enforceable benefit sharing arrangements. Community Engagement Engagement requirements focus on process rather than influence. Require ongoing engagement, independent oversight and demonstrable influence on outcomes. Governance and Enforcement Monitoring is prioritised over accountability and corrective action. Introduce statutory targets, independent oversight and enforceable consequences for failure. 8 4 Introduction 4.1 Background 4.1.1 The London Borough of Hillingdon welcomes the opportunity to respond to the draft Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement (draft HENPS). As the host authority for Heathrow Airport, Hillingdon would experience the most significant impacts of expansion, including the loss of homes, increased aircraft noise, worsening environmental pressures and consequential effects on the health, wellbeing and quality of life of local communities. 4.1.2 Heathrow expansion has been a source of uncertainty and blight for many Hillingdon residents for decades. The continuing cycle of proposals, announcements, consultations and policy reviews has left communities living under the threat of significant change, often without clarity about their future. This prolonged uncertainty has negatively affected homes, businesses and neighbourhoods across the borough, and the Council considers that those communities deserve certainty and a decision-making process that is transparent, robust and capable of demonstrating whether expansion should proceed at all. 4.2 Legal 4.2.1 Notwithstanding its longstanding opposition to Heathrow expansion, the Council has engaged constructively with the draft HENPS consultation and has considered the proposals with an open mind. Should Government ultimately decide to proceed with expansion, it is essential that the final draft HENPS provides a robust and transparent decision-making framework that maximises protection for local authorities, communities and the environment. 4.2.2 This response sets out the Council's current views on the draft HENPS based on the information available at the time of writing. It is submitted without prejudice to the Council's future position, and the Council reserves the right to supplement, amend or expand upon any matters raised in this response as further information becomes available through the draft HENPS process, any subsequent Development Consent Order application, examination or related proceedings. 4.2.3 Nothing in this response should be taken as indicating support for Heathrow expansion or acceptance of any aspect of the draft HENPS, and the Council expressly reserves all legal, procedural and policy rights available to it. 4.3 Structure 4.3.1 The response considers the economic, environmental, transport and community implications of expansion, identifies areas where the policy framework is deficient, and sets out the amendments that the Council considers necessary to ensure that communities and the environment are properly protected should Government decide to proceed with Heathrow expansion. 9 5 Position Statement 5.1 Opposition 5.1.1 The London Borough of Hillingdon does not consider that the case for Heathrow expansion has been made. If anything, the evidence presented alongside the draft Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement demonstrates why expansion should not proceed. The claimed benefits remain uncertain, heavily caveated and dependent on assumptions that have yet to be realised, whilst the adverse impacts on communities, health, heritage, transport networks and the environment are clear, significant and, in many cases, unavoidable. 5.1.2 More fundamentally, the draft HENPS fails in what should have been its primary purpose. The Government's four tests were intended to provide Parliament with confidence that expansion is justified in principle before responsibility passes to an applicant to develop the detail of a scheme. Instead, the draft HENPS provides a weak and inconclusive case, repeatedly identifying uncertainty and deferring critical questions to a future DCO process in the hope that a promoter may be able to resolve them. The Council considers this approach fundamentally flawed. If the Department is unable to demonstrate through the draft HENPS that expansion satisfies its own tests and is justified in principle, Parliament should not be asked to endorse a policy framework that leaves those questions to be answered later. 5.1.3 The Council is also concerned that the draft HENPS contains fundamental weaknesses within its decision-making framework. The Government's four tests lack meaningful failure points, clear thresholds or defined circumstances in which consent should be refused. As drafted, the framework appears to provide no realistic route to a decision of "no", even where significant uncertainty remains regarding future impacts and mitigation. The Council therefore questions whether the draft HENPS provides the robust, transparent and objective decision-making framework envisaged by the Planning Act 2008. Whilst the Council maintains its objection in principle to Heathrow expansion, these shortcomings create a further sense of alarm that, should it proceed, it will do so at any cost. 5.2 Amending the draft HENPS 5.2.1 Notwithstanding its opposition to Heathrow expansion, the Council has sought to engage constructively with the draft HENPS because, should Parliament ultimately decide to proceed, the policy framework must be capable of properly protecting affected communities and the environment. 5.2.2 In its current form, the draft HENPS often reads less as a framework for testing whether expansion is acceptable, and more as guidance for applicants, providing considerable flexibility in how impacts are assessed, mitigated and justified. Too much discretion is left in the hands of promoters and too many safeguards rely on future judgement rather than clear policy requirements. 10 5.2.3 The purpose of this response is therefore to identify the substantial amendments required to create a more balanced and effective framework; one that places communities on a fairer footing with applicants, establishes meaningful controls and accountability, and provides decision makers with a sound policy basis consistent with the requirements and intent of the Planning Act 2008. 11 6 Hillingdon as the Host Authority 6.1 The Host Authority Relationship 6.1.1 Heathrow is located almost entirely within the London Borough of Hillingdon. Hillingdon is therefore not simply an authority affected by the airport. It is the host authority responsible for managing many of the direct and indirect consequences of its operation. 6.1.2 The airport is a nationally significant economic asset, but it also operates within established residential communities. Its presence influences housing, employment, transport, education, health, policing, environmental regulation, community cohesion and the delivery of local authority services across the borough. These effects extend well beyond the operational airport boundary and cannot be understood solely through conventional assessments of noise, air quality, traffic or land take. 6.1.3 Despite the scale and unique nature of this relationship, there has been no comprehensive assessment of how Heathrow currently affects Hillingdon, the costs incurred by the Council and other public bodies, or the extent to which economic and employment benefits reach the communities that host the airport. The draft HENPS does not address this evidence gap. There is also no commitment in the document to any requirements for investment into these communities either as mitigation or as a commitment to materially improve the quality of life and quality of environment which are so heavily blighted by all airport- related operations. 6.2 Existing Impacts on the Borough 6.2.1 The Council is required to respond to a range of pressures associated with Heathrow’s existing operation. These include airport-related parking and unauthorised commercial parking, taxi and private hire activity, antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping, environmental health complaints, imported food handling, planning enforcement, licensing, waste, congestion and pressure on local roads and public spaces. The council’s viability as a place to develop is also materially impacted by height restrictions that prevent high-density development across the south of the borough. 6.2.2 The airport’s role as the United Kingdom’s principal international gateway also has wider implications for policing, healthcare, safeguarding, homelessness and the provision of emergency support. This can include responsibilities arising from vulnerable arrivals, people seeking asylum and other individuals requiring immediate assistance. These demands are not created or controlled by the Council, but their practical consequences often fall upon local public services. 6.2.3 Heathrow also affects the stability and continuity of surrounding communities. Airport- related employment creates demand for temporary, seasonal and rented accommodation. High levels of population turnover can place pressure on housing, local services and community networks. This can weaken community cohesion, particularly where 12 established neighbourhoods already experience deprivation, environmental burdens or long-term uncertainty about expansion. 6.2.4 The Council is concerned that Heathrow's impacts on Hillingdon as the host authority are materially overlooked, and this is causing a significant level of concern given the scale of these impacts will increase as a result of the proposals in the draft HENPS. This is a unique situation for nationally significant infrastructure projects because Heathrow’s impacts do not stop at the airport boundary. The sheer scale of activity generated by the tens of thousands of planes, hundreds of millions of visitors and billions of tonnes of freight spreads geographically and across local services and communities in a way that a railway line such as HS2, once operational, does not. 6.2.5 The effects are particularly acute in the villages surrounding the airport, where decades of uncertainty associated with airport expansion and compulsory purchase activity have contributed to a cycle of blight. Property owners are often reluctant to invest in homes and businesses where there is continuing uncertainty about the future of the area. In some locations, residential properties acquired by Heathrow have been let on a short-term basis, reducing long-term community stability, weakening community cohesion and undermining confidence in the long-term future of these neighbourhoods. 6.2.6 The Council also experiences a range of indirect impacts associated with the airport's operation. This includes pressures arising from licensed taxi and private hire drivers using residential streets for waiting, parking and rest breaks, which has generated significant complaints from residents and required regulatory intervention, including the introduction and enforcement of a Public Spaces Protection Order to address associated anti-social behaviour. Such measures create an ongoing financial and operational burden for the local authority. 6.2.7 The airport also generates demand for ancillary uses, including commercial parking operations linked to passenger travel. The Council has been required to undertake extensive planning enforcement and trading standards action against unauthorised airport-related parking uses, including on Green Belt land. These cases have consumed substantial officer time and resulted in significant legal and enforcement expenditure over many years in order to protect the Green Belt and uphold the planning system. 6.2.8 Heathrow's impacts also extend across the borough's transport network. Airport-related traffic places considerable pressure on local roads, contributing to congestion, increased maintenance liabilities and greater demands on transport infrastructure. Capacity that might otherwise support local journeys, public transport users and planned growth is instead absorbed by airport-related movements. As the host authority, Hillingdon must manage these impacts despite having little direct control over the decisions that generate them. 6.2.9 The uncertainty created by Heathrow's future plans also places significant constraints on the Council's ability to undertake long-term place-shaping and growth planning. It is difficult to make informed decisions about housing, employment, infrastructure and environmental investment when the scale, nature and geographic extent of future airport 13 impacts remain uncertain. This uncertainty affects not only communities closest to the airport but also the Council's wider strategic planning functions and its ability to deliver sustainable growth. 6.2.10 Taken together, these impacts create a cumulative and persistent form of blight borne disproportionately by Hillingdon's residents and communities. Those who have remained in these neighbourhoods have had to endure uncertainty, environmental impacts, declining investment, pressure on local infrastructure and changes to community character over many years. This is not the image of the United Kingdom's principal international gateway that any party should wish to project. As the host authority, Hillingdon carries costs and consequences that extend far beyond the airport boundary and far beyond those experienced by neighbouring authorities. National policy should therefore explicitly recognise these impacts and provide meaningful support and mitigation for affected communities. Doing so would deliver not only local benefits but also wider national benefits by improving the quality, resilience and appearance of the communities that form the immediate setting of one of the UK's most significant pieces of national infrastructure. 6.3 Implications of Expansion 6.3.1 The concern follows that expansion would simply intensify this imbalance unless the final HENPS establishes a fundamentally different relationship between the airport, Government, the host authority and local communities. 6.3.2 In the short term, employment sites, hotels and commercial premises would be displaced to make way for airport infrastructure. This could result in job losses, business disruption and reduced business rates income before any claimed longer-term benefits are realised. At the same time, a substantial construction workforce would place additional demand on housing, transport, healthcare, policing, education, environmental health and other local services. 6.3.3 The compulsory acquisition of homes and businesses would also have consequences beyond the properties directly acquired. Residents may leave voluntarily because of uncertainty, construction impacts or the declining viability of communities. Schools, local businesses, places of worship, community organisations and public services could experience falling demand in some locations and increased demand elsewhere. This would make long term service and infrastructure planning extremely difficult. 6.3.4 The effects would not be confined to the construction period. An expansion promoter could become a significant property owner across the Heathrow Villages and surrounding areas. Without an appropriate accommodation and property management strategy, this could increase short-term letting, temporary occupation, vacant properties and population turnover. These are not normal market changes. They would be direct consequences of a nationally promoted infrastructure project and could materially undermine community cohesion and the long-term viability of remaining settlements. 14 6.4 Assessment of Local Authority and Public Services 6.4.1 As well as the wider community impacts, the draft HENPS also fails to provide a meaningful assessment of the specific implications of Heathrow expansion for the Local Authority services. 6.4.2 During the pre-application and Development Consent Order stages, local authorities will be expected to dedicate substantial staff time, financial resources and specialist expertise to scrutinising proposals, assessing evidence, representing communities and negotiating mitigation. These costs have not been identified, quantified or funded. 6.4.3 There has also been no comprehensive assessment of the consequences for local authority finances and service delivery during construction and operation. These could include: • loss of council tax and business rates income; • displacement of residents, businesses and employment; • increased housing and homelessness pressures; • demand arising from temporary and construction workforces; • impacts on school places, catchments and continuity of education; • additional special educational needs and social care requirements; • pressure on environmental health, licensing, planning and enforcement services; • increased parking, taxi, waste and highway management requirements; • pressure and disruption on local public transport services; • relocation of sports clubs, community organisations and public facilities; • increased demand on policing and emergency services; and • impacts on Hillingdon Hospital, primary care, public health and wider healthcare capacity. 6.4.4 The assessment must consider timing as well as scale. Costs, income losses and service pressures may arise years before any claimed economic benefits or additional revenues are realised. Without transitional funding, the Council could be required to manage the most disruptive phases of expansion while experiencing a reduction in its income base. 15 6.4.5 A major infrastructure proposal cannot be considered affordable if its costs are transferred from the promoter to local authorities, the NHS, emergency services or local taxpayers. Affordability must therefore be assessed from a public sector perspective as well as from the perspective of the Airport Operator, airlines and passengers. 6.5 The Way Forward – Outside the HENPS Recognition of the Impacts of Hosting Heathrow 6.5.1 The existing relationship between Heathrow and Hillingdon is not sufficiently understood, regulated or funded. Expansion should not proceed on the assumption that existing arrangements can simply be extended to accommodate a much larger airport. 6.5.2 The Council wishes to work with the Department for Transport, the Airport Operator and other relevant bodies to establish: • a comprehensive understanding of how Heathrow currently interacts with Hillingdon’s communities, economy and public services; • a clear baseline of existing costs, impacts, benefits and funding arrangements; • an assessment of how expansion would change those relationships during acquisition, construction and operation; • a long-term accommodation and property management strategy that supports stable and sustainable communities; • clear local employment, skills, procurement and supply chain priorities; • transparent reporting on the distribution of airport related benefits; • a fair funding arrangement reflecting the costs incurred by Hillingdon as host authority; and • long term governance arrangements through which the Council and affected communities can influence priorities and hold the Airport Operator to account. 6.5.3 This should not be treated as discretionary community investment. It is necessary to ensure that the authority hosting nationally significant infrastructure has the resources required to manage its impacts, secure its opportunities and maintain effective public services. 6.5.4 Furthermore, funding cannot wait until the DCO process starts. The cumulative impacts described above are not limited to the planning system. They create significant demands across the whole authority, including highways and transportation, environmental services, 16 public protection, community safety, legal services, strategic planning, communications, democratic services and corporate leadership. As the host authority, Hillingdon is expected to engage with complex and resource-intensive airport matters on an ongoing basis, while continuing to deliver services to residents and businesses across the borough. 6.5.5 The Council is concerned that there remains no clear recognition within national policy of the disproportionate burden placed on the host authority. Heathrow Airport Limited is able to recover many of its regulatory and expansion-related costs through established aviation funding mechanisms. The Council, by contrast, has no equivalent route through which to recover the substantial costs associated with managing the impacts of the airport and its proposed expansion. As a result, the Council is required to divert finite staff, financial and technical resources away from other local priorities in order to fulfil its responsibilities as host authority. 6.5.6 This position is neither sustainable nor equitable. The scale and complexity of Heathrow's existing operations, combined with the additional demands arising from future expansion proposals, require a level of expertise, monitoring, engagement and enforcement that cannot reasonably be absorbed within existing local government funding arrangements. The Council therefore considers that the revised HENPS should explicitly recognise the role of the host authority and establish a mechanism through which host authorities are adequately and fairly resourced to undertake these functions. 6.5.7 Such support should reflect the full range of costs incurred by local authorities, extending beyond planning and development management matters to encompass the broader organisational responsibilities associated with managing the impacts of nationally significant infrastructure. Without appropriate recognition and funding, there is a significant risk that local authorities will be unable to provide the capacity, scrutiny, mitigation and community support necessary to ensure that airport growth is managed effectively and sustainably. 6.5.8 Given Heathrow's role as a nationally significant piece of infrastructure and the UK's primary international gateway, the costs of managing its impacts should not fall disproportionately on local residents and local taxpayers. Ensuring that host authorities are properly resourced would not only benefit affected communities but would also support the effective delivery and oversight of nationally important infrastructure, delivering benefits that are national as well as local in scope. Hillingdon Council requests that measures are put in place as soon as practicable to ensure that it is resourced to meet the burdens of hosting Heathrow Airport, and managing all costs associated with expansion that extend well beyond those that can be recovered through planning fees. A Future Funding Approach 6.5.9 If Government considers Heathrow to be infrastructure of national economic importance, it should ensure that host authorities are not left to absorb a disproportionate share of the costs associated with its operation. As part of the overall package of measures required to deliver expansion, Government should explore funding models that allow host authorities to share more directly in the economic value generated by the airport and to be 17 compensated for the additional pressures placed on local infrastructure and services. This could include mechanisms analogous to Freeport tax sites, growth zones or enhanced business rates retention, enabling Hillingdon to retain a greater share of airport-related tax growth and reinvest it locally to support infrastructure provision, environmental mitigation and sustainable growth. 6.5.10 Such an approach would recognise the unique costs and responsibilities of hosting nationally significant infrastructure and provide a dedicated source of funding for public services, infrastructure, skills, economic development and community investment. Land Use and Transport Requirements 6.5.11 There is a clear need to ensure that the communities hosting Heathrow Airport are able to share more directly in the economic opportunities created by both the existing airport and any future expansion. As set out throughout this response, local residents are expected to accommodate a disproportionate share of the environmental, social and infrastructure impacts associated with Heathrow. It is therefore reasonable that the benefits package associated with expansion should also include measures that improve access to employment, skills and investment opportunities for the communities most affected. 6.5.12 While the strategic transport interventions required to support airport growth are important, equal attention should be given to local connectivity. Parts of Hillingdon, particularly in the north of the borough, remain poorly connected to Heathrow, with some communities reliant on a single bus route. Improved local transport connections would help ensure that residents can more readily access the employment opportunities generated by the airport and its wider economy. 6.5.13 We would therefore welcome further discussions on how Heathrow expansion could support enhanced rail connectivity between West Ruislip and West Ealing, building on the existing route and creating a new outer London rail connection using existing infrastructure. Such an investment could bring tens of thousands of residents within much easier reach of Heathrow and the wider employment opportunities it supports. Similarly, stronger connections between the Elizabeth Line and Uxbridge, including direct fast bus links, would better link the borough's metropolitan centre to Heathrow and strengthen its role as a focus for economic activity and growth. 6.5.14 Heathrow expansion should also be viewed as an opportunity to unlock the wider economic potential of locations that are strategically placed but currently constrained by poor connectivity. Stockley Park is a notable example. We are already working with the Greater London Authority to explore its future role and potential. A new Elizabeth Line station serving Stockley Park would transform connectivity, significantly increase its attractiveness for investment and help establish it as one of West London's key economic hubs. 6.5.15 We therefore ask that these and similar opportunities are actively explored as part of the wider package of public benefits associated with Heathrow expansion. The objective should not simply be to accommodate airport growth, but to ensure that growth leaves a 18 lasting legacy of improved connectivity, economic opportunity and prosperity for the communities that host it. 6.6 The Way Forward – Inside the HENPS Land Use and Transport Impacts 6.6.1 Alongside the day-to-day operational impacts on the borough that require mitigation, hosting the expansion of nationally significant infrastructure on the scale proposed must also create opportunities to support the Council’s wider growth objectives. However, these objectives will be materially affected both by the land take associated with the airport and by the significant increase in passengers who will rely on the borough’s transport infrastructure. For the purposes of our own land use planning, we request greater clarity and certainty regarding the full extent of land required to support an operational airport, recognising that this extends far beyond the runway and terminal buildings. Millions of square feet of logistics and commercial floorspace will be displaced and require relocation; new roads and what will be two of the largest car parks in Europe will consume substantial amounts of land and further divide communities; and groundworks, attenuation ponds, river diversions and biodiversity mitigation measures will determine the future use of large areas of land within the borough over which the Council has limited influence. Finally, the current proposals would leave two of Heathrow’s remaining villages, Harmondsworth and Sipson, at best heavily blighted and, at worst, potentially unviable in their current form. The HENPS must acknowledge and proactively plan for the implications of all these land use changes, not solely those within the current red line boundary. How the HENPS Should Be Strengthened 6.6.2 The HENPS should require the red line boundary to be revised so that it clearly defines the full extent of land required to deliver and operate an expanded Heathrow Airport, including all associated mitigation, transport infrastructure, surface access improvements, environmental measures, operational land and ancillary uses. A clearly defined boundary is essential to provide certainty for affected communities, landowners, planning authorities and infrastructure providers, and to ensure that the full impacts of expansion are properly assessed and mitigated from the outset. Limiting this area to land south of the M4 and west of the M4 spur would establish a clear and enduring framework for future growth, safeguard surrounding areas from uncertainty and incremental encroachment, and provide a robust basis for long-term place-shaping, investment and plan-making around the airport. 6.6.3 The final HENPS should require applicants to prepare a comprehensive Host Authority Impact Assessment, agreed with the relevant host authority and independently reviewed. This should: i. establish the current relationship between Heathrow, local communities, public services and the host authority; 19 ii. quantify the costs, benefits and service demands arising from the airport and its expansion; iii. assess impacts on public services, local authority finances, housing, population change and community cohesion; iv. identify how economic benefits will be distributed and secured for host communities; v. identify the mitigation, investment and public service capacity required; and vi. establish appropriate funding, governance, monitoring and enforcement arrangements. 20 7 Procedural Matters 7.1 Consultation Process 7.1.1 The consultation process has been inadequate and has fallen short of what would be expected for a proposal of such national, regional and local significance. 7.1.2 The consultation was undertaken during the summer period when many residents, community groups and stakeholders are less able to engage effectively. There is no clear evidence demonstrating who was consulted, how consultees were selected, what proactive measures were taken to encourage participation, or how hard to reach groups were engaged. Given the scale of the potential impacts, greater effort should have been made to ensure meaningful public participation. 7.1.3 Concerns were raised on 3 June regarding the proposed consultation approach and a response was received on 10 June. However, the consultation proceeded on 18 June without any apparent consideration of those concerns or any opportunity for stakeholders to influence the consultation methodology. This creates the impression that decisions regarding the consultation process had already been made prior to stakeholder engagement. 7.1.4 The consultation also fails to recognise the unprecedented position of having two potential Development Consent Order (DCO) schemes progressing in parallel. There has been no meaningful explanation of how the two schemes interact, how their cumulative impacts should be assessed, or how stakeholders can provide informed responses when the scope and implications of each proposal remain uncertain. 7.1.5 Most importantly, consultees have not been given a fair opportunity to consider and respond to what amounts to a fundamental change in national aviation policy. A policy shift of this magnitude requires robust public engagement and clear justification. The consultation documents do not provide sufficient information to allow informed participation or scrutiny. 7.2 How Competing DCOs will be Managed 7.2.1 The consultation fails to explain how two competing DCO proposals can progress simultaneously in a fair, transparent and accountable manner. 7.2.2 At present there appears to be no framework governing the relationship between competing promoters, despite both schemes relying on public resources, stakeholder engagement and, ultimately, passenger-generated revenues to support their development. 7.2.3 The public could reasonably question why airport users are being asked to fund multiple competing planning proposals when only one can ever proceed. Meanwhile, affected residents risk being caught in the middle, facing competing property purchase offers, differing timescales and inconsistent eligibility criteria, creating avoidable confusion, uncertainty and distress. 21 7.2.4 Particular concern arises in relation to compulsory purchase and property compensation. A property may fall within the compulsory purchase zone of one scheme but not another, or within differing property support and compensation schemes. The consultation provides no clarity regarding how such conflicts would be managed or how fairness and consistency would be maintained. 7.2.5 Without a defined governance framework, residents are left exposed to uncertainty and potentially unequal treatment. The absence of clear rules, protections and oversight mechanisms for competing developers represents a significant gap in the policy framework and undermines confidence in the overall process. 7.3 How Competing DCOs will be Assessed 7.3.1 The Council is concerned that, despite allowing for competing promoters, the draft HENPS largely assumes a single promoter and delivery model for Heathrow expansion. This is a significant weakness. Competing DCO proposals raise fundamental questions about how evidence will be assessed, how conflicting conclusions will be resolved and how decision makers should establish a trusted baseline where promoters are actively challenging one another's evidence. It is entirely plausible that different promoters could assess the same receptors and reach materially different conclusions on environmental impacts, community effects and mitigation requirements. 7.3.2 The Council is equally concerned that the draft HENPS fails to address how expansion would operate if the successful promoter is not the airport operator. Many of the key policy tests rely on airport-wide outcomes, including modal shift targets, noise management, surface access performance, community compensation and environmental mitigation. Yet the policy provides no explanation of how these obligations would be delivered, monitored or enforced where responsibility for expansion rests with one organisation and operational control with another. This creates a serious accountability gap. Without clear governance arrangements, responsibilities could become blurred, leaving communities caught between organisations and key commitments fragmented and ultimately unenforceable. 7.3.3 Removal of the preference for a single promoter may improve design quality and reduce costs. However, it is equally likely to result in a prolonged and contentious examination dominated by disputes over evidence, environmental impacts, mitigation requirements and baseline conditions. Without a clear framework for establishing agreed evidence and accountability, the process risks becoming a highly public dispute between promoters, delaying decisions and undermining confidence in both the evidence base and the planning system. 7.4 Governance, Monitoring and Enforcement 7.4.1 The draft policy fails to establish a robust governance, monitoring and enforcement framework capable of ensuring that the impacts of airport expansion are effectively managed over the long term. 22 7.4.2 Experience following the Terminal 5 approval demonstrates the consequences of inadequate oversight. While commitments were made during the planning process, there was no comprehensive statutory mechanism requiring the airport to continually improve outcomes in relation to public transport, noise, air quality, community wellbeing or local economic inclusion. As a result, airport growth has continued without corresponding obligations to ensure that surrounding communities share in the benefits or are adequately protected from the impacts. 7.4.3 The current consultation repeats many of the same weaknesses. It relies heavily on monitoring and reporting arrangements led by the airport itself, with limited independent scrutiny and few meaningful enforcement mechanisms. Reporting alone cannot be regarded as mitigation. There must be clear requirements for corrective action where agreed targets or thresholds are breached. In particular, the policy should establish: vii. Statutory targets for noise, air quality and surface access performance, supported by independent monitoring, oversight and public reporting. viii. Clear trigger points requiring mitigation or intervention where performance standards are not achieved. ix. Mandatory periodic reviews of airport impacts and mitigation measures

Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public 2026/27 Better Care Fund Section 75 Agreement Cabinet Member Lead Cabinet Member for Adults, Children, Health & Care (Cllr O'Brien) Chief Officer responsible Corporate Director of Adult Social Care & Health Report author Gary Collier – Health and Social Care Integration Manager Report classification and reason Public For General Release Relevant Committee Children, Families, Health & Care Electoral Ward All Wards 1. Executive Summary 1.1 This report seeks Cabinet approval for the Council to enter into a Section 75 agreement with the West and North London Integrated Care Board for the 2026/27 Better Care Fund (BCF). The agreement supports closer working between health and social care, enabl ing services and resources to be coordinated around shared priorities and deliver better joined -up outcomes for Hillingdon residents. 1.2 The Council is not being asked to provide new funding to the BCF. The Council’s contribution of £46,674,122 represents the value of existing Council services and funding aligned with BCF priorities. Together with the NHS contribution of £29,668,105, this g ives the 2026/27 agreement a total value of £76,342,227. 1.3 Having the pooled budget and Section 75 agreement in place is a national requirement and releases the NHS minimum BCF contribution of £27,927,934 to the Hillingdon health and care system. Of this, £9,564,653 must be paid directly to the Council to support Adult Social Care. 1.4 The BCF plan focuses on identifying people at risk of escalating needs, supporting residents to remain independent, preventing avoidable hospital admissions and helping people return home safely following a hospital stay. Its principal beneficiaries include older people, people living with long-term conditions and unpaid carers. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public 1.5 Cabinet is therefore recommended to approve the agreement for the period 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027. This will give legal effect to the partnership and financial arrangements, secure the NHS contribution and support better coordinated health and social care services for Hillingdon residents. 2. Recommendation(s) That: 1) The London Borough of Hillingdon enter into an agreement with West and North London Integrated Care Board (ICB) under section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006 for the delivery of the Better Care Fund plan as described in the report from the 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027 at a value of £76,342,227. 2) Authority be delegated to the Corporate Director of Adult Social Care and Health to amend the terms of the agreement with West and North London Integrated Care Board during 2026/27, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Adults, Children, Health and Care. 3. Reasons for decision 3.1 Entering Section 75 agreement: Using powers under the 2006 National Health Service Act, NHS England makes the release of the £27,927k element of Hillingdon’s Better Care Fund (BCF) that is under its control conditional on a pooled budget being established between the Council and West and North London Integrated Care Board (ICB) through an agreement established under section 75 (s75) of the National Health Service Act 2006 (NHS Act). The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) makes equivalent requirements using its powers under section 31 of the Local Government Act, 2003. 3.2 Local authorities and ICBs can enter s75 agreements once written notification has been received from NHS England that plans have ‘ assured’ status. Confirmation of assured status was received on 21 July 2026. 3.3 Delegated authority to amend s75 agreement in-year: The recommendation will enable the Council and ICB to respond quickly to any opportunities presented by evolving national policy, such as additional funding. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public 4. Proposal 4.1 The Better Care Fund (BCF) is a national initiative that has been in place since 2015 through which the Council and West and North London Integrated Care Board (ICB) budgets are pooled and then reallocated based on an approved plan intended to support the national policy objectives of supporting the shift from sickness to prevention and supporting people to live independently and the shift from hospital to community . The BCF is also a route through which the Government targets funding to support local health and care systems. 4.2 The policy framework that set out broad principles to be followed for the 2026/27 Better Care Fund (BCF) plan was published on the 17 February 2026 with the detailed planning requirements. 4.3 The submission date for the 2026/27 plan set out in the February 2026 planning requirements was 19 May 2026. The planning documents were submitted as drafts pending Health and Wellbeing Board (HWB) formal approval. The HWB approved the plan at its meeting on 9 June 2026. 4.4 The 2026/27 BCF plan submission comprised the following documents: • Narrative plan • Planning template 4.5 The narrative plan and key aspects of the planning template, i.e., income and expenditure, and targets for metrics and supporting rationale, can be accessed using the following link Better Care Fund | Hillingdon Council. 4.6 There are three key drivers that have influenced the development of the 2026/27 plan, and these are: • 2024/25 BCF review full- year effect - Cabinet is reminded that in 2025/26 there was a 50% reduction in the ICB’s additional contribution to the BCF resulting from a review that was undertaken across North West London in 2024/25. This resulted in part-year savings of £806k in 2025/26, with the full-year effect of £1,502k being delivered in 2026/27. • Impact of inflation – The increase in costs faced by the Council from Adult Social Care (ASC) providers exceeds the 4.4% uplift in the minimum contribution to ASC. • Hospital to Community Transformation (also known as ‘Left shift’ from acute to community)– This is the need to redirect resources from acute to community to focus on prevention rather than crisis management. 4.7 The structure of the plan has not changed from 2025/26 and remains aligned to the outcomes of the 2024/25 BCF review and the life-course approach principle reflected in the Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public draft Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy, 2026 - 2031. The schemes and intended aims are summarised below: • Scheme 1: Living Well. Aim: Maximising independence and preventing unnecessary admission to hospital and residential care - Adults of working age. • Scheme 2: Age Well. Aim: Maximising independence and preventing unnecessary admission to hospital and residential care - People aged 65 +. • Scheme 3: Active Recovery. Aim: Promoting recovery and independence after acute illness. • Scheme 4: Infrastructure Enablers. Aim: Providing effective foundations for operational service delivery. Key Changes from 2025/26 Plan 4.8 Headline changes in 2026/27 from the 2025/26 plan include: • Service funding stream contributions: Funding for the Extra Care Team Manager post has been moved from the NHS minimum contribution to Adult Social Care to the Local Authority Better Care Grant. A commissioning post within the NHS minimum contribution to Adult Social Care funding stream has been deleted and the remaining funding repurposed to contribute to inflationary pressures. • Strengthening the housing and homelessness support : This includes clinical support in A & E delivered through the NHS West and North London Homeless Health Enhanced Model role. This service is supported by a dedicated housing officer post whose role it is to address housing- related barriers to discharge. This was a pilot established in 2025/26 and funding is extended for 2026/27. The pos tholder is employed by the Council and sits within Housing Services. They are based within the Integrated Discharge Hub at Hillingdon Hospital to enhance opportunities for earlier involvement in discharge planning. • Technology enabled care (TEC) digitalisation : DFG funding has been included to support the digital upgrade of existing TEC supplied to residents in the community in time for the digital switchover in January 2027. • Community equipment risk share arrangements: Following the 2024/25 BCF review it was intended that the risk share would change from 71% NHS and 29% local authority in 2025/26 to a uniform 65% NHS and 35% local authority arrangement in 2026/27. A uniform 70% NHS and 30% local authority is being advocated by Directors of Adult Social Care across the boroughs in the West and North London ICB footprint and it is Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public this arrangement that officers are proposing and has been agreed by the ICB as part of the 2026/27 Hillingdon BCF plan. S75 Agreement Key Features 4.9 The s75 agreement is largely a roll forward from 2025/26; however, this section of the report summarises the main features. 4.10 Agreement duration: Subject to Cabinet approving recommendation A, the term would be 1 April 2026 until 31 March 2027. Cabinet is advised that some schemes include provision for them to continue unless terminated in accordance with the terms of the s75 a greement or superseded by a new section 75 Agreement. For example, services supporting hospital discharge reflected in Schedule 1D (Hospital Discharge Funding Arrangements) of Appendix 1. 4.11 Hosting: The practice since the inception of the BCF has been for the Council to host the pooled budget, which is the equivalent of a joint bank account. It is proposed that this continues in 2026/27. 4.12 Hospital discharge arrangements : Schedule 1D (Hospital Discharge Funding Arrangements) of the s75 agreement in Appendix 1 sets out financial arrangements supporting hospital discharge. This includes funding for short -term bed- based block contracts as well as financial arrangements for out -of-hospital services that are not bed- based. It sets out services funded from the Discharge Fund as well as other funding streams within the BCF. 4.13 Risk share: It is proposed that the established practice of both partners managing their own risks is extended to the 2026/27 plan. 4.14 Dispute resolution: The dispute provisions of the agreement have been rolled over from the agreement supporting the 2025/26 BCF plan. 4.15 Governance: The delivery of the successive iterations of Hillingdon's plans has been overseen by the Core Officer Group comprising of the ICB's Joint Borough Directors for Hillingdon, the Council’s Corporate Director for Adult Social Care and Health, HHCP’s Managing Director, and the BCF Programme Manager. The governance schedule (Schedule 2) within the s75 agreement demonstrates the interrelationship between the Core Officer Group and the Hillingdon Place governance arrangements. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public 5. Corporate implications Financial (mandatory) Y Climate Change Legal (mandatory) Y Equalities impact assessment Alternative options (mandatory) Y Workforce Risk management (mandatory) Y Public Health Asset External partners Procurement & Social Value Communications Heathrow Expansion Committee comments Planning Digital 6. Financial 6.1 Cabinet is advised that there are three mandated BCF income streams in the BCF and these • NHS minimum contribution: This funding is passported to ICBs via NHS England allocations to Place determined nationally. • Local Authority Better Care Grant: This funding is paid directly to local authorities by Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). • Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG): This funding is also paid directly to local authoritie MHCLG. 6.2 There are three components to the NHS minimum contribution, and these are: • NHS minimum contribution to Adult Social Care: It is a legal requirement that these funds are passed to the local authority. • NHS minimum contribution (discharge): Although the value of this component is determined nationally it is not ring- fenced so it can legitimately be used to support admission prevention. • NHS minimum contribution to health: This funding mainly supports community health services. The only aspect of this funding being received by the Council is the ICB contribution to children’s safeguarding. 6.3 The two remaining BCF income streams are at the discretion of the ICB and the Council and are referred to as: • NHS additional contribution • LA additional contribution Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public BCF Value 2026/27 6.4 The value of the BCF for 202 6/27 as shown in table 1 below increases from £ 74,160k in 2025/26 to £76,342k in 2026/27. The expenditure tab from the template submitted to NHSE can be accessed via this link Better Care Fund - Hillingdon Council. This provides Cabinet with a detailed breakdown of investment for 2026/27 that is within the scope of the 2026/27 section 75 agreement. Table 1: Financial Contributions by Organisation 2026/27 Organisation 2025/26 2026/27 NHS 29,431,059 29,668,105 LBH 44,729,879 46,674,122 TOTAL 74,160,938 76,342,227 6.5 Table 2 below provides a comparison of NHS and Council contributions by funding stream in 2026/27 compared with 2025/26. Table 2: Financial Contributions by Funding Stream, 2025/27 FUNDING SOURCE FUNDING 2025/26 2026/27 Minimum NHS Contribution 27,145,109 27,927,934 Additional NHS Contribution 2,285,950 1,740,171 NHS TOTAL 29,431,059 29,668,105 Minimum LBH Contribution 15,554,754 15,554,754 Additional LBH Contribution 29,175,125 31,119,368 LBH TOTAL 44,729,879 46,674,122 TOTAL BCF VALUE 74,160,938 76,342,227 6.6 Table 3 below provides a comparison in value of the mandated BCF income streams in 2025/26 and 2026/27. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public Table 3: BCF Minimum Contributions Summary 2025/27 Funding Breakdown 2025/26 2026/27 NHS MINIMUM CONTRIBUTION BREAKDOWN Minimum to Adult Social Care 9,157,453 9,564,653 Minimum to Health 15,396,775 15,718,297 Minimum Discharge 2,590,881 2,644,984 TOTAL 27,145,109 27,927,934 LBH MINIMUM CONTRIBUTION BREAKDOWN Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) 6,341,993 6,341,993 Local Authority Better Care Grant 9,212,761 9,212,761 TOTAL 15,554,754 15,554,754 MINIMUM BCF VALUE 42,699,863 43,482,688 6.7 Table 4 below summarises the Council and NHS funding contributions for the 2026/27 plan by scheme. The ICB’s contribution to children’s safeguarding has been included with the Live Well scheme for the purposes of this report. Table 4: Funding Breakdown by Scheme, 2026/27 Scheme NHS LBH TOTAL 1. Live Well 2,138,960 11,973,563 14,112,523 2. Age Well 11,576,184 32,926,357 44,502,541 3. Active Recovery 15,494,965 1,658,502 17,153,467 4. Infrastructure Enablers 457,996 115,700 573,696 TOTAL 29,668,105 46,674,122 76,342,227 Summary of Financial Changes 6.8 Additional LBH Contribution: The £1,944k increase in the Council’s additional contribution is attributable to the underspend in the 2025/26 DFG allocation. It is a national BCF requirement that underspends from 2025/26 be carried forward into 2026/27 and be considered as additional voluntary cont ribution for the organisation initially receiving the funds, i.e., the ICB for the NHS minimum contribution and the Council for the LA Better Care Grant and DFGs. 6.9 NHS Minimum Contribution to Adult Social Care: As stated in paragraph 4.8, the salary for the Extra Care Team Manager post (£77.7k) has been moved to the LA Better Care Grant and the commissioning infrastructure post (£87.4k) has been deleted. The funding from post posts has been directed towards addressing inflationary pressure on residential placements for 65 + population. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public 6.10 NHS Additional Contribution to Adult Social Care (Capitalisation ): There are four additional service areas being funded through this route in 2026/27 and these are: • Services to carers (£20.5k) – This is supplementing the ‘service to carers (including respite)’ spend included in the NHS minimum contribution to Adult Social Care and is intended to contribute to inflationary pressures. • Bridging Care Service (£566.2k) – This is complementing funding from the NHS minimum contribution (discharge) to expedite discharge of people who need care from hospital back to their own homes at the earliest opportunity. • Self-funder information, advice and guidance pilot (£36.6k) – This is supporting the pilot established in 2025/26 intended to reduce delays in hospital of people who require a care home placement but are self -funders. The intended outcome is to provide access to timely information that enables residents and their families to make informed decisions earlier. • Diagnostics (£33.6k) – The funding is a contribution to the cost of this preventative service that includes mobile x-ray provision. Local Authority Better Care Grant 6.11 The grant conditions for the Local Authority Better Care Grant are that it must be used to: • Meet adult social care needs. • Reduce pressures on the NHS, including supporting more people to be discharged from hospital when they are ready (including supporting the principles of ‘Discharge to Assess’); and/or • Ensure that the local social care provider market is supported. 6.12 In 2026/27 £1,658,502 of this grant will be used to support discharge as illustrated in table 5. The remaining £7,554,259 will support the care market. This includes funding commissioning capacity to ensure greater effectiveness in delivering the Council’s responsibilities under section 5 of the Care Act, 2014, which was identified as an area for development during the assurance process undertaken by the Care Quality Commission in 2024. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public Table 5: Local Authority Better Care Grant (Discharge) Spend 2026/27 Spend Item 2026/27 Allocation £1,658,502 Discharge-related placements 908,608 Discharge-related homecare 432,685 Reablement 96,000 Block nursing dementia step-down 88,316 Deep clean & house clearance contract 16,000 Social Work 7-day Discharge 59,561 Additional Brokerage Capacity 57,332 TOTAL 1,658,502 ICB Discharge Fund Roll Forward 6.13 Table 6 summaries the funding rolled forward from 2025/26 and its intended use in 2026/27: Table 6: 2025/26 ICB Discharge Fund Carry Forward Service Provider Cost (£s) Diagnostics Confederation 19,000 TOTAL 19,000 7. L egal 7.1 The Council has the power to enter into partnership arrangements with NHS Bodies pursuant to Section 75 of the National Health Services Act for the exercise of prescribed health - related and local authority functions. Such arrangements may include the establishment and operation of pooled funds, lead commissioning arrangements and the integrated provision of services. 7.2 The proposed Section 75 Agreement provides the legal framework for the pooling of budgets and commissioning and delivery of the BCF arrangements. The Agreement must be completed in accordance with the Council’s constitution and Standing orders. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public 7.3 Legal services confirm there are no legal impediments in entering into the agreement with West and North London ICB for the delivery of the BCF Plan 2026/2027. 8. Alternative options 8.1 The alternative options considered by officers are set out in table 7 below. Table 7: Alternative Options Considered Alternative Options Rationale for rejecting option Option A: Extend the agreement to cover multiple years. Although there are unlikely to be major changes to the BCF before 2028/29, this option was rejected as clarity about plans for 2027/28 is not expected before the autumn of 2026. Do nothing Both options were rejected because they would breach national BCF conditions, which could impact on access to funding used to support the independence of residents, avoid hospital admission and expedite hospital discharge. Cease activity 9. Risk management 9.1 The potential risks associated with the recommendations are addressed in table 8 below. Table 8: Risk Management Risk Mitigation The Council could be negatively impacted by NHS overspends. Schedule 3 of Appendix 1 makes provision for both the Council and the ICB managing their own risks, which reduces the potential exposure of each organisation. There are specific arrangements concerning community equipment costs, i.e., 70% NHS and 30% Council. 10. Other implications 10.1 NIL Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public 11. Consultation & engagement 11.1 The ICB has been consulted in the drafting of this report. The HHCP Finance and Performance Committee considered the provisions of the section 75 agreement at its meeting on 3 September 2026. 12. Consultation & engagement 12.1 Subject to Cabinet’s decisions, these decisions will be implemented as soon as possible subject to the scrutiny call-in period. List of appendices attached Appendix 1 – Better Care Fund 2026-27 Section 75 Agreement List of Background Papers Better Care Fund framework 2026 to 2027 - GOV.UK Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public Appendix 1 Dated: day of 2026 London Borough of Hillingdon and NHS West and North London Integrated Care Board FRAMEWORK PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 75 NHS ACT 2006 RELATING TO THE COMMISSIONING OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE SERVICES UNDER THE BETTER CARE FUND Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public CONTENTS Item Page PARTIES BACKGROUND 1. DEFINED TERMS AND INTERPRETATION 2. TERM 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES 4. PARTNERSHIP FLEXIBILITIES 5. FUNCTIONS 6. COMMISSIONING ARRANGEMENTS 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF A POOLED FUND 8. POOLED FUND MANAGEMENT 9. NON-POOLED FUNDS 10. FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS 11. NON-FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS 12. RISK SHARE ARRANGEMENTS, OVERSPENDS AND UNDERSPENDS 13. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 14. VAT 15. AUDIT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS 16. LIABILITIES AND INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY 17. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND SERVICE 18. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 19. GOVERNANCE 20. REVIEW 21. COMPLAINTS 22. TERMINATION AND DEFAULT 23. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 24. FORCE MAJEURE 25. CONFIDENTIALITY 26. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS 27. OMBUDSMEN AND INVESTIGATIONS BY REGULATORY BODIES 28. DATA PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SHARING 29. NOTICES 30. VARIATION 31. CHANGE IN LAW 32. WAIVER 33. SEVERANCE 34. ASSIGNMENT AND SUB-CONTRACTING 35. EXCLUSION OF PARTNERSHIP AND AGENCY Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public 36 THIRD PARTY RIGHTS 37. ENTIRE AGREEMENT 38. COUNTERPARTS 39. GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS SCHEDULE 1 - SCHEME DESCRIPTIONS SCHEDULE 1A - FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS SUMMARY AND BREAKDOWN • ANNEX A – FUNDING BREAKDOWN • ANNEX B – SUMMARY OF NHS FUNDING RETAINED BY THE COUNCIL, 2026/27 SCHEDULE 1B - OPERATION OF THE COMMUNITY EQUIPMENT SERVICE • ANNEX A - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA • ANNEX B – OPERATIONAL ADVISORY GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE SCHEDULE 1C - OPERATION OF THE PERSONAL HEALTH BUDGETS SERVICE • ANNEX A - PERSONAL HEALTH BUDGET PATHWAY TO DIRECT PAYMENTS SCHEDULE 1D – OPERATION OF HOSPITAL DISCHARGE ARRANGEMENTS • ANNEX A - DISCHARGE FUND SPENDING PLAN, 2026/27 SCHEDULE 2 - GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS SCHEDULE 3 - RISK SHARE ARRANGEMENTS, OVERSPENDS AND UNDERSPENDS SCHEDULE 4 - CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public THIS AGREEMENT is made on day of 2026 PARTIES (1) London Borough of Hillingdon of Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW (the "Council") (2) NHS West and North London (the "ICB") of 15 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5JD each a “Partner” and together the “Partners”. BACKGROUND (A) The Council has responsibility for commissioning and/or providing social care services on behalf of the population of the borough of Hillingdon. (B) The ICB has the responsibility for commissioning health services pursuant to the 2006 Act in the borough of Hillingdon. (C) The Better Care Fund has been established by the Government to provide funds to local areas to support the integration of health and social care and to seek to achieve the National Conditions. It is a requirement of the Better Care Fund that the ICB and the Council establish a pooled fund for this purpose. (D) Section 75 of the 2006 Act gives powers to local authorities and integrated care boards to establish and maintain pooled funds out of which payment may be made towards expenditure incurred in the exercise of prescribed local authority functions and prescribed NHS functions. (E) The purpose of this Agreement is to set out the terms on which the Partners have agreed to collaborate and to establish a framework through which the Partners can secure the future position of health and soci al care services which are the subject of this Agreement through lead or joint commissioning arrangements and through which the Partners will pool funds and/or align budgets as set out in this Agreement. (F) The aims and benefits of the Partners in entering into this Agreement are to: a) i mprove the quality and efficiency of the Services. b) m eet the National Conditions. c) make more effective use of resources through the establishment and maintenance of a pooled fund for revenue expenditure on the Services; and Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public d) ensure that by 2026/27 improvement in the health and wellbeing of all residents can be demonstrated as well as a reduction in disparities in health and care across Hillingdon’s communities. (G) The Partners are entering into this Agreement in exercise of the powers referred to in Section 75 of the 2006 Act and/or Section 65Z5 of the 2006 Act as applicable, to the extent that exercise of these powers is required for the Partners to comply with their obligations under this Agreement. 1 DEFINED TERMS AND INTERPRETATION 1.1 In this Agreement, save where the context requires otherwise, the following words, terms and expressions shall have the following meanings: 2000 Act means the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 2004 Regulations means the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. 2006 Act means the National Health Service Act 2006. 2014 Act means the Care Act, 2014, unless otherwise stated. 2018 Act means the Data Protection Act, 2018. Affected Partner means, in the context of Clause 24 , the Partner whose obligations under the Agreement have been affected by the occurrence of a Force Majeure Event Agreement means this agreement including its Schedules and Appendices. Annual Report means the annual report produced by the Partners in accordance with Clause 20 (Review). Approved Expenditure means any expenditure approved by the Partners in writing or as set out in the Scheme Specification in relation to an Individual Scheme over and above any Contract Price, Permitted Expenditure or agreed Third Party Costs. Authorised Officers means an officer of each Partner appointed to be that Partner's representative for the purpose of this Agreement. BCF Quarterly Report means the quarterly report produced by the Partners and provided to the Health and Wellbeing Board. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public Better Care Fund means the Better Care Fund as described at NHS England » Better Care Fund as relevant to the Partners. Better Care Fund Plan means the plan agreed by the Partners for the relevant Financial Year setting out the Partners’ plan for the use of the Better Care Fund as attached as Schedule 1A. Better Care Fund Requirements means any and all requirements on the ICB and the Council in relation to the Better Care Fund set out in Law and guidance published by the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England. Change in Law means the coming into effect or repeal (without re-enactment or consolidation) in England of any Law, or any amendment or variation to any Law, or any judgment of a relevant court of law which changes binding precedent in England after the Commencement Date. Commencement Date means 00:01 hrs on 1st April 2026. Confidential Information means information, data and/or material of any nature which any Partner may receive or obtain in connection with the operation of this Agreement and the Services and: (a) which comprises Personal Data or Sensitive Personal Data or which relates to any patient or his treatment or medical history. (b) the release of which is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of a Partner or the interests of a Service User respectively; or (c) which is a trade secret. Contract Price means any sum payable under a Service Contract as consideration for the provision of goods, equipment or services as required as part of the Services and which, for the avoidance of doubt, does not include any Default Liability. Controller has the meaning given to it in the Data Protection Legislation. Data Protection L egislation means all applicable data protection and privacy legislation in force from time to time in the UK including the UK GDPR, the 2018 Act and the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 and any guidance and codes of practice issues by any Regulatory or Supervisory Body from time to time. Data Subject has the meaning given to it in the Data Protection Legislation. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public Default Liability means any sum which is agreed or determined by Law or in accordance with the terms of a Service Contract to be payable by any Partner(s) as a consequence of (i) breach by any or all of the Partners of an obligation(s) in whole or in part) under a Service Contract or (ii) any act or omission of a third party for which any or all of the Partners are, under the terms of the relevant Service Contract, liable to the Provider. Financial Contributions means the financial contributions made by each Partner to a Pooled Fund or Non-Pooled Fund in any Financial Year. Financial Year means each financial year running from 1 April in any year to 31 March in the following calendar year. Force Majeure Event means one or more of the following: (a) war, civil war (whether declared or undeclared), riot or armed conflict. (b) acts of terrorism. (c) acts of God. (d) fire or flood. (e) industrial action. (f) prevention from or hindrance in obtaining raw materials, energy or other supplies; or (g) any form of contamination or virus outbreak, in each case where such event is beyond the reasonable control of the Partner claiming relief. Functions means the NHS Functions and the Health-Related Functions. Health-Related Functions means those of the health- related functions of the Council, specified in Regulation 6 of the Regulations as relevant to the commissioning of the Services and which may be further described in the relevant Scheme Specification. Host Partner means for each Pooled Fund the Partner that will host the Pooled Fund and for any Non-Pooled Fund the Partner that will host the Non-Pooled Fund. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public Health and Wellbeing Board means the Health and Wellbeing Board established by the Council pursuant to Section 194 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. ICB Statutory Duties means the duties of the ICB pursuant to Sections 14Z32 to 14Z44 of the 2006 Act. Indirect Losses means loss of profits, loss of use, loss of production, increased operating costs, loss of business, loss of business opportunity, loss of reputation or goodwill or any other consequential or indirect loss of any nature, whether arising in tort or on any other basis. Individual Scheme means one of the schemes which has been agreed by the Partners to be included within this Agreement using the powers under Section 75 of the 2006 Act as documented in a Scheme Specification. Information Commissioner has the meaning given to it in the Data Protection Legislation. Integrated Commissioning means arrangements by which both Partners commission Services in relation to an Individual Scheme on behalf of each other in exercise of both the NHS Functions and Health -Related Functions through integrated structures. Joint (Aligned) Commissioning means a mechanism by which the Partners jointly commission a Service. For the avoidance of doubt, a joint (aligned) commissioning arrangement does not involve the delegation of any functions pursuant to Section 75 of the 2006 Act. Law means: (a) any statute or proclamation or any delegated or subordinate legislation. (b) any enforceable community right within the meaning of Section 2(1) European Communities Act 1972. (c) any guidance, direction or determination with which the Partner(s) or relevant third party (as applicable) are bound to comply to the extent that the same are published and publicly available or the existence or contents of them have been notified to the Partner(s) or relevant third party (as applicable); and (d) any judgment of a relevant court of law which is a binding precedent in England. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public Lead Commissioning Arrangements means the arrangements by which one Partner commissions Services in relation to an Individual Scheme on behalf of the other Partner in exercise of both the NHS Functions and the Health -Related Functions. Lead Partner means the Partner responsible for commissioning an Individual Service under a Scheme Specification. Losses means all damage, loss, liabilities, claims, actions, costs, expenses (including the cost of legal and/or professional services), proceedings, demands and charges whether arising under statute, contract or at common law but excluding Indirect Losses and "Loss" shall be interpreted accordingly. Month means a calendar month. National Conditions mean the national conditions as set out in the National Guidance as are amended or replaced from time to time. National Guidance means any and all guidance in relation to the Better Care Fund as issued from to time to time by NHS England, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Local Government Association either collectively or separately. NHS Functions means those of the NHS functions listed in Regulation 5 of the Regulations as are exercisable by the ICB as are relevant to the commissioning of the Services and which may be further des cribed in each Scheme Specification. NHS Standard Contract means the contract published by NHS England which must be used by the ICB when commissioning clinical services. Non-Pooled Fund means the budget detailing the financial contributions of the Partners which are not included in a Pooled Fund in respect of a particular Service as set out in the relevant Scheme Specification. Non-Recurrent Payments means funding provided by a Partner to a Pooled Fund in addition to the Financial Contributions pursuant to arrangements agreed in accordance with Clause 8.4. Overspend means any expenditure from a Pooled Fund or Non-Pooled Fund in a Financial Year which exceeds the Financial Contributions for that Financial Year. Partner means each of the ICB and the Council, and references to " Partners" shall be construed accordingly. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public Partnership Board means the partnership board responsible for review of performance and oversight of this Agreement as set out in Clause 19.2 and Schedule 2, where it is described as the ‘Core Officer Group’. Partnership Board Quarterly Reports means the reports that the Pooled Fund Manager shall produce and provide to the Partnership Board on a Quarterly basis. Permitted Budget means in relation to a Service where the Council is the Provider, the budget that the Partners have set in relation to the particular Service. Permitted Expenditure has the meaning given in Clause 7.4. Personal Data has the meaning given to it in the Data Protection Legislation. Personal Data Breach has the meaning given to it in the Data Protection Legislation. Pooled Fund means any pooled fund established and maintained by the Partners as a pooled fund in accordance with the Regulations. Pooled Fund Manager means such officer of the Host Partner which includes a Section 113 Officer for the relevant Pooled Fund as nominated by the Host Partner from time to time to manage the Pooled Fund in accordance with Clause 8. Processing has the meaning given to it in the Data Protection Legislation, and the terms “Process” and “Processed” shall be construed accordingly. Processor has the meaning given to it in the Data Protection Legislation. Provider means a provider of any Services commissioned under the arrangements set out in this Agreement, including the Council where the Council is a provider of any Services. Quarter means each of the following periods in a Financial Year: 1 April to 30 June 1 July to 30 September 1 October to 31 December 1 January to 31 March Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public and "Quarterly" shall be interpreted accordingly. Regulations means the means the NHS Bodies and Local Authorities Partnership Arrangements Regulations 2000 No 617 (as amended from time to time). Regulatory or Supervisory Body means any statutory or other body having authority to issue guidance, standards or recommendations with which the relevant Partner must comply or to which it must have regard and includes the Information Commissioner. Residents mean people who live within the geographical boundaries of the London Borough of Hillingdon. Scheme means Individual Scheme as illustrated below. • Scheme 1: Live Well • Scheme 2: Age Well • Scheme 3: Active Recovery • Scheme 4: Infrastructure Enablers Scheme Specification (or desc ription) means a specification setting out the arrangements for an Individual Scheme agreed by the Partners to be commissioned under this Agreement as outlined in Schedule 1. Section 117 (s117) refers to the duties on local authorities and ICBs to provide aftercare to people previously detained under section 3 of the 1983 Act. Services means such health and social care services as agreed from time to time by the Partners as commissioned under the a rrangements set out in this Agreement and more specifically defined in each Scheme Specification. Service Contract means an agreement entered into by one or more of the Partners in exercise of its obligations under this Agreement to secure the provision of the Services in accordance with the relevant Individual Scheme. Service Provider means a provider of Services under a Service Contract with one or both Partners. Service Users means those individuals for whom the Partners have a responsibility to commission the Services. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public Special Category Personal Data means Personal Data that falls within the scope of special categories of Personal Data specified in Article 9 of the UK GDPR. Third Party Costs means all such third -party costs (including legal and other professional fees) in respect of each Individual Scheme as a Partner reasonably and properly incurs in the proper performance of its obligations under this Agreement and as agreed by the Partnership Board. UK GDPR has the meaning given to it in section 3(10) (as supplemented by section 205(4)) of the Data Protection Act 2018. Underspend means any expenditure from the Pooled Fund in a Financial Year which is less than the aggregate value of the Financial Contributions for that Financial Year. Working Day means 8.00am to 6.00pm on any day except Saturday, Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday (in England) under the Banking & Financial Dealings Act 1971. 1.2 In this Agreement, all references to any statute or statutory provision shall be deemed to include references to any statute or statutory provision which amends, extends, consolidates or replaces the same and shall include any orders, regulations, codes of practice, instruments or other subordinate legislation made thereunder and any conditions attaching thereto. W here relevant, references to English statutes and statutory provisions shall be construed as references also to equivalent statutes, statutory provisions and rules of law in other jurisdictions. 1.3 Any headings to Clauses, together with the front cover and the index are for convenience only and shall not affect the meaning of this Agreement. Unless the contrary is stated, references to Clauses and Schedules shall mean the clauses and schedules of this Agreement. 1.4 Any reference to the Partners shall include their respective statutory successors, employees and agents. 1.5 In the event of a conflict, the conditions set out in the Clauses to this Agreement shall take priority over the Schedules. 1.6 Where a term of this Agreement provides for a list of items following the word "including" or " includes", then such list is not to be interpreted as being an exhaustive list. 1.7 In this Agreement, words importing any particular gender include all other genders, and the term "person" includes any individual, partnership, firm, trust, Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public body corporate, government, governmental body, trust, agency, unincorporated body of persons or association and a reference to a person includes a reference to that person's successors and permitted assigns. 1.8 In this Agreement, words importing the singular only shall include the plural and vice versa. 1.9 In this Agreement, "staff" and "employees" shall have the same meaning and shall include reference to any full or part time employee or officer, director, manager and agent. 1.10 Subject to the contrary being stated expressly or implied from the context in these terms and conditions, all communication between the Partners shall be in writing. 1.11 Unless expressly stated otherwise, all monetary amounts are expressed in pounds sterling but if pounds sterling is replaced as legal tender in the United Kingdom by a different currency, then all monetary amounts shall be converted into such other currency at the rate prevailing on the date such other currency first became legal tender in the United Kingdom. 1.12 All references to the Agreement include (subject to all relevant approvals) a reference to the Agreement as amended, supplemented, substituted, novated or assigned from time to time. 2 TERM 2.1 This Agreement shall come into force on the Commencement Date. 2.2 This Agreement shall continue until 31 March 2027 unless it is terminated in accordance with Clause 22. 2.3 The duration of the arrangements for each Individual Scheme shall be as set out in the relevant Scheme Specification or if not set out, for the duration of this Agreement as described in clause 2.2, or unless terminated earlier by the Partners in accordance with Clause 22.3. 3 GENERAL PRINCIPLES 3.1 Nothing in this Agreement shall affect: 3.1.1 the liabilities of the Partners to each other or to any third parties for the exercise of their respective functions and obligations (including the Functions); or Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public 3.1.2 any power or duty to recover charges for the provision of any services (including the Services) in the exercise of any local authority function. 3.2 The Partners agree to: 3.2.1 treat each other with respect and an equality of esteem. 3.2.2 be open with information about the performance and financial status of each; and 3.2.3 provide early information and notice about relevant problems. 3.3 For the avoidance of doubt, the aims and outcomes relating to an Individual Scheme may be set out in the relevant Scheme Specification. 4 PARTNERSHIP FLEXIBILITIES 4.1 This Agreement sets out the mechanism through which the Partners will work together to commission the S ervices. This may include one or more of the following commissioning mechanisms: 4.1.1 Lead Commissioning Arrangements. 4.1.2 Integrated Commissioning. 4.1.3 Joint (Aligned) Commissioning; and/or 4.1.4 the establishment of one or more Pooled Funds, in relation to Individual Schemes (the "Flexibilities"). 4.2 Where there are Lead Commissioning Arrangements and the ICB is Lead Partner the Council delegates to the ICB and the ICB agrees to exercise, on the Council's behalf, the Health-related Functions to the extent necessary for the purpose of performing its obligations under this Agreement in conjunction with the NHS Functions. 4.3 Where there are Lead Commissioning Arrangements and the Council is Lead Partner, the ICB delegates to the Council and the Council agrees to exercise on the ICB's behalf the NHS Functions to the extent necessary for the purpose of performing its obligations under this Agreement in conjunction with the Health - related Functions. 4.4 Where the powers of a Partner to delegate any of its statutory powers or functions are restricted, such limitations will automatically be deemed to apply to the Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public relevant Scheme Specification, and the Partners shall agree arrangements designed to achieve the greatest degree of delegation to the other Partner necessary for the purposes of this Agreement which is consistent with the statutory constraints. 5 FUNCTIONS 5.1 The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a framework through which the Partners can secure the provision of health and social care services in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 5.2 This Agreement shall include such Functions as shall be agreed from time to time by the Partners as are necessary to commission the Services in accordance with their obligations under this Agreement. 5.3 The Scheme Specifications for the Individual Schemes included as part of this Agreement at the Commencement Date are set out in Schedule 1 Part 2. 5.4 Where the Partners wish to add a new Individual Scheme to this Agreement a Scheme Specification for each Individual S cheme shall be completed and approved by each Partner in accordance with the variation procedure set out in Clause 30 (Variations). Each new Scheme Specification shall be substantially in the form set out in Schedule 1 Part 1. 5.5 The Partners shall not enter into a Scheme Specification in respect of an Individual Scheme unless they are satisfied that the Individual S cheme in question will improve health and well-being in accordance with this Agreement. 5.6 For the purposes of implementing schemes in Schedule 1, the ICB delegates to the Council its functions below: 5.6.1 section 3 (1)(b) of the 2006 Act of arranging for the provision of other accommodation for the purpose of any service provided under the 2006 Act. 5.6.2 section 3 (1)(e) of the 2006 Act of arranging for the provision of such other services or facilities for the prevention of illness, the care of persons suffering from illness, and the aftercare of persons who have suffered from illness as are appropriate as part of the health service. 5.7 Table 1 below shall describe the form that the delegation provided for in Clause 5.6 above shall take. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public Table 1: Summary of Form of Delegated Functions: ICB to Council Scheme Functions Delegated Schemes 1, 2, and 3 Delegation by the ICB to the Council to enter contractual arrangements with homecare providers on behalf of the ICB. Delegation by the ICB to the Council to manage the process for people registered with Hillingdon GPs to access Personal Health Budgets as described in Schedule 1C of this Agreement. Delegation by the ICB to the Council to commission hospital admission prevention and discharge services on behalf of the ICB, where the intention is to meet the needs of a range of residents. Delegation by the ICB to the Council to commission hospital admission prevention and discharge services on behalf of the ICB to address the needs of individual Service Users where this is incidental or ancillary to the provision of care and support under t he 2014 Act and it is necessary to do so to effectively meet the needs of the Service User. This delegation shall be subject to the provisions of Clause 5.8. Scheme 2 Delegation by the ICB to the Council to act as lead commissioner on behalf of the ICB for the community equipment service as described in Schedule 1B. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public Delegation by the ICB to the Council authority to undertake assessments and prescriptions for community equipment to meet health needs. Scheme 3 Delegation by the ICB to the Council to procure the provision of beds for use as intermediate care or short- term placements on behalf of the ICB as described in Schedule 1D of this Agreement. Delegation by the ICB to the Council authority to act as lead commissioner on behalf of the ICB for the Bridging Care Service described in Schedule 1D. Scheme 4 None 5.8 For the purposes of table 1 linked with Clause 5.7 , examples of permissible incidental or ancillary services that can be delegated to the Council by the ICB under Section 22 (4) of the 2014 Act are illustrated in table 2 to this Clause 5.8. Table 2: Examples of Permissible Tasks Delegated to the Council by the ICB Task Permissibility Justification Prompting or assisting with medication. Supports daily living; does not require clinical judgment. Basic catheter/stoma care. Where stable and routine; not complex nursing. Routine monitoring food/fluid intake. Supports nutrition/hydration as part of care. Help with therapeutic exercises prescribed by physiotherapist. Supports mobility and independence. Emotional reassurance and support for mental health. Non-clinical and part of wellbeing outcomes. Skin care (e.g. applying cream to prevent pressure sores). Part of personal care and prevention. 5.8.1 References to ‘incidental or ancillary’ services reflected in Clauses 5.7 and 5.8 shall exclude: Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public a) Administering injections or controlled drugs. b) Changing complex dressings or managing active wounds. c) Ongoing nursing care requiring professional judgment. d) Provision of rehabilitation by registered therapists. e) Treatment for chronic or acute medical conditions. 5.9 For the purposes of implementing the Schemes as described in Schedule 1 the Council delegates its functions under section 2 (1) of the Care Act, 2014, to the ICB as follows: 5.9.1 Arrangements for the provision of services, facilities or resources, or take other steps that will: a) Contribute towards preventing or delaying the development by adults in its area of needs for care and support. b) Contribute towards preventing or delaying the development by carers in its area of needs for support. c) Reduce the needs for care and support of adults in its area. d) Reduce the needs for support of carers in its area. 5.10 Table 3 below shall describe the form that the delegation provided for in Clause 5.9 shall take. Table 3: Summary of Form of Delegated Functions: Council to ICB Scheme Functions Delegated Scheme 1 None Scheme 2 Delegation to the ICB by the Council authority to undertake assessment and prescription of community equipment to meet social care needs. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public Scheme 3 None Scheme 4 None 5.11 The Partners agree that the delegation of functions under this Clause 5 will: 5.12.1 Likely lead to an improvement in the way in which these functions are discharged; and 5.12.2 Will improve health and wellbeing. 6 COMMISSIONING ARRANGEMENTS 6.1 For the duration of the Term each Partner shall retain Lead Commissioner responsibility for the Services within the Schemes described in Schedule 1 for which they had Lead Commissioner responsibility prior to the Commencement Date. This shall include performance management and contract monitoring of all relevant Service Contracts and payment of the Provider of a Services Contract. 6.2 Both Partners shall be responsible for compliance with and making payments of all sums due to a Provider pursuant to the terms of each Service Contract. 6.3 Both Partners shall work in cooperation and endeavour to ensure that the relevant Services as set out in each Scheme Description and Specification are commissioned within each Partners Financial Contribution in respect of that Service in each Financial Year. 6.4 Each Partner shall keep the other Partner, and the Partnership Board regularly informed of the effectiveness of the arrangements including the Better Care Fund and any Overspend or Underspend in the Pooled Fund. 6.5 The Partnership Board will report back to the Health and Wellbeing Board as required by its Terms of Reference. 6.6 Commissioning arrangements in respect of Schedule 1A of this Agreement shall be as described in that Schedule. 7 ESTABLISHMENT OF A POOLED FUND 7.1 In exercise of their respective powers under Section 75 of the 2006 Act, the Partners have agreed to establish and maintain a Pooled Fund for revenue and capital expenditure as set out in Schedules 1A to 1D inclusive. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public 7.2 At the Commencement Date there shall be a single Pooled Fund in respect of this Agreement. 7.3 The Pooled Fund shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 7.4 Subject to Clause 7.5, it is agreed that the monies held in the Pooled Fund may only be expended on the following: 7.4.1 the Contract Price. 7.4.2 where the Council is to be the Provider, the Permitted Budget. 7.4.3 Third Party Cos ts where these are set out in the relevant Scheme Specification or as otherwise agreed in advance in writing by the Partnership Board; and 7.4.4 Approved Expenditure as set out in the relevant Scheme Specification or as otherwise agreed in advance in writing by the Partnership Board, ("Permitted Expenditure"). 7.5 The Partners may only depart from the definition of Permitted Expenditure to include or exclude other revenue expenditure with the express written agreement of the Partnership Board. 7.6 For the avoidance of doubt, monies held in the Pooled Fund may not be expended on Default Liabilities unless this is agreed by all Partners in accordance with Clause 7.5. 7.7 Pursuant to this Agreement, the Partners agree to appoint a Host Partner for each of the Pooled Funds set out in the Scheme Specifications. The Host Partner shall be the Partner responsible for: 7.7.1 holding all monies contributed to the Pooled Fund on behalf of itself and the other Partners. 7.7.2 providing the financial administrative systems for the Pooled Fund. 7.7.3 appointing the Pooled Fund Manager; and 7.7.4 ensuring that the Pooled Fund Manager complies with their obligations under this Agreement. 8 POOLED FUND MANAGEMENT Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 – Public 8.1 When introducing a Pooled Fund, the Partners shall agree which officer of the Host Partner shall act as the Pooled Fund Manager for the purposes of Regulation 7(4) of the Regulations. 8.2 The Pooled Fund Manager for each Pooled Fund shall have the following duties and responsibilities: 8.2.1 the day-to-day operation and management of the Pooled Fund. 8.2.2 ensuring that all expenditure from the Pooled Fund is in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and the relevant Scheme Specification. 8.2.3 maintaining an overview of all joint financial issues affecting the Partners in relation to the Services and the Pooled Fund. 8.2.4 ensuring that full and proper records for accounting purposes are kept in respect of the Pooled Fund. 8.2.5 reporting to the Partnership Board as required by this Agreement and by the Partnership Board. 8.2.6 ensuring action is taken to manage any projected under or overspends relating to the Pooled Fund in accordance with this Agreement. 8.2.7 preparing and submitting to the Partnership Board Quarterly R eports (or more frequent reports if required by the Partnership Board) and an annual return about the income and expenditure from the Pooled Fund together with such other information as may be required by the Partners and the Partnership Board to monitor t he effectiveness of the Pooled Fund and to enable the Partners to complete their own financial accounts and returns. The Partners agree to provide all necessary information to the Pooled Fund Manager in time for the reporting requirements to be met includi ng (without limitation) comply with any reporting requirements as may be required by relevant National Guidance; and 8.2.8 preparing and submitting reports to the Health and Wellbeing Board as may be required by it and any relevant National Guidance including (without l imitation) supplying Quarterly R eports referred to in Clause 8.2.7 above to the Health and Wellbeing Board. 8.3 In carrying out their responsibilities as provided under Clause 8. 2 the Pooled Fund Manager shall:

Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Period 4 (July) 2026 Financial Monitoring Report 2026/27 Cabinet Member Lead Cabinet Member for Finance (Cllr Lavery) Chief Officer responsible Corporate Director of Finance (s151 Officer) Report author Matt Davis – Director Strategic & Operational Finance Report classification and reason Public For General Release Relevant Committee Audit, Finance & Performance (Scrutiny) Electoral Ward N/A 1. Executive Summary The General Fund Revenue monitoring position is showing a forecast gross underspend of £4.069m - a £9 0k variance against that determined at the end of Period 3, and an improvement of £4.653m against the previously reported Period 2 forecast. Against this forecast underspend, net risks and opportunities of £2. 781m have been identified that could reduce the gross forecast underspend to £1.288m should they all materialise. In setting the General Fund revenue budget, £21.685m of new savings were identified to be achieved in the year and together with £5.405m of savings not fully delivered from 2025/26 combine to a total of £27.090m in savings being tracked for in-year delivery. The Council’s Savings Tracker has identified 77.2% by value of those savings to be either Blue (48.2% Delivered) or Green ( 29.0% On Track) – collectively up from 60% at the end of Period 2 and 63% at the end of Period 3. Of the remainder, 2 2.8% are classed as Amber (at risk of delay ), 6.2% Red (likely to be delayed until next year), and 2.2 % Purple (not likely to be achieved). In setting the 2026/27 Budget in February 2026, a £10m Risk and Contingency provision was created to protect General Reserves should unforeseen pressures emerge in year. Currently forecasting a net in-year underspend (even after taking into account further risks and opportunities). The Housing Revenue Account R evenue monitoring position is forecasting a net nil variance against budget, albeit derived from a £1.3m pressure on operating costs against a £2.6m forecast underspend on capital financing costs – the net surplus of £1.3m then forecast to be used to repay outstanding debt. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public The General Fund C apital programme is requesting approval for three changes to the previously approved budget - an allocation of £131k from the £2.0m General Capital Contingency to undertake works to the Ruislip Scout Group hut; acceptance of an £88k grant to undertake capital works to family hubs; and Department for Education (DfE) funding of £10.710m being provided in place of the previously planned special free school. Excluding the in-principle approval from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government [MHCLG] to allow the Council to capitalise £61.388m of revenue costs as part of its Exceptional Financial Support, s hould Cabinet approve the proposed release of £131k Contingency for the Scout Hut works , the revised General Fund capital budget would be £126.251m, of which £66.531m (53%) is funded from prudential borrowing. The latest forecast spend is £94.506m – a £31.745m underspend (£10.804m of which relates to prudential borrowing). The reduction in 2026/27 forecast spend is offset by those underspends being slipped to future years (£23.695m in 2027/28 and £2.792m slipping to 2028/29). Most prominent of the slippage is: Investment in Care Home Capacity £7.512m; Disabled Facility Grants £4.439m; and School Building Condition Works £10.805m. The requests to accept the two other capital grants (£269.3k over three years for the Best Start in Life and £10.710m for the replaced Special School provision) would increase the Councils capital spend budgets but are fully financed by grant. The Housing Revenue Account Capital programme is forecasting a net £ 3.835m underspend against a total approved budget of £155.938 m – this comprises a £2.7m overspend (predominantly phases 1 and 1a Hayes Regeneration) offset by slippage of £6.5m (Haydon Drive / Housing Supply Block purchases). 2. Recommendation(s) That Cabinet: Revenue Monitoring 1. Note the forecast revenue underspend for the General Fund of £4.069m (a £1.288m underspend should all currently identified risks and opportunities materialise) and forecast for the Housing Revenue Account of a net nil variance to budget (after additional contribution to repayment of debt of £1.3m); 2. Approve the budget virement request to reflect a £40k additional grant from MOPAC / Metropolitan Police with regard to the Local Safeguarding Partnerships Board and Safeguarding Adults Board and offset by corresponding increases in these approved budgets. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public 3. Accept a grant of £163,419 from NHS West and North London Integrated Care Board to fund infrastructure to support the continued implementation of Population Health Management, including staffing posts. 4. Note the continued progress in delivery of approved savings for the General Fund in 2026/27; 5. Approve acceptance of £262,350 of ringfenced grant funding from the Department for Education [DfE] to enable the London Borough of Hillingdon to participate in the Children's Social Care Improvement Teams [CIT] Programme and provide sector -led improvement support to other local authorities requiring intervention or targeted improvement support. Capital Monitoring 6. Approve the following proposed changes to the General Fund Capital budgets: i) a budget virement, releasing £131k from the capital contingency budget to create a new project budget for the Ruislip Scout Group building works and that this budget is subsequently released in order to fund the required works; ii) Accept a Department for Education (DfE) Best Start in Life Capital Grant for £88.0k in 2026/27 (and £89.8k / £91.5k in the following two years) for improvements to family hubs - the capital BSIL grant is ring fenced to be used to improve Family Hub facilities across the borough to support the delivery of the Best Start in Life programme as per the statutory requirements; and iii) Accept the Department for Education (DfE) funding of £10.710m being provided in place of the previously planned special free school and will be held as a capital grant unapplied until spent. (Note that the first request is included in the Capital Monitoring forecasts set out in this report whilst the latter two will be included after a Cabinet decision) 7. Subject to approval of the proposed changes above, note the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account capital forecast capital underspends against budget of £31.745m and £3.835m respectively. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public 3. Reasons for decision 1. Being informed of the current revenue forecast position for 2026/27 allows Cabinet and members generally to understand the financial performance of the Council’s revenue budgets which informs their understanding and decision- making over the short and medium term; 2. The approval of the budget virement to reflect increased funding from MOPAC / Metropolitan Police will align approved budgets with agreed ring-fenced grant income and allow managers to effectively control their budgets and fully utilise this grant income in delivering effective services for residents. 3. Acceptance of the PHM grant and agreement with the NHS as to its use will enable additional activity to be funded in support of resident outcomes 4. Being informed of progress in delivering the agreed savings gives Cabinet members understanding of the implementation of measures and policies agreed by them; 5. Accepting the additional grant funding will enable Hillingdon to provide peer -led improvement support to local authorities requiring intervention or targeted improvement, helping to strengthen leadership, workforce capability and service performance, while supporting the implementation of national children's social care reforms, including the Families First Partnership Programme and Enduring Relationships Strategy. Participation in the programme will further strengthen Hillingdon's position as a sector leader while contributing to improved outcomes for children and families nationally. 6. i) Approval is sought to release £131k from the general capital contingency to create a programme budget for works on a scout hut that have previous democratic approval from 2018, that due to delays, is no longer budgeted for in the capital programme, with this recommendation creating a budget for a legacy commitment; ii) Accepting this grant will allow the Council to improve family hub infrastructure and associated initiatives enabling enhanced access and engagement for families and young children; and iii) The funding will enable the Council to deliver the equivalent number of specialist places through alternative provision that better reflects local needs and priorities. It provides flexibility to create new specialist places and enhance provision within mainstream schools through adaptations to the physical environment, supporting the Council's wider SEND and inclusion objectives. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public 7. By noting the latest capital forecast expenditure for the year, Cabinet demonstrates an understanding of progress on the delivery and cost of capital schemes supporting service priorities. 4. Proposal This report informs Cabinet of progress in 2026/27 in delivering a forecast outturn for the financial year within the budgets and funding envelopes as agreed by Cabinet and Full Council in February 2026 (as amended by subsequent decisions during the year). Whilst Period 3 (June) budget monitoring was undertaken this was not formally reported to Cabinet due to there being no Cabinet held in August. This report explains the movements in forecasts from Period 2 (May) which was reported to Cabinet in July and summarises the changes in Period 3 together with the latest Period 4 position. SECTION 1 – GENERAL FUND REVENUE General Fund – Revenue 1. The General Fund Revenue monitoring position at the end of Period 4 (July 2026) is forecasting an underspend of £4.069m and consists of a £1.713m underspend across service areas and £2.356m relating to Corporate Budgets. This Period 4 monitoring position is largely unchanged from Period 3 (June 2026) of a £4.159m forecast underspend but has significantly improved on the Period 2 (May 2026) forecast position of a £0.584m overspend. The re-implementation of the Council’s budget monitoring system [EPM] and service manager engagement from Period 3 means that budget monitoring has been considerably improved and allowed more detailed challenge and validation from that period. 2. The forecast £4.069m underspend represents service managers’ and corporate directors’ best estimates of the likely outturn position but recognises that a number of uncertainties may impact on that forecast. Potential risks of £2.996m (largely relating to potential changes in the costs of homelessness support) and opportunities of £0.215m could impact that forecast. Should all these risks or opportunities materialise, the forecast underspend at year end would reduce to £1.288m. 3. The table below summarises the current forecast position at directorate level, whilst an expanded view which includes a divisional analysis within each directorate is set out in the narrative below: Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Table 1 – Period 4 General Fund Revenue Forecast 4. The trend in forecast variances above is illustrated visually in the chart below: Chart 1 – Period 4 General Fund Revenue Forecast Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public 5. Narrative relating to each directorate’s forecast is provided below: 6. Children and Young People's Services 6.1 An overall £88k underspend against budget is forecast for this directorate and is comprised of the following divisional variances: Table 2 – Children & Young People Services 6.2 A re-mapping of budgets between Children Social Care and SPQR has been made to align income and expenditure budgets with managerial responsibilities. The £222k forecast underspend relates to staffing costs and reflects difficulties in recruitment. 6.3 The £95k forecast overspend on Education and SEND includes a £62k premature retirement cost and a £52k pressure on traded income for the Music Service. 6.4 The Schools (DSG) divisional budget is reporting a £13,100k overspend, comprising a £13,400k overspend on the High Needs Block, partially offset by a £10k underspend on Central Services Schools Block and a £245k underspend on the Early Years Block. The Government’s proposed changes to future SEND support has seen a significant rise in parents applying for support before the new arrangements come into place. This adverse variance is charged to an unusable reserve under a statutory override by government and is thus shown above as a net nil impact on usable reserves. 6.5 The change in forecast variance on SPQR reflects the re-mapping of budget responsibilities mentioned in paragraph 6.2 and the remaining £40k adverse variance relates to agency costs for cover for staff on maternity leave. 6.6 Revenue grant funding of £262,350 has been offered from the Department for Education [DfE] to Hillingdon Council for the current financial year to support Hillingdon's role as a Children's Social Care Improvement Team (CIT) provider. The funding will enable Hillingdon to provide peer-led improvement support to local authorities requiring intervention or targeted improvement, helping to strengthen Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public leadership, workforce capability and service performance, while supporting the implementation of national children's social care reforms, including the Families First Partnership Programme and Enduring Relationships Strategy. Participation in the programme will further strengthen Hillingdon's position as a sector leader while contributing to improved outcomes for children and families nationally. 6.7 The current funding relates to 2026/27 and is linked to the delivery of CIT support on behalf of the DfE. Future funding will depend on the number of authorities Hillingdon is matched to support and the agreed scope of that support. The DfE has indicated that the CIT programme is intended to provide longer-term, multi-year support to local authorities, with future allocations subject to annual grant agreements and approved delivery plans. 6.8 Subject to approval by Cabinet, this conditional funding will be spent on additional activities as described above. . 6.9 The contribution from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime [MOPAC] and the Metropolitan Police as a contribution for Hillingdon’s statutory safeguarding partnerships will increase from £10k to £50k from 2026/27 onwards comprising £25,000 for the Local Safeguarding Children Partnership and £25,000 for the Safeguarding Adults Board. This increased funding is predicated on the Council spending additional amounts on this activity. Approval is sought to transact a budget change (virement) to both the grant income and expenditure budgets for this service. 7. Adult Services & Health 7.1 The £58k adverse forecast for this directorate represents an improvement of £821k on the previous Period 3 position and is comprised of the following divisional variances: Table 3 – Adult Services & Health Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public 7.2 The Direct Care & Business Delivery adverse variance of £941k largely relates to Passenger Transport costs exceeding budget due to the numbers of clients requiring travel. 7.3 The net forecast variance of £464k relating to ASC Placements (£4.512m adverse) and Direct Adult Services and Health (£4.049m favourable) awaits a budget adjustment of c£4.5m to realign these budgets. The net forecast variance is the result of pressures on the delivery of Telecare and AI digitisation of operational social work practices savings. The forecast assumes a part-achievement of the Telecare saving of £400k (total saving is £700k). 7.4 The Immediate Response Division forecast underspend of £945k comprises £592k due to additional health income to support hospital discharge activity; the remaining £353k favourable variance is the result of staffing underspends. 7.5 Sustained Support Service is forecasting a net £391k favourable variance, the result of staffing underspends. 7.6 The risk for this directorate relates to the timing of introducing new charges for the Telecare service which if delayed would impact on income. 7.7 An additional grant totalling £163,419 has been offered by NHS West and North London Integrated Care Board to support the continued implementation of Population Health Management [PHM], including staffing posts. Population Health Management (PHM) uses historical and current data to understand what factors are driving poor outcomes in different population groups. This informs the design of new proactive models of care that will improve the health and wellbeing of these groups and contribute to managing demand for health and social care services. The funding provides capacity to drive this work. 7.8 Approval is sought for the Council to accept the grant and enter into an agreement with NHS West and North London Integrated Care Board under section 256 of the National Health Service Act, 2006, concerning the use of this grant. Subject to approval, budget virements will be processed to gross up both income and expenditure budgets in 2026/27. This grant income is only for 26/27 and the staff funded by this grant income are on fixed term contracts which end at the end of 26/27. The ICB in 24/25 provided 3 year funding for Population Health Management; this s256 agreement secures funding for year 3 of this 3 year commitment. 8. Residents Services 8.1 The Residents Services directorate is forecasting an underspend of £2.549m at the end of Period 4 – this is a deterioration of £444k from Period 3 (although a £353k Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public improvement from Period 2). An analysis of the position by division is shown in the table below: Table 4 – Residents Services 8.2 The overall £2.549m favourable variance is primarily driven by a £3.436m favourable variance within Housing Needs and Homelessness, reflecting lower than anticipated demand for Temporary Accommodation, together with reduced expenditure on PRS Incentives. The number of households in nightly paid accommodation at the beginning of 2026/27 was 155 lower than budgeted. This reduction was predominantly driven by increased placements into settled accommodation of Chagosian housholds and the procurement of alternative leased accommodation at the end of 2025/26. There is a full year benefit in 2026/27 from this prior year activity. This is partly offset by a £1.071m adverse variance within Health and Strategic Partnership, relating to accommodation and support costs for Asylum, Afghanistan and Sudan client groups, net of additional client income and grant funding. The remaining divisions across Residents Services are forecasting a net £184k variance. 8.3 The £444k adverse movement from Month 3 is mainly due to a £436k movement within Housing Needs and Homelessness driven by increased nightly paid accommodation alongside an increase in the staffing forecast, together with a £103k adverse movement within Community Services, driven mainly by signage costs for the Winston Churchill Hall Theatre. These pressures are partially offset by a net £72k favourable movement within Health and Strategic partnership resulting from Housing Asylum Seeker Refugees. With a further £77k net adverse movement across the divisions. 8.4 The service has been subject to exceptional inflationary pressures as the result of oil price movements over the last six months. The £480k pressure within the Environment division represents those costs for both fleet operations fuel costs and Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public waste sacks. This pressure is recognised and compensated for within Corporate Budgets where a corresponding release from the inflation provision has been made. 7.5 Other potential risks include garden waste income (£300k); Parking Income (£300k); and the street lighting contract (£200k) 7.6 The remaining £1.2m relating to homelessness demand risk. Despite the reduced opening number of households in Nightly paid accommodation, there remains a risk of an underlying increase in demand for the remainder of the year. At Month 4, the number of placements in year to date had increased by 11. This compares to a budgeted reduction of 7 over the same period. The calculated risk is based on this trend continuing. Although the in-year forecast including risks remains under budget, the gap between budgeted and actual placements is reducing. 7.7 The savings Tracker for Temporary Accommodation is currently showing £2,977k as being delivered (blue)and £2,293k as remaining at risk (amber). Monthly monitoring has shown the actual numbers to date to be below that budgeted as follows: • Reduced Demand – 84 households to July below the 352 budgeted to date (£1,424k banked) • PRS Supply – 45 households to July below the budgeted 72 budgeted to date (£746k banked) • Partner Supply – 7 households to July below the budgeted (saving £101k) • Social Housing Supply – 31 households below the budgeted 84 to date (saving £476k) • Temporary Accommodation Management - £230k underspend to date 7.8 All of the above collectively total the £2,977k banked. The remainder of the savings are currently classified in the savings tracker as being amber as continued delivery in future months is reliant on existing trends continuing and as such are exposed to a degree of risk as are demand-led and to a large degree outside of the control of the Council. 9. Chief Operating Officer 9.1 The Chief Operating Officer directorate is forecasting a £108k underspend by year end – an analysis of this variance by division is given in the table below: Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Table 5 – Chief Operating Officer 9.2 Chief Operating Officer is forecasting a net favourable variance of £108k. Driven by adverse variances of £105k within Business Intelligence relating to the managed vacancy factor and staffing due to the timing of leavers from restructures, £81k on Corporate Services Management mainly due to an historic budgeted drawdown of Earmarked Reserve which has now been fully utilised. £327k within Resident Hub relates to an historic saving of £257k being delayed pending a reorganisation and an expected non-achievement of the managed vacancy factor, and £21k within Technology mainly due to contract inflation. This is offset by favourable variances of £264k within Digital Services, £165k Counter Fraud and £215k Procurement due to staff vacancies. 9.3 The £213k adverse movement from Month 3 is mainly driven by previously unallocated savings which were allocated and forecasts changed in Month 4, increased contract inflation pressures, partly offset by staff vacancies and hiring at lower spinal points. 9.4 The £125k risk relates to potential costs of addressing a high level of Subject Access Requests [SAR’s] being dealt with by the Council and the need to employ additional staff to deal with this caseload. The potential for this to be mitigated from corporate resources / provisions is being followed up. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public 10. Finance 10.1 The Finance directorate is forecasting a £545k overspend to the year end and is comprised of the following variances at divisional level: Table 6 – Finance 10.2 The Accounts, Treasury & Pensions division is forecasting a £153k overspend to the year end - £58k of which relates to a Managed Vacancy Factor [MVF] (budgeted underspend from staff turnover) which is not being achieved and £95k mainly due to additional staffing requirements to close the accounts and deliver improvements to the Council’s finance systems. 10.3 Internal Audit continues to operate below full establishment and is thus expecting to underspend £129k by year end. 10.4 Changes to the Council’s ability to charge and recover court costs within the Revenues and Benefits service account for £130k of the variance within the Service Finance division. 10.5 The Operational Finance projected overspend of £318k comprises: - Insurance £48k pressure (£108k reduced charges to schools and £6k employee costs, offset by £66k lower claims payouts); - Operational Finance service £23k underspend (employee costs); - Revenues & Benefits £179k overspend (reduced income £65k and £111k employee costs – of which £177k relates to MVF’s); and - Transactional Finance £115k adverse (of which £123k relates to MVF’s) 10.6 The opportunity for this directorate relates to potential savings arising from the retender of the Insurance contracts. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public 11. Chief Executive’s Office 11.1 The £429k forecast adverse variance projected for this directorate at the end of Period 4 represents a £103k improvement on the Period 3 forecast and a £148k improvement on the position last reported to Cabinet for Period 2. The variances within the directorate are analysed by division in the table below: Table 7 – Chief Executive’s Office 11.2 Chief Executive Office is forecasting a net adverse variance of £429k. This is driven by a £29k adverse variance within Democratic Services relating to Members now being eligible to join the LGPS Pension Scheme, £197k adverse variance within Legal due to a shortfall against the managed vacancy factor target, and agency spend relating to Data Protection, £229k adverse variance within Human Resources due to managed vacancy factor and staffing overspends – providing a fit for purpose HR team has required additional staffing resources to deal with the caseload of restructures and updating of policies. These are partly offset by a £26k favourable variance within Communications resulting from unbudgeted income and a reduction in distribution of communications costs. 11.3 The £103k favourable movement from Month 3 is mainly driven by staffing and pay awards being funded from the Corporate salary inflation provision. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public 12. Corporate Budgets 12.1 The Corporate Budgets reporting line holds those budgets that are not specific to any one service. At Period 4 they are forecast to deliver a £2.356m underspend against budget – a summary breakdown of this forecast is shown in the table below: Table 8 – Corporate Budgets 12.2 The Corporate Expenditure line projects a £3.351m underspend, predominantly the impact of lower borrowing costs resulting from delayed capital spend in 2025/26 and higher interest earnings – expected government cash funding of the DSG deficit in the Autumn being a significant element. 12.3 Corporate Funding is projecting an adverse variance of £100k, the result of the Council-funded Older Persons Council Tax discount having more residents still eligible than originally budgeted. 12.4 Corporate Income is forecasting a net £838k adverse variance – the £1.318m Children’s grant was budgeted for both here and in Children & Young People’s Services (and thus shown as a pressure here) offset by the proposed release of £480k of the inflation provision for oil price inflationary pressures in Residents Services (referred to above). 12.5 The overall forecast position for the General Fund of a £4.069m underspend still leaves the budgeted £10m risk and contingency provision intact by the year end (subject to any further changes that might materialise during the remainder of the year). Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public General Fund Revenue – Savings Tracker 13. The table below summarises the reported progress and status in delivering agreed savings for 2026/27 (including those remaining to be delivered in full from 2025/26): Table 9 – General Fund Savings Tracker 14. The value of savings fully delivered (blue) or on track for delivery (green) has increased in both Period 3 and 4 and collectively amounts to £20,913k (77%) at the end of Period 4. A visual representation of the value of savings in each category is shown in the chart opposite: Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public 15. Of the amber categorised savings, the majority relates to the Residents Services directorate and principally to initiatives to manage the costs of homelessness which form £2.293m of that total. It should be noted that the revenue monitoring position for this service is forecasting a £3.436m underspend despite these savings being at risk. Only those savings between profiled changes in household numbers and pro-rata savings to date have been included as blue, with the remaining targets for the year classified as amber at this stage as they are subject to potential impact of any future demand variations. 16. The red categorised savings totalling £1.690m are summarised as follows: - £100k Finance – Future Finance Systems savings - £139k Finance – Managed Vacancy Factor additional saving - £879k Adult Services – Reduced SEND Transport demand - £140k Adult Services – Supported Living De-Commissioning - £110k Residents Services – Out of Hours Noise Nuisance Service - £267k Residents Services – Review of Golf Delivery Model - £13k Chief Operating Officer – Business Intelligence Review - £42k – Chief Executive’s Office – Human Resources Review 17. Those classified as purple (to be written out as undeliverable) total £599k and are as shown below: - £277k Adult Services – Creation of a Care Company for temp staff - £105k Adult Services – Lease Income for Sexual Health Clinic - £217k Chief Operating Officer – Increased Managed Vacancy Factor 1% 18. Paragraphs 7.7 and 7.8 provided further detail regarding £2.293m of the Temporary Accommodation savings currently shown as at risk. 19. Full details on a project by project basis for all savings are set out in Appendix A. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public SECTION 2 – HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT 20. The Housing Revenue Account [HRA] is currently forecasting a breakeven position as summarised below: Table 10 – Housing Revenue Account – Revenue Monitoring 21. Operational Assets cover repairs, maintenance and caretaking services. An overspend of £0.2m is forecast at Period 4 mainly due to the higher cost of agency staff that are covering vacancies arising from a restructure of the service. The movement from Period 2 is due to the time taken to recruit permanent staff in a competitive employment market. 22. The Director of Housing is forecasting pressures in tenancy management staffing (£66k), B&B accommodation for decant and disrepair clients (£209k), mandatory subscriptions and regulatory fees (£33k), and cleaning contract inflation (£38k). Disrepair and decant cases are expected to reduce with higher investment in stock maintenance and structural repair works. Subscription and regulatory fees are not within the control of the Council with the latter charges announced after the budget had been set. 23. Careline contract and Hostels included in Other Service Areas are each forecasting an underspend of £0.1m. Staffing to manage the careline contract has been absorbed within housing management. Hostel supply costs are forecast to be lower, in line with demand for the service. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public 24. Shared services costs are forecast to overspend by £0.9m due to the volume, type and priority of support required to improve housing services to meet recommendations from the Housing Inspectorate. 25. Capital programme financing is forecast to benefit from higher interest income of £2.75m. Frayswater lease and Hayes Park Road had not met fire risk assessments and/or council housing standards; hence, the projects were curtailed reducing the call on HRA balances. 26. Operating surplus is forecast to increase by £1.4m which would be transferred to balances when realised at the end of the year. SECTION 3 – CAPITAL PROGRAMME GENERAL FUND CAPITAL 27. At month 4, capital programme forecast expenditure is at £94.5m against a budget of £126.3m resulting in a forecast underspend and slippage totalling to £31.7m. It should be noted that of the £94.5m currently forecast for 2026/27, schemes totalling £17.2m have not yet commenced or remain at the planning and design stages. 28. The approved budget position incorporates revisions to the original budget approved by the Council in February arising from the 2025/26 outturn. Rephasing of £39.1m identified within the General Fund capital programme was approved at the June and July cabinet meetings. The rephasing primarily was attributable to delays in the delivery of a number of schemes in 2025/26. Of this total, £23.5m relates to schemes that are fully or partially grant funded. The rephasing comprises £15.8m relating to Residents Services schemes and £23.3m for Children’s Services, contributing to an increase in the capital programme from £87.33m to £126.3m. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Table 11 – General Fund Capital Forecast 29. The Overall forecast underspend of £31.7m comprises primarily of £10.8m of School Building Conditions Works, £7.5m relating to the increase in care home capacity project, £7.4m related to the water sports facility, £4.4m from the Disabled Facilities Grant and £3.0m relating to the General Fund contingency budget. These variances are partially offset by an overspend of £3m across various Residents Services and Children and Young People capital schemes and including £0.5m within the Corporate Services Directorate. The Month 4 forecast and variance by individual project are detailed in Appendix B. Residents Services Directorate: 30. There was little movement in the Residents Services directorate in Month 4 (£0.4m favourable), with the directorate reporting a net underspend of £9.4m. The most significant variance relates to the Hillingdon Water Sports Facility (£7.4m) reported in Month 3. The underspend relates to assumptions at the budget setting process, the forecast indicates that the actual requirement will be lower than the original estimate. It should be noted that this project is funded from grant and other contributions and will not impact the borrowing and MRP. The other significant area reporting a slippage is the Disabled Facilities Grant of £4.5; this is forecast to be reprofiled to 2027/28, however, due to changes in the grant conditions for 2026/27, this may change to a cost variance if we are unable to carry over any unspent grant this year. A further underspend of £0.5m in month 4 relates to the Harlington Road Fuel Pumps and Canopy which has been proposed to be reprofiled to 2027/28. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public 31. The underspend/slippage position is partially offset by forecast overspends over several projects. The most significant relate to Jubilee Leisure Centre currently reporting an overspend of £0.693m. It is anticipated that this pressure will be mitigated through income from a performance bond, this is subject to confirmation by the project manager. Other significant forecast overspends include Carbon Initiatives by £1.0m which will be funded by section 106 funding and Transport for London initiatives £0.491m which are funded by grants. 32. Further overspends are being reported on several schemes, including forecast Chrysalis Programme for £0.4m, £0.2m for Green Spaces Machinery, and various smaller projects totalling to £0.5m. Children’s and Young Peoples Services Directorate: 33. The Directorate is forecasting an underspend of £11.1m of which £11.0m relates to the Schools Building Condition programme, and as reported in month 3, is being proposed to be reprofiled to 2027/28 where the Current expenditure forecast spend is £4.5m against an approved budget of £15.5m in 2026/27. Further favourable variance of £0.2m reflects delays in delivering the Staying Close project with the associated expenditure now expected to be incurred in 2027/28. The Schools Building Project programme is fully grant funded and therefore does not impact on borrowing or MRP. Adult Social Care & Health 34. In period 4 the Directorate is forecasting an underspend of (£7.5m) within the Investment in Care Home Capacity Care project which was previously forecast to budget. The project has been proposed to be rephased to 2027/28 due to a lack of opportunities in the current year in the property market for the Council to purchase a care home. The Council will continue to look at opportunities to purchase such property in the future where a revenue saving can be made for the service. Corporate Services Directorate 35. There have been no changes with the Corporate Services Directorate since period 3 with the directorate continuing to forecast an overspend of £0.515m. This pressure primarily arises from committed projects in 2025/26 where last year’s underspend was not rephased, thus creating a funding pressure against the current programme. As these schemes are financed through borrowing, the Directorate will review current years projects to mitigate the overspend if relevant. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Contingency 36. Further underspends and slippage are forecast in relation to the contingency capital budget. Following a review at month 4 (£3m) was reprofiled to 2028-29 and a further (£1.5m) of contingency budget is forecast to underspend in 2026-27. The position presented in this report is based on the recommendation to vire £131k from the contingency budget to create a new project to fund scout hut works is approved. Financing 37. The approved capital programme is financed by £66.5m prudential borrowing, £59m from grants and contributions and £0.7m from Section 106 funding. At month 4 the financing requirement for the revised programme of £93.9m reflecting a decrease in prudential borrowing by £10.8m, an increase in Section 106 funding by £1.1m and a reduction in Grants and Contribution funding of £22m. 38. The reduction in borrowing is primarily attributable to the forecast underspend/slippage on schemes within Residents’ Services, Children's and Young Peoples’ Services and Adult Social Care & Health as detailed above. Table 12 – General Fund Capital Financing HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT CAPITAL 39. At Month 4, the HRA capital programme is forecast to spend £152.1m of the £155.9m budget, leading to a net favourable variance of £3.8m, with £2.7m declared as a cost variance and £6.5m being proposed for rephasing into 2027/28. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Table 13 – Housing Revenue Account Capital Forecast 40. The HRA capital programme supports acquisitions and new builds reported under Major Projects, regeneration work being carried out in Hayes under the Hayes Regen project and investment in the Council’s existing stock reported under the Works to Stock Programme. 41. The underspend reported against Major Projects largely relates to delays in the Haydon Drive project (£3.5m) which are proposed to be rephased into 2027/28 and the Housing Supply Block Purchases programme (£3.1m) as the Council pursues a £25m acquisition against the £28.1m budget. 42. The forecast cost overspend reported against the Hayes Regen programme relates to phases 1 and 1a which are now complete and therefore declared as an overspend rather than being proposed for rephasing. 43. Works to Stock are currently forecast to spend the full £45.3m budget, with this spend improving the Council’s existing stock and ensuring regulator compliance with housing standards. 44. To date, no items have been identified as requiring funding from the HRA capital contingency budget. Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Capital Financing 45. With the capital programme reporting an underspend of £3.8m the Council is able to borrow £4m less than planned against a budget of £68.6m, with an additional £0.2m of grants being utilised to further benefit the borrowing position. Revenue contributions of £16.8m are being used to partially fund the Works to Stock programme with the balance largely coming from capital receipts which are forecast to budget at £18.2m. Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Table 14 – Housing Revenue Account Capital Financing 5. Corporate implications a) Financial This report summarises the forecast revenue outturn positions for the General Fund and currently shows a forecast under spend of £ 4,069k but subject to identified net risks and opportunities of £2,781k, which if all materialised in full would reduce that forecast underspend to £1,288k. It should be noted that the above position does not rely on the release of the £10m Risk and Contingency Provision. The request to accept the £262k DfE grant in year will enable the Council to further support activity within the Children and Young People’s directorate Progress continues to be made in delivering on the £27,090k of approved savings for the year albeit £6,636k of those savings remain at risk (amber) . A significant proportion of those savings relate to initiatives to reduce homelessness cost pressures – the current underspend forecast in the service area is being achieved by a lower than anticipated baseline number of families being housed rather than achievement of the savings to date. The net underspend on the HRA revenue budgets is netted to zero by being able to contribute additional funds to the repayment of debt. b) 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 Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public 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 such reports 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. c) Alternative options This report sets out the latest forecasts for the General Fund and HRA revenue positions and does not present alternative options. However, service directorates are tasked with identifying mitigations to offset these forecast variances. Cabinet could choose not to approve the capital roll-forward requests from 2025/26 capital underspends, but these requests relate to committed schemes or capital projects that are deemed essential in delivering Council priorities. d) Risk management The forecast revenue position includes known potential risks and opportunities to the core forecasts. All Corporate Management Team members are tasked with managing their budgets within their overall funding envelope and will seek to mitigate forecast net overspends as the year progresses. e) Other implications NIL 6. Consultation & engagement Not Applicable Executive Decision Report Cabinet 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public 7. Timetable for implementation This report is updated on a monthly basis – the next report is scheduled to be presented to the October Cabinet meeting and will set out the Month 5 monitoring position. List of appendices attached A. Period 4 Savings Tracker B. Period 4 Capital Monitoring List of Background Papers a) Full Council approval of 2026/27 Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy (26th February 2026) b) Cabinet approval of Capital Schemes Roll-Forward requests fully funded by grant (25th June 2026) c) Period 2 Finance Monitoring Report to Cabinet (23rd July 2026)

Appendix A - Detailed Savings Tracker (Period 4) RAG Rating 2026/27 & B/fwd savings Blue Delivered Green On Track Amber At Risk Red Delayed until Next Year Purple Not able to be delivered (£'000's) (£'000's) (£'000's) (£'000's) (£'000's) (£'000's) FinanceAppointeeship Client Charges - (60) - - - (60) FinanceCorporate Management Team (6) - - - - (6) FinanceDigital Take Up - (33) - - - (33) FinanceFuture of Financial Systems - Full Year Effect - - - (100) - (100) FinanceHB Subsidy - (91) - - - (91) FinanceIncrease in Charges to Recover Court Costs - (130) - - - (130) FinanceIncrease MVF by 1% - - - (139) - (139) FinanceInsurance Growth (35) - - - - (35) FinanceNNDR Cost of Collection Allowance (187) - - - - (187) FinanceRevenues & Benefits - Automations & Customer Contact - (178) - - - (178) FinanceReview of Cashflow Measures - Supplier Incentive Programme (40) (75) - - - (115) FinanceSupplier Incentive Programme - Construction - (20) - - - (20) Finance (268) (587) - (239) - (1,094)- - - - - Adult Services and HealthAcquisition of Care home (162) - - - - (162) Adult Services and HealthCreation of a care company for temporary staff via an SPV - - - - (277) (277) Adult Services and HealthCreation of a SPV for Direct Care Services - - (97) - - (97) Adult Services and HealthImplementation of Ask SARA (150) - - - - (150) Adult Services and HealthLease Income for Sexual Health Clinics - (145) - - (105) (250) Adult Services and HealthPassenger Assistant supplier switch (Pertemps to Operator) - (227) - - - (227) Adult Services and HealthPost 16 Policy Change to offer Personal Transport Budgets - (387) - - - (387) Adult Services and HealthReview and change in the catering services offer for Extra Care, Day Resources - (99) - - - (99) Adult Services and HealthReview of Early Years Operating Model (Additional) - Lease Income (93) - - - - (93) Adult Services and HealthSection 117 Funding split with ICB - (950) - - - (950) Adult Services and HealthSEND Transport Demand 2026/27 to 2030/31 (357) - - (879) - (1,236) Adult Services and HealthSupported Living De-Commissioning - (113) - (140) - (253) Adult Services and HealthTelecare Review - (400) - - - (400) Total 2026/27 RAG Rating 2026/27 & B/fwd savings Blue Delivered Green On Track Amber At Risk Red Delayed until Next Year Purple Not able to be delivered (£'000's) (£'000's) (£'000's) (£'000's) (£'000's) (£'000's) Total 2026/27 Adult Services and Health (762) (2,321) (97) (1,019) (382) (4,581)- - - - - Children and Young People's ServicesCeasing SEND Keyworking (344) - - - - (344) Children and Young People's ServicesFamily Hubs - New Grant (899) - - - - (899) Children and Young People's ServicesNew Care Officer - Review of Opperating Model (898) (519) - - - (1,417) Children and Young People's ServicesReview of Semi-Independent & Shared Accommoation - (216) - - - (216) Children and Young People's Services (2,141) (735) - - - (2,876)- - - - - Residents' ServicesAcquisitions Supply (315) - (1,077) - - (1,392) Residents' ServicesAdditioanl Grant - Final LGFS (377) - - - - (377) Residents' ServicesBeck Theatre Parking - - (50) - - (50) Residents' ServicesBuilding Control Fee Uplift (15) - - - - (15) Residents' ServicesChanges to parking payment options - (95) - - - (95) Residents' ServicesChanges to parking tariffs - (1,232) - - - (1,232) Residents' ServicesCharging for Garden Waste (879) - - - - (879) Residents' ServicesDigital Library Plan Pilot - (450) - - - (450) Residents' ServicesDiscretionary Planning Fees Uplift (28) - - - - (28) Residents' ServicesDomestic Abuse Support Officer - service growth proposal (76) - - - - (76) Residents' ServicesEfficiency Gain Fleet - (230) - - - (230) Residents' ServicesExtended Producer Responsibility Grant (2,653) - - - - (2,653) Residents' ServicesFacilities Management Restructure - (297) - - - (297) Residents' ServicesFast Track Planning Service - (3) - - - (3) Residents' ServicesFees & Charges Inflationary Uplifts (58) - - - - (58) Residents' ServicesFees & Charges Inflationary Uplifts 2 (200) - - - - (200) Residents' ServicesFestive Light Residual Budget (150) - - - - (150) Residents' ServicesFleet Management Improvements (24) - - - - (24) Residents' ServicesGarage Voids - (80) - - - (80) Residents' ServicesGrounds Maintenance Service Review - (300) - - - (300) Residents' ServicesImplementation o Additional Licensing Policy - (229) - - - (229) Residents' ServicesIncrease Garden Waste Subscription Fee - (189) - - - (189) RAG Rating 2026/27 & B/fwd savings Blue Delivered Green On Track Amber At Risk Red Delayed until Next Year Purple Not able to be delivered (£'000's) (£'000's) (£'000's) (£'000's) (£'000's) (£'000's) Total 2026/27 Residents' ServicesLake Farm BMX Track (5) - - - - (5) Residents' ServicesMeeting Room Hire Revenue in Libraries - (40) - - - (40) Residents' ServicesNYGL Civic Amentities Site - - (70) - - (70) Residents' ServicesOut of Hours Noise Nuisance Service - - (110) (110) - (220) Residents' ServicesPartner Supply (101) - (363) - - (464) Residents' ServicesPay and Display Machine Cash Collection - - (66) - - (66) Residents' ServicesPlatinum Jubilee Leisure Centre Management Fee - (80) - - - (80) Residents' ServicesPlatinum Jubilee Leisure Centre Management Fee 2 - (70) - - - (70) Residents' ServicesProposal 4: Discretionary Planning Fees Uplift (13) - - - - (13) Residents' ServicesProposal 6: Statutory Planning Fee Increase - Householders - (150) - - - (150) Residents' ServicesPRS Supply (746) - (425) - - (1,171) Residents' ServicesReconciliation of Resident Engagement Cost (100) - - - - (100) Residents' ServicesReduction in cost of recycling bags (200) - - - - (200) Residents' ServicesReduced Demand (1,424) - (280) - - (1,704) Residents' ServicesRemoval of Mulitple Daily Free HFC Parking Sessions - (65) - - - (65) Residents' ServicesReview Domestic Support Contracts (80) - - - - (80) Residents' ServicesReview of Burial Charges (200) - - - - (200) Residents' ServicesReview of Crematoria & Cemetery Charges (300) - - - - (300) Residents' ServicesReview of Early Years Operating Model - (93) - - - (93) Residents' ServicesReview of Golf Delivery Model - - - (267) - (267) Residents' ServicesReview of Pest Control Discounts - (49) - - - (49) Residents' ServicesGreen Spaces - Service Delivery Model Review (62) - - - - (62) Residents' ServicesSocial Housing Supply (476) - (1,225) - - (1,701) Residents' ServicesStreet Inspections Digitally Performed (107) - - - - (107) Residents' ServicesStreet Scene (50) - - - - (50) Residents' ServicesSubsidy Removal - (100) - - - (100) Residents' ServicesTemporary Accomodation Management (Leasing) (230) - - - - (230) Residents' ServicesULEZ Expenditure - (48) - - - (48) Residents' ServicesWaste Disposal Management (Resource) (48) - - - - (48) RAG Rating 2026/27 & B/fwd savings Blue Delivered Green On Track Amber At Risk Red Delayed until Next Year Purple Not able to be delivered (£'000's) (£'000's) (£'000's) (£'000's) (£'000's) (£'000's) Total 2026/27 Residents' ServicesWaste Weekends - Powerday - (150) - - - (150) Residents' ServicesWeekend Provision Cemetery and Creatorium - (140) - - - (140) Residents' Services (8,917) (4,090) (3,666) (377) - (17,050)- - - - - Chief Operating OfficerBusiness Intelligence Review (37) - - (13) - (50) Chief Operating OfficerDigital and Technology Contract Review - (98) - - - (98) Chief Operating OfficerIncrease MVF by 1% - - - - (217) (217) Chief Operating OfficerReshaping Customer Experience and Business Support - phase 2 (277) - - - - (277) Chief Operating OfficerTransformation Team (161) - - - - (161) Chief Operating Officer (475) (98) - (13) (217) (803) Chief Executive OfficeCommunications; Vacant Post Removal (56) - - - - (56) Chief Executive OfficeCommunications; Outsourcing of the Council's Film Office (3) - (16) - - (18) Chief Executive OfficeComplex Criminal Cases Prosecution Lawyer (50) - (50) - - (100) Chief Executive OfficeHillingdon People Magazine (53) - - - - (53) Chief Executive OfficeHR Service Review (171) - - - - (171) Chief Executive OfficeHuman Resources Review (29) - - (42) - (70) Chief Executive OfficeLegal Management Restruture (91) - - - - (91) Chief Executive OfficeLegal Research AI Licence (47) - - - - (47) Chief Executive OfficeOutsourcing of the Council's Film Office - - (60) - - (60) Chief Executive OfficeRegistration Service Income - (20) - - - (20) Chief Executive Office (499) (20) (126) (42) - (686) Grand Total (13,062) (7,851) (3,889) (1,690) (599) (27,090) 48.2% 29.0% 14.4% 6.2% 2.2% 100% Period 3 Savings Tracker (9,526) (7,468) (7,863) (1,907) (327) (27,090) Period 2 Savings Tracker (8,827) (7,462) (8,812) (1,734) (256) (27,090)

MTFS Ref / Change Project Name Inc-Exp Approved Budget 2026/27 (£'000) Approved Budget 2027/28 (£'000) Approved Budget 2028/29 (£'000) O/S Comms (£'000) Total Actuals to Date (£'000) Forecast 2026/27 (£'000) Forecast 2027/28 (£'000) Forecast 2028/29 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2026/27 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2027/28 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2028/29 (£'000) 2025/26 019 Hillingdon Water Sports Facility & Activity a - Expenditure 15,208 6,234 7,000 528 3,605 7,800 6,442 6,792 (7,408) 208 (208) 2025/26 019 Hillingdon Water Sports Facility & Activit b - Grant & Other Co (15,208) (6,234) (7,000) - - (7,800) (6,442) (6,792) 7,408 (208) 208 2026/27 003 Cedars and Grainges a - Expenditure 250 2,500 5,000 0 0 250 2,500 5,000 - - - 2026/27 003 Cedars and Grainges b - Prudential Borrow (250) (2,500) (5,000) - - (250) (2,500) (5,000) - - - 2025/26 028 Refurbishment of Crematorium a - Expenditure 1,640 4,000 4,240 - - 1,640 4,000 4,240 - - - 2025/26 028 Refurbishment of Crematorium b - Grant & Other Co (594) (1,800) (900) - - (594) (1,800) (900) - - - 2025/26 028 Refurbishment of Crematorium b - Prudential Borrow (1,046) (2,200) (3,340) - - (1,046) (2,200) (3,340) - - - 2026/27 046 Redevelopment of 1-10 Nelson Lane GF a - Expenditure 1,000 2,450 2,500 - 5 1,000 2,450 2,500 - - - 2026/27 046 Redevelopment of 1-10 Nelson Lane GF b - Prudential Borrow (1,000) (2,450) (2,500) - - (1,000) (2,450) (2,500) - - - 2025/26 052 Civic Centre Transformation a - Expenditure 3,500 - - 761 1,493 3,500 - - - - - 2025/26 052 Civic Centre Transformation b - Prudential Borrow (3,500) - - - - (3,500) - - - - - 2026/27 020 Garage Site Refurbishment a - Expenditure 1,000 1,000 850 - - 1,000 1,000 850 - - - 2026/27 020 Garage Site Refurbishment b - Prudential Borrow (1,000) (1,000) (850) - - (1,000) (1,000) (850) - - - 2025/26 027 Yiewsley/Otterfield Library a - Expenditure 2,157 53 - - 5 2,157 53 - - - - 2025/26 027 Yiewsley/Otterfield Library b - Prudential Borrow (2,157) (53) - - - (2,157) (53) - - - - 2026/27 029 Hayes Canal Project a - Expenditure 750 - - - - 750 - - - - - 2026/27 029 Hayes Canal Project b - Grant & Other Co (750) - - - - (750) - - - - - 2025/26 018 Harlington Road Fuel Pumps and Canopy a - Expenditure 1,008 15 - - - 500 523 - (508) 508 - 2025/26 018 Harlington Road Fuel Pumps and Canop b - Prudential Borrow (1,008) (15) - - - (500) (523) - 508 (508) - 2025/26 024 Motor Vehicle Workshop - Relocation a - Expenditure 700 - - 2 - 700 - - - - - 2025/26 024 Motor Vehicle Workshop - Relocation b - Prudential Borrow (700) - - - - (700) - - - - - 2025/26 023 Jubilee Leisure Centre, West Drayton a - Expenditure 607 - - 1,141 1,102 1,300 - - 693 - - 2025/26 023 Jubilee Leisure Centre, West Drayton b - Prudential Borrow (607) - - - - (1,300) - - (693) - - 2025/26 036 Carbon Initiatives a - Expenditure 500 - - 481 879 1,500 - - 1,000 - - 2025/26 036 Carbon Initiatives b - s106 (500) - - - - (1,500) - - (1,000) - - 2025/26 016 Flood Alleviation a - Expenditure 300 50 - 46 - 300 50 - - - - 2025/26 016 Flood Alleviation b - Grant & Other Co (300) (50) - - - (300) (50) - - - - 2026/27 033 St Martins Approach (Former Citizens Adv a - Expenditure 300 - - - - 300 - - - - - 2026/27 033 St Martins Approach (Former Citizens Ad b - Prudential Borrow (300) - - - - (300) - - - - - 2025/26 014 Cranford Park Heritage a - Expenditure 502 - - 442 147 502 - - - - - 2025/26 014 Cranford Park Heritage b - Prudential Borrow (502) - - - - (502) - - - - - 2026/27 044 Parking Services Improvments a - Expenditure 302 - - 19 - 302 - - - - - 2026/27 044 Parking Services Improvments b - Prudential Borrow (302) - - - - (302) - - - - - 2025/26 035 Endeavours Sea Scouts New build a - Expenditure 60 - - - - 60 - - - - - 2025/26 035 Endeavours Sea Scouts New build b - Grant & Other Co (60) - - - - (60) - - - - - 2025/26 035 Youth Provision 2nd Ickenham Scouts Groa - Expenditure 348 - - 3 17 348 - - - - - 2025/26 035 Youth Provision 2nd Ickenham Scouts G b - Grant & Other Co (348) - - - - (348) - - - - - 2025/26 035 Ruislip 2nd/9th Scout Group - Funding for a - Expenditure 131 - - 131 - - - - - 2025/26 035 Ruislip 2nd/9th Scout Group - Funding fo b - Prudential Borrow (131) - - (131) - - - - - Appendix B - GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME (PER 04 - JULY 2026) MTFS Ref / Change Project Name Inc-Exp Approved Budget 2026/27 (£'000) Approved Budget 2027/28 (£'000) Approved Budget 2028/29 (£'000) O/S Comms (£'000) Total Actuals to Date (£'000) Forecast 2026/27 (£'000) Forecast 2027/28 (£'000) Forecast 2028/29 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2026/27 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2027/28 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2028/29 (£'000) Appendix B - GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME (PER 04 - JULY 2026) 2025/26 033 Uxbridge Cemetery Gatehouse & Chapel Ra - Expenditure 22 - - 18 6 22 - - - - - 2025/26 033 Uxbridge Cemetery Gatehouse & Chape b - Prudential Borrow (22) - - - - (22) - - - - - Change River Restoration Projects a - Expenditure 255 - - 255 - - - Change River Restoration Projects b - Grant & Other Co (255) - - (255) - - - Legacy 1 New Years Green Lane Extension a - Expenditure - - 4 4 4 - - Legacy 1 New Years Green Lane Extension b - Prudential Borrow - - - (4) (4) - - 2025/26 011 Asha Day Centre Refurbishment a - Expenditure - 115 - - - - - 2025/26 011 Asha Day Centre Refurbishment b - Prudential Borrow - - - - - - - Legacy 2 Battle of Britain Bunker Water Mitigation Wa - Expenditure - 168 - - - - - Legacy 2 Battle of Britain Bunker Water Mitigation b - Prudential Borrow - - - - - - - Legacy 3 Uxbridge Mortuary Extension a - Expenditure - 84 - - - - - Legacy 3 Uxbridge Mortuary Extension b - Prudential Borrow - - - - - - - Change 16th Apr - Northwood & Pinner Health Cen a - Expenditure - - - - - - - Change 16th Apr - Northwood & Pinner Health C b - s106 - - - - - - - Change 30th Mar - Contrib to NHS, Health Centre a - Expenditure - - - - - - - Change 30th Mar - Contrib to NHS, Health Centr b - s106 - - - - - - - 2025/26 040 Green Spaces Machinery a - Expenditure - 41 202 202 202 - - 2025/26 040 Green Spaces Machinery b - Prudential Borrow - - - (202) (202) - - Residents Services - - - 3,852 7,466 - - - - - - 2026/27 030 SRP/ SEND Meadow High School - Northw a - Expenditure 19,207 380 - 18,047 5,774 19,207 380 - - - - 2026/27 030 SRP/ SEND Meadow High School - North b - Prudential Borrow (19,207) (380) - - - (19,207) (380) - - - - 2025/26 030 Secondary School Expansions a - Expenditure 8,649 214 - 71 469 8,649 214 - - - - 2025/26 030 Secondary School Expansions b - Grant & Other Co (8,649) (214) - - - (8,649) (214) - - - - 2026/27 031 SRP / SEND Meadow School - Royal Lane a - Expenditure 822 - - 259 (1,271) 822 - - - - - 2026/27 031 SRP / SEND Meadow School - Royal Lan b - Prudential Borrow (822) - - - - (822) - - - - - 2025/26 RF1 Staying Close Project - Children's Respite a - Expenditure 585 - - 362 223 (223) 223 - 2025/26 RF1 Staying Close Project - Children's Respitb - Prudential Borrow (585) - - (362) (223) 223 (223) - 2025/26 013 Charville Lane - Children Specialist Housea - Expenditure 377 - - 132 56 377 - - - - - 2025/26 013 Charville Lane - Children Specialist Hou b - Prudential Borrow (377) - - - - (377) - - - - - 2025/26 031 SRP / SEND a - Expenditure 76 17 17 17 - - 2025/26 031 SRP / SEND b - Prudential Borrow - - (17) (17) - - Children's & Young People Services - - - 18,585 5,045 - - - - - - 2025/26 022 Preliminary Works - Civic Centre Car Park a - Expenditure 488 - - - - 488 - - - - - 2025/26 022 Preliminary Works - Civic Centre Car Pa b - Prudential Borrow (488) - - - - (488) - - - - - 2025/26 022 Investment in Care Home Capacity a - Expenditure 9,512 10,000 - 247 (387) 2,000 17,512 - (7,512) 7,512 - 2025/26 022 Investment in Care Home Capacity b - Prudential Borrow (9,512) (7,500) - - - (2,000) (15,012) - 7,512 (7,512) - 2025/26 022 Investment in Care Home Capacity b - Grant & Other Co - (2,500) - - - - (2,500) - - - - Adult Social Care & Health - - - 247 (387) - - - - - - Major Projects - - - 22,684 12,124 - - - - - - MTFS Ref / Change Project Name Inc-Exp Approved Budget 2026/27 (£'000) Approved Budget 2027/28 (£'000) Approved Budget 2028/29 (£'000) O/S Comms (£'000) Total Actuals to Date (£'000) Forecast 2026/27 (£'000) Forecast 2027/28 (£'000) Forecast 2028/29 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2026/27 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2027/28 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2028/29 (£'000) Appendix B - GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME (PER 04 - JULY 2026) 2025/26 047 Highways Structural Works a - Expenditure 8,207 8,446 8,690 - 1,687 8,207 8,446 8,690 - - - 2025/26 047 Highways Structural Works b - Grant & Other Co (3,207) (3,446) (3,690) - - (3,207) (3,446) (3,690) - - - 2025/26 047 Highways Structural Works b - Prudential Borrow (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) - - (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) - - - Legacy 4 Highways Section 106 Projects a - Expenditure - - - 0 99 99 - - 99 - - Legacy 4 Highways Section 106 Projects b - s106 - - - - - (99) - - (99) - - 2025/26 008 Vehicle Replacement Programme a - Expenditure 2,689 7,766 4,684 413 28 2,689 7,766 4,684 - - - 2025/26 008 Vehicle Replacement Programme b - Prudential Borrow (2,689) (7,766) (4,684) - - (2,689) (7,766) (4,684) - - - 2025/26 053 Disabled Facilities Grant a - Expenditure 6,585 2,146 2,146 922 346 2,146 6,585 2,146 (4,439) 4,439 - 2025/26 053 Disabled Facilities Grant b - Grant & Other Co (6,585) (2,146) (2,146) - - (2,146) (6,585) (2,146) 4,439 (4,439) - Legacy 5 Shopping Parades Initiatives a - Expenditure - - - 22 - 23 - - 23 - - Legacy 5 Shopping Parades Initiatives b - Grant & Other Co - - - - - (23) - - (23) - - 2025/26 065 Property Works Programme a - Expenditure 1,840 1,480 1,520 41 150 1,840 1,480 1,520 - - - 2025/26 065 Property Works Programme b - Prudential Borrow (1,840) (1,480) (1,520) - - (1,840) (1,480) (1,520) - - - 2025/26 068 Transport for London Funded Schemes a - Expenditure 1,458 1,458 1,458 41 (88) 1,949 1,458 1,458 491 - - 2025/26 068 Transport for London Funded Schemes b - Grant & Other Co (1,458) (1,458) (1,458) - - (1,949) (1,458) (1,458) (491) - - 2025/26 048 Replacement of Street Light Columns a - Expenditure 600 600 600 0 - 600 600 600 - - - 2025/26 048 Replacement of Street Light Columns b - Prudential Borrow (600) (600) (600) - - (600) (600) (600) - - - 2025/26 046 Highways Bridges and Structures a - Expenditure 400 400 400 - - 400 400 400 - - - 2025/26 046 Highways Bridges and Structures b - Prudential Borrow (400) (400) (400) - - (400) (400) (400) - - - 2025/26 051 CCTV Programme a - Expenditure 409 462 262 36 - 409 462 262 - - - 2025/26 051 CCTV Programme b - Prudential Borrow (409) (462) (262) - - (409) (462) (262) - - - 2026/27 045 Beck Theatre Planned Works a - Expenditure 462 168 132 - - 462 168 132 - - - 2026/27 045 Beck Theatre Planned Works b - Prudential Borrow (462) (168) (132) - - (462) (168) (132) - - - 2025/26 042 Playground Refurbishment Programme a - Expenditure 200 200 200 - - 200 200 200 - - - 2025/26 042 Playground Refurbishment Programme b - Prudential Borrow (200) (200) (200) - - (200) (200) (200) - - - 2025/26 066 Road Safety a - Expenditure 120 120 120 - (22) 120 120 120 - - - 2025/26 066 Road Safety b - Prudential Borrow (120) (120) (120) - - (120) (120) (120) - - - Legacy 6 HS2 Amenity Fund a - Expenditure - - - - 39 39 - - 39 - - Legacy 6 HS2 Amenity Fund b - Prudential Borrow - - - - - (39) - - (39) - - 2025/26 064 Chrysalis Programme a - Expenditure 90 - - 92 337 428 - - 338 - - 2025/26 064 Chrysalis Programme b - Prudential Borrow (90) - - - - (428) - - (338) - - Legacy 7 Environmental and Recreational Initiatives a - Expenditure 59 - - 11 12 59 - - - - - Legacy 7 Environmental and Recreational Initiativ b - Prudential Borrow (59) - - - - (59) - - - - - Legacy 8 Bowls Club Refurbishment a - Expenditure - - - 3 - - - - - - - Legacy 8 Bowls Club Refurbishment b - Prudential Borrow - - - - - - - - - - - UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) 2025 a - Expenditure - - - 144 75 75 - - 75 - - UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) 202b - Grant & Other Co - - - - - (75) - - (75) - - Good Growth Fund 2025/26 a - Expenditure - - - 10 - 23 - - 23 - - Good Growth Fund 2025/26 b - Grant & Other Co - - - - - (23) - - (23) - - MTFS Ref / Change Project Name Inc-Exp Approved Budget 2026/27 (£'000) Approved Budget 2027/28 (£'000) Approved Budget 2028/29 (£'000) O/S Comms (£'000) Total Actuals to Date (£'000) Forecast 2026/27 (£'000) Forecast 2027/28 (£'000) Forecast 2028/29 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2026/27 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2027/28 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2028/29 (£'000) Appendix B - GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME (PER 04 - JULY 2026) HS2 Road Safety Fund a - Expenditure - - - 22 0 0 - - 0 - - HS2 Road Safety Fund b - Grant & Other Co - - - - - (0) - - (0) - - S106 Green Spaces a - Expenditure - - - 6 1 1 - - 1 - - S106 Green Spaces b - s106 - - - - (1) - - (1) - - 2025/26 041 Leisure Centre Refurbishment a - Expenditure 100 100 100 - - 100 100 100 - - - 2025/26 041 Leisure Centre Refurbishment b - Prudential Borrow (100) (100) (100) - - (100) (100) (100) - - - Change 16th Apr - Northwood & Pinner Health Cen a - Expenditure 76 - - - - 76 - - - - - Change 16th Apr - Northwood & Pinner Health C b - s106 (76) - - - - (76) - - - - - Change 30th Mar - Contrib to NHS, Health Centre a - Expenditure 108 - - - - 108 - - - - - Change 30th Mar - Contrib to NHS, Health Centr b - s106 (108) - - - - (108) - - - - - Residents Services - - - 1,764 2,663 - - - - - - 2025/26 029 School Building Condition Works a - Expenditure 15,305 3,000 3,000 1,447 308 4,500 13,805 3,000 (10,805) 10,805 - 2025/26 029 School Building Condition Works b - Grant & Other Co (15,305) (3,000) (3,000) - - (4,500) (13,805) (3,000) 10,805 (10,805) - Change Musical Instruments, Equipment & Technoa - Expenditure 147 - - 147 - - - Change Musical Instruments, Equipment & Techb - Grant & Other Co (147) - - (147) - - - 2025/26 006 Devolved Capital to Schools a - Expenditure 2,000 2,000 2,000 - 204 2,000 2,000 2,000 - - - 2025/26 006 Devolved Capital to Schools b - Grant & Other Co (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) - - (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) - - - Legacy 9 EY & Wraparound Program a - Expenditure 193 - 82 193 - - - Legacy 9 EY & Wraparound Program b - Grant & Other Co (193) - - (193) - - - Children's & Young People Services - - - 1,447 594 - - - - - - 2025/26 001 Social Care Equipment a - Expenditure 3,977 3,977 3,977 0 24 3,977 3,977 3,977 - - - 2025/26 001 Social Care Equipment b - Grant & Other Co (3,977) (3,977) (3,977) - - (3,977) (3,977) (3,977) - - - Adult Social Care & Health - - - 0 24 - - - - - - 2025/26 005 Digital, Data and Technology Investment a - Expenditure 4,198 3,999 50 1,439 325 4,713 3,999 50 515 - - 2025/26 005 Digital, Data and Technology Investmen b - Prudential Borrow (4,198) (3,999) (50) - - (4,713) (3,999) (50) (515) - - Corporate Services - - - 1,439 325 - - - - - - Programme of Works - - - 4,649 3,606 - - - - - - 2025/26 007 General Fund Capital Contingency 1 a - Expenditure 4,979 - - - - 1,979 3,000 (3,000) - 3,000 2025/26 007 General Fund Capital Contingency a - Expenditure 1,869 2,000 2,000 - - 500 2,000 2,000 (1,369) - - 2025/26 007 General Fund Capital Contingency 1 b - Prudential Borrow (4,979) - - - - (1,979) - (3,000) 3,000 - (3,000) 2025/26 007 General Fund Capital Contingency b - Prudential Borrow (1,869) (2,000) (2,000) - - (500) (2,000) (2,000) 1,369 - - Capital Contingency - - - - - - - - - - - GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME - - - 27,334 15,730 - - - - - - Summary of Total Capital Expenditure: Agreed Feb 2026 Cabinet 125,665 65,218 50,929 27,334 15,730 93,920 88,913 53,721 (31,745) 23,695 2,792 Proposal Added Since Feb Cabinet 586 - - - - 586 - - - - - Total Approved Expenditure 126,251 65,218 50,929 27,334 15,730 94,506 88,913 53,721 (31,745) 23,695 2,792 Expenditure and Funding: MTFS Ref / Change Project Name Inc-Exp Approved Budget 2026/27 (£'000) Approved Budget 2027/28 (£'000) Approved Budget 2028/29 (£'000) O/S Comms (£'000) Total Actuals to Date (£'000) Forecast 2026/27 (£'000) Forecast 2027/28 (£'000) Forecast 2028/29 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2026/27 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2027/28 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2028/29 (£'000) Appendix B - GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME (PER 04 - JULY 2026) a - Expenditure 126,251 65,218 50,929 27,334 15,730 94,506 88,913 53,721 (31,745) 23,695 2,792 b - Revenue Contribution - - - - - - - - - - - b - Grant & Other Contribs (59,036) (26,825) (24,171) - - (36,996) (42,277) (23,963) 22,040 (15,452) 208 b - s106 (684) - - - - (1,784) - - (1,100) - - b - CIL - - - - - - - - - - - b - Capital Receipts - - - - - - - - - - - b - Finance Leasing - - - - - - - - - - - b - Prudential Borrowing (66,531) (38,393) (26,758) - - (55,726) (46,636) (29,758) 10,804 (8,243) (3,000) Total Funding (126,251) (65,218) (50,929) - - (94,506) (88,913) (53,721) 31,745 (23,695) (2,792) Project Name Inc-Exp Approved Budget 2026/27 (£'000) Approved Budget 2027/28 (£'000) Approved Budget 2028/29 (£'000) O/S Comms (£'000) Total Actuals to Date (£'000) Forecast 2026/27 (£'000) Forecast 2027/28 (£'000) Forecast 2028/29 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2026/27 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2027/28 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2028/29 (£'000) HRA In-House Housing Supply Acquisitions a - Expenditure 10,019 10,000 10,000 29,583 2,663 10,019 10,000 10,000 - - - HRA In-House Housing Supply Acquisitions b - Grant & Other Contribs (10,019) (4,000) (4,000) - - (10,019) (4,000) (4,000) - - - HRA In-House Housing Supply Acquisitions b - Prudential Borrowing - (6,000) (6,000) - - - (6,000) (6,000) - - - Development Yiewsley Housing Scheme a - Expenditure 17,013 8,169 407 21,694 5,066 17,013 8,169 407 - - - Development Yiewsley Housing Scheme b - Grant & Other Contribs (9,701) (5,656) - - - (9,701) (5,656) - - - - Development Yiewsley Housing Scheme b - Prudential Borrowing (7,312) (2,513) (407) - - (7,312) (2,513) (407) - - - HRA Housing Supply Block Purchases a - Expenditure 28,056 - - 0 - 25,000 3,056 - (3,056) 3,056 - HRA Housing Supply Block Purchases b - Grant & Other Contribs (11,700) - - - - (11,900) - - (200) - - HRA Housing Supply Block Purchases b - Prudential Borrowing (16,356) - - - - (13,100) (3,056) - 3,256 (3,056) - New Build - General Needs Housing - 34-44 Sullivan Crescent a - Expenditure - - - 89 4 82 - - 82 - - New Build - General Needs Housing - 34-44 Sullivan Cresce b - Prudential Borrowing - - - - - (82) - - (82) - - Existing FRI Leases - HRA a - Expenditure 16,732 - - - - 16,732 - - - - - Existing FRI Leases - HRA b - Prudential Borrowing (16,732) - - - - (16,732) - - - - - Development Haydon Drive a - Expenditure 10,458 1,293 - 10,412 527 7,000 4,751 - (3,458) 3,458 - Development Haydon Drive b - Grant & Other Contribs (4,183) (517) - - - (4,183) (517) - - - - Development Haydon Drive b - Prudential Borrowing (6,275) (776) - - - (2,817) (4,234) - 3,458 (3,458) - Grays Road site development a - Expenditure 3,725 1,275 - 167 776 3,725 1,275 - - - - Grays Road site development b - Prudential Borrowing (3,725) (1,275) - - - (3,725) (1,275) - - - - Staying Close Acquisition Programme a - Expenditure 2,772 - - - - 2,772 - - - - - Staying Close Acquisition Programme b - Prudential Borrowing (2,772) - - - - (2,772) - - - - - Rebuild of properties with structural issues a - Expenditure 330 1,664 206 - - 330 1,664 206 - - - Rebuild of properties with structural issues b - Grant & Other Contribs (132) (665) (83) - - (132) (665) (83) - - - Rebuild of properties with structural issues b - Prudential Borrowing (198) (999) (123) - - (198) (999) (123) - - - Garage Site New Peachy Lane a - Expenditure - 1,688 - - - - 1,688 - - - - Garage Site New Peachy Lane b - Grant & Other Contribs 100 (844) - - - 100 (844) - - - - Garage Site New Peachy Lane b - Prudential Borrowing (100) (844) - - - (100) (844) - - - - New Build - General Needs Housing- Package Purchase of 8 N a - Expenditure 1,300 - - - 178 1,281 - - (19) - - New Build - General Needs Housing- Package Purchase of 8 b - Prudential Borrowing (1,300) - - - - (1,281) - - 19 - - New Build General Needs Housing - Maple and Poplar a - Expenditure - - - 14 - - - - - - - New Build General Needs Housing - Maple and Poplar b - Prudential Borrowing - - - - - - - - - - - New Build General Needs Housing - Petworth Gardens a - Expenditure - - - 5 - - - - - - - New Build General Needs Housing - Petworth Gardens b - Prudential Borrowing - - - - - - - - - - - New Build General Needs Housing – Stock Acquisitions a - Expenditure - - - 2 - - - - - - New Build General Needs Housing – Stock Acquisitions b - Prudential Borrowing - - - - - - - - - - New Build General Needs Housing – 140 Rowan Road a - Expenditure - - - 52 - 10 - - 10 - - New Build General Needs Housing – 140 Rowan Road b - Prudential Borrowing - - - - - (10) - - (10) - - Demolition & Rebuild Vernon Drive Harefield a - Expenditure - - - 97 - - - - - - - Demolition & Rebuild Vernon Drive Harefield b - Prudential Borrowing - - - - - - - - - - - HRA House Extension Programme 24-25 Architectural Consult a - Expenditure - - - 3 0 0 - - 0 - - HRA House Extension Programme 24-25 Architectural Cons b - Revenue Contribution - - - - - (0) - - (0) - - Redevelopment of 1-10 Nelson Lane a - Expenditure 30 320 600 - - 30 320 600 - - - Redevelopment of 1-10 Nelson Lane b - Prudential Borrowing (30) (320) (600) - - (30) (320) (600) - - - Major Projects - - - 62,119 9,213 - - - - - - Hayes Regeneration - Avondale Phases 2 and 1B a - Expenditure 14,950 26,400 58,500 - - 14,950 26,400 58,500 - - - Hayes Regeneration - Avondale Phases 2 and 1B b - Grant & Other Contribs (13,197) (3,600) (23,400) - - (13,197) (3,600) (23,400) - - - Appendix B - HRA CAPITAL PROGRAMME (PER 04 - JULY 2026) Project Name Inc-Exp Approved Budget 2026/27 (£'000) Approved Budget 2027/28 (£'000) Approved Budget 2028/29 (£'000) O/S Comms (£'000) Total Actuals to Date (£'000) Forecast 2026/27 (£'000) Forecast 2027/28 (£'000) Forecast 2028/29 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2026/27 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2027/28 (£'000) Forecast Variance 2028/29 (£'000) Appendix B - HRA CAPITAL PROGRAMME (PER 04 - JULY 2026) Hayes Regeneration - Avondale Phases 2 and 1B b - Prudential Borrowing (1,753) (22,800) (35,100) - - (1,753) (22,800) (35,100) - - - Hayes Regeneration - Hayes Town Centre future phases a - Expenditure - - 1,916 - - - - 1,916 - - - Hayes Regeneration - Hayes Town Centre future phases b - Grant & Other Contribs - - (766) - - - - (766) - - - Hayes Regeneration - Hayes Town Centre future phases b - Prudential Borrowing - - (1,150) - - - - (1,150) - - - Hayes Regeneration Phase 1 and 1A a - Expenditure 1,206 1,274 - 3,017 3,812 3,812 1,274 - 2,606 - - Hayes Regeneration Phase 1 and 1A b - Grant & Other Contribs (603) (637) - - - (603) (637) - - - - Hayes Regeneration Phase 1 and 1A b - Prudential Borrowing (603) (637) - - - (3,209) (637) - (2,606) - - Hayes Regeneration - - - 3,017 3,812 - - - - - - Works to Stock - Reactive and Planned Capital Budget a - Expenditure 30,997 31,484 28,468 16,416 6,156 30,997 31,484 28,468 - - - Works to Stock - Reactive and Planned Capital Budget b - Capital Receipts (30,997) (31,484) (28,468) - - (30,997) (31,484) (28,468) - - - Green Homes Initiative - Reactive and Planned Capital Budget a - Expenditure 10,250 10,250 6,150 4,280 4,407 10,250 10,250 6,150 - - - Green Homes Initiative - Reactive and Planned Capital Budg b - Grant & Other Contribs (1,620) (1,620) (972) - - (1,620) (1,620) (972) - - - Green Homes Initiative - Reactive and Planned Capital Budg b - Prudential Borrowing (3,377) (3,377) (2,026) - - (3,377) (3,377) (2,026) - - - Green Homes Initiative - Reactive and Planned Capital Budg b - Capital Receipts (5,253) (5,253) (3,152) - - (5,253) (5,253) (3,152) - - - Loft Extensions a - Expenditure - - - 251 - - - - - - - Loft Extensions b - Prudential Borrowing - - - - - - - - - - - Major Adaptations a - Expenditure 4,100 4,100 3,588 981 239 4,100 4,100 3,588 - - - Major Adaptations b - Prudential Borrowing (4,100) (4,100) (3,588) - - (4,100) (4,100) (3,588) - - - Works to Stock - - - 21,928 10,802 - - - - - - Capital Contingency a - Expenditure 4,000 4,000 4,000 - - 4,000 4,000 4,000 - - - Capital Contingency b - Prudential Borrowing (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) - - (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) - - - Capital Contingency - - - - - - - - - - - Total HRA Capital Programm - - - 87,063 23,827 - - - - - - Summary of Total Capital Expenditure: Agreed Feb 2026 Cabinet 155,938 101,917 113,835 87,063 - 152,103 108,431 113,835 (3,835) 6,514 - Proposal Added Since Feb Cabinet - - - - - - - - - - - Total Approved Expenditure 155,938 101,917 113,835 87,063 - 152,103 108,431 113,835 (3,835) 6,514 - Expenditure and Funding: a - Expenditure 155,938 101,917 113,835 87,063 23,827 152,103 108,431 113,835 (3,835) 6,514 - b - Revenue Contribution - - - - - (0) - - (0) - - b - Grant & Other Contribs (51,055) (17,539) (29,221) - - (51,255) (17,539) (29,221) (200) - - b - s106 - - - - - - - - - - - b - CIL - - - - - - - - - - - b - Capital Receipts (36,250) (36,737) (31,620) - - (36,250) (36,737) (31,620) - - - b - Finance Leasing - - - - - - - - - - - b - Prudential Borrowing (68,633) (47,641) (52,994) - - (64,598) (54,155) (52,994) 4,035 (6,514) - Total Funding (155,938) (101,917) (113,835) - - (152,103) (108,431) (113,835) 3,835 (6,514) -

Executive Decision Report Cabinet Thursday, 17 September 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 Executive Decision Report Cabinet Thursday, 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public “exempt information.” The law allows it to be considered in private when the need to keep it confidential outweighs the benefits of making it 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, 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Appendix Public Appendix For General Release Public Preview of Reports Item 10 – West London Coroner – Joint Arrangements Cabinet Member Lead Cabinet Member for Residents Services (Cllr Bridges) Relevant Committee Residents' Services Electoral Ward All Wards The West London Coroner’s Court provides an essential public service across six London boroughs, including Hillingdon. The Coroner independently investigates certain deaths and, where necessary, holds an inquest to establish the facts and identify learning that may help prevent similar deaths in the future. Local authorities have the statutory responsibility for providing and funding local coroner services. However, Coroner Officers have historically been provided by the Metropolitan Police Service. The Police have now confirmed their intention to withdraw this staffing support, meaning that councils must put alternative employment and funding arrangements in place to continue fulfilling their existing responsibilities. The report recommends that Hillingdon joins the other West London boroughs in a shared arrangement led by the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham. This collaborative approach will enable the boroughs to maintain a coordinated Coroner Officer service for the whole West London area, with appropriate legal, financial and governance safeguards. The proposed arrangement provides a phased transition to local authority funding. The Metropolitan Police Service will meet the full agreed cost in 2026/27 and 2027/28, followed by reduced contributions in the next two financial years. From 2030/31, the participating councils will collectively fund the service. Costs will be shared between the participating boroughs using the consortium’s established population-based formula. Cabinet is being asked to approve Hillingdon’s participation, subject to final legal, financial, HR and governance checks. Approval will support an orderly transition, maintain the collective West London approach and help ensure that the Coroner’s Court continues to provide a reliable and sensitive service to residents, the courts and bereaved families. The report is exempt from publication because it directly relates to labour (staffing) relations matters. Executive Decision Report Cabinet Thursday, 17 September 2026 Classification: Part 1 Public Item 11 – Disposal of Former Sea Cadets Hut, Watersplash Lane, Hayes Cabinet Member Lead Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Property (Cllr Denys) Relevant Committee Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Electoral Ward Pinkwell The former Sea Cadets Hut site at Watersplash Lane, Hayes (shown on site plan) has been vacant for more than 15 years and is no longer required to support Council services. During this period, the building and surrounding land have deteriorated and the site has attracted fly- tipping, antisocial behaviour and other unauthorised activity, requiring continued Council monitoring, management and security. The site extends to approximately one acre and was formerly used by the Sea Cadets as a training centre. The Council has explored whether it could be brought back into operational use, but no viable requirement has been identified by its services. Leaving the property vacant would allow its condition to deteriorate further and would continue to place an avoidable management and security burden on the Council. Cabinet is therefore being asked to consider the sale of the property. This approach is intended to secure the best consideration reasonably obtainable for the Council. Any future use or development would remain subject to the site’s planning status and any necessary approvals. Any disposal would reduce the ongoing risk of antisocial behaviour and provide an opportunity for a currently neglected site to be brought back into productive use. It would also generate a capital receipt for the Council, supporting its wider investment programme and helping to reduce the costs associated with borrowing. The report is exempt from publication as it contains commercially sensitive valuation and financial information relating to the proposed disposal. Public disclosure could prejudice the Council’s ability to achieve best consideration for the asset and therefore may not represent best value for resident taxpayers.