Home Decisions Meetings News
← Back to Council

Council

Thursday 28th November 2024 • View on LB Hillingdon’s website
Meeting documents
👥 Attendance details📄 Agenda frontsheet PDF 391 KB📦 Agenda reports pack PDF 9 MB📝 Printed minutes PDF 490 KB
Read the text of: Agenda frontsheet PDF 391 KB (3 pages)
Lloyd White Head of Democratic Services London Borough of Hillingdon, Phase II, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW Putting our residents first Council To all Members of the Council Date: THURSDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2024 Time: 7.30 PM Venue: COUNCIL CHAMBER - CIVIC CENTRE, HIGH STREET, UXBRIDGE UB8 1UW Meeting Details: The public and press are welcome to attend and observe the meeting. For safety and accessibility, security measures will be conducted, including searches of individuals and their belongings. Attendees must also provide satisfactory proof of identity upon arrival. Refusal to comply with these requirements will result in non- admittance. This meeting may be broadcast on the Council’s YouTube channel. You can also view this agenda online at www.hillingdon.gov.uk Published: Wednesday, 20 November 2024 Contact: Lloyd White, Head of Democratic Services Email: democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk Useful information for residents and visitors Watching & recording this meeting You can watch this meeting on the Council's YouTube channel, live or archived. Residents and the media are also welcome to attend in person, and if they wish, report on the public part of the meeting. Any individual or organisation may record or film proceedings as long as it does not disrupt proceedings. It is recommended to give advance notice of filming to ensure any particular requirements can be met. The Council will provide seating areas for residents/public, high speed WiFi access to all attending and an area for the media to report. When present in the room, silent mode should be enabled for all mobile devices. Travel and parking Bus routes 427, U1, U3, U4 and U7 all stop at the Civic Centre. Uxbridge underground station, with the Piccadilly and Metropolitan lines, is a short walk away. Limited parking is available at the Civic Centre. For details on availability and how to book a parking space, please contact Democratic Services. Please enter via main reception and visit the security desk to sign-in and collect a visitors pass. You will then be directed to the Chamber. Accessibility For accessibility options regarding this agenda please contact Democratic Services. For those hard of hearing an Induction Loop System is available for use. Emergency procedures If there is a FIRE, you will hear a continuous alarm. Please follow the signs to the nearest FIRE EXIT and assemble on the Civic Centre forecourt. Lifts must not be used unless instructed by a Fire Marshal or Security Officer. In the event of a SECURITY INCIDENT, follow instructions issued via the tannoy, a Fire Marshal or a Security Officer. Those unable to evacuate using the stairs, should make their way to the signed refuge locations. Agenda Prayers To be said by Father Michael Miller. 1 Apologies for Absence 2 Minutes 1 - 8 To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2024 (attached) 3 Declarations of Interest To note any declarations of interest in any matter before the Council 4 Mayor's Announcements 5 Public Question Time 9 - 12 To take questions submitted by members of the public in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10. 6 Report of the Head of Democratic Services 13 - 16 7 Polling District and Polling Places Review 17 - 66 8 Youth Justice Plan 2024-2029 67 - 96 9 Members' Questions 97 - 98 To take questions submitted by Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11 10 Motions 99 - 100 To consider Motions submitted by Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12

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

Read the text of: Printed minutes PDF 490 KB (16 pages)
Minutes COUNCIL 28 November 2024 Meeting held at Council Chamber - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW Councillor Colleen Sullivan (Mayor) Councillor Philip Corthorne MCIPD (Deputy Mayor) MEMBERS PRESENT: Councillors: Naser Abby Shehryar Ahmad-Wallana Kaushik Banerjee Labina Basit Adam Bennett Jonathan Bianco Wayne Bridges Tony Burles Reeta Chamdal Roy Chamdal Farhad Choubedar Peter Curling Darran Davies Nick Denys Ian Edwards Elizabeth Garelick Narinder Garg Tony Gill Martin Goddard Ekta Gohil Becky Haggar OBE Henry Higgins Mohammed Islam Rita Judge Kamal Preet Kaur Kuldeep Lakhmana Richard Lewis Heena Makwana Gursharan Mand Kelly Martin Stuart Mathers Douglas Mills Richard Mills Barry Nelson-West Susan O'Brien Jane Palmer Sital Punja John Riley Raju Sansarpuri Jagjit Singh Jan Sweeting Steve Tuckwell OFFICERS PRESENT: Tony Zaman, Richard Ennis, Dan Kennedy, Lloyd White, Dan Dickinson, Mark Braddock, Morgan Einon, Alice Pringault and Nikki O'Halloran ONE MINUTE'S SILENCE Those present observed a one minute’s silence in memory of Past Mayor Michael Markham and former Councillor Michael Bull. 27. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Bhatt, Burrows, Dhot, Farley, Gardner, Lavery, Money, Nelson and Smallwood. 28. MINUTES (Agenda Item 2) It was agreed that the first sentence of the third paragraph of Item 6.4 be amended to read “…Plans (EHCPs) and Ofsted and the CQC had seen…”. The sixth paragraph of the same item would be amended to read “…why it had taken an Ofsted and CQC inspection to…”. RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2024, as amended, be agreed as a correct record. 29. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (Agenda Item 3) Mr Dan Dickinson, Head of Legal Services / Borough Solicitor, declared a non- pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 6iv, as the item related to his role, and remained in the room during the consideration thereof. 30. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (Agenda Item 4) The Mayor advised that she had had a busy few months, attending a variety of functions including a number of Christmas lights switch on events and 100th birthday parties. She had also had the honour of laying wreaths at memorials in Ruislip and Harefield and at the Royal Naval Association on Remembrance Sunday. The Mayor thanked those Councillors who had laid wreaths in other parts of the Borough on her behalf. 31. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (Agenda Item 5) It was noted that, in accordance with the Constitution, the Mayor had agreed to group the questions together to be answered together as follows: 5.1, 5.4 and 5.10; 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9; 5.6. 5.1 QUESTION FROM JONATHAN HAYNES OF THE GREENWAY, UXBRIDGE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES AND PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: “Given that Blue Horizon have been appointed as consultants to find a new operator to run the Beck Theatre, what assurances can LBH give that they will act fast and with urgency to secure a new operator assuming one is found, and ensure the Beck’s long-term future? We are at a critical phase and have warned that if the venue closes in January, it will be very difficult for it to re-open - we need to ensure a deal is agreed in order for a seamless de-coupling with Trafalgar and keep the doors open.” 5.4 QUESTION FROM HARPAL TAMBER OF GREAT PARK CLOSE, UXBRIDGE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES AND PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: “Can the Council categorically confirm or deny that they are in possession of drawings showing a new residential development scheme on the Beck Theatre site?” 5.10 QUESTION FROM EILISH STONE OF HATCH LANE HARMONDSWORTH TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES AND PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: “My relationship with the Beck goes back over 30 years when my sons performed with the Youth Theatre and in Summer Projects. This gave them ‘skills for life’ transferable to many different careers, including performing arts. “Our Council’s tardy response to securing the future of the theatre has caused much upset and uncertainty to the employees, service users and community groups. As a member of the community choir, I despair of our elected Council/Cabinet members who claim to put ‘residents first’. It seems you only woke from your slumber when our media campaign to Save The Beck took off! Before that it was silence! “Have you a new operator to take over the running of the Beck when the Trafalgar Group exits on 13 January and, if not, what is your plan to ensure the theatre does not close?” Councillor Bianco provided a single response in relation to Questions 5.1, 5.4 and 5.10 as they related to the same issue and advised that the Council had been surprised and disappointed that Trafalgar would not enter negotiations with the authority unless the organisation was given a subsidy. The Council had subsequently acted quickly to appoint Blue Horizon to find a new contractor to run the Beck Theatre. They had already spoken to six or seven commercial groups about taking over the running of the theatre and received four expressions of interest which were currently being evaluated. It would be important to appoint a partner that wanted to work with the Council. The notion of delays had been perpetuated in social media but had not reflected the amount of time and energy that had been put into the negotiations with Trafalgar to try to find a workable solution. The Council could not agree to continue to pay a financial subsidy beyond the current year. As soon as it had become clear that a resolution would not be found, the Council had worked quickly to appoint Blue Horizon. Councillor Bianco advised that a feasibility study with drawings had been prepared in early 2023. The study had stated that the site would be unsuitable for a large residential development as it was a green space and would only be sufficient to have a small-scale development which would render it unsuitable. It was noted that this study predated the contract negotiations with Trafalgar. 5.2 QUESTION FROM EMILY HOPLA OF RUISLIP COURT, RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: “What evidence exists to support the Council’s claim that there is no demand for the SRP at Coteford School when families like mine requested placements, and I have multiple emails from February — before the consultation closed—stating the SRP was no longer accepting admissions, suggesting this decision was predetermined?” 5.3 QUESTION FROM BETHANY GATES OF FORBES WAY, RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: “Regarding the proposal to close the SRP at Coteford Infant School, how can the Council claim that children in the SRP are in a mainstream setting 100% of the time when we have clear evidence, including timetables, that show speech and language therapy, physiotherapy and other essential interventions are provided outside the classroom in a specialised setting within the school?” 5.5 QUESTION FROM GEORGINA SWAKER OF HALE END CLOSE, RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: “The recent consultation report on the SRP at Coteford states that children with physical disabilities can have their needs met in any mainstream school. However, parents report being turned away because local schools state they lack the necessary resources. How can the council justify closing the SRP without first ensuring that all mainstream schools are adequately equipped and prepared to meet the needs of physically disabled children?” 5.7 QUESTION FROM STACY MCGOURAN OF GREEN LANE, NORTHWOOD TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: “The Council states that the SRP closure at Coteford School is "in the name of inclusivity," yet this decision removes vital therapies for children with physical disabilities without clear guarantees, funding, or support to replace them. How can this be considered inclusive when it leaves families struggling and children without the specialist care they need? Is this decision truly about inclusion, or is it a cost-cutting measure?” 5.8 QUESTION FROM NIKKY HUDSON OF MOUNT PARK ROAD TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: “As a parent, I’m concerned that EHCPs don’t cover essential costs like therapy and equipment, leaving already deficit-hit schools to fill the gap. How will the Council ensure my child’s needs are fully funded without shifting the burden onto schools?” 5.9 QUESTION FROM LEANNE FISHER OF DOVEDALE CLOSE, HAREFIELD TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: “The Council claims "nothing will change" as SRP therapies move to the NHS, yet this shift risks harmful delays for children with special needs, causing developmental regression and long-term damage. How can the Council deny this harm, and what steps are being taken to address it?” Councillor O’Brien provided a single response in relation to Questions 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9 as they related to the same issue and advised that she would be unable to discuss individual cases in this public forum. There had been a recent consultation in relation to Coteford Infant School’s proposal to close the physical disability specialist resource provision (SRP) as there had been reducing demand for the SRP and many children with a physical disability were having their needs met within the mainstream school with reasonable adjustments. Every mainstream school had been required to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that children with a physical disability were not discriminated against. Currently, all children at Coteford Infant School accessed all of their lessons in inclusive mainstream classrooms. Therapeutic support was also available within the classroom as well as outside. SRPs would generally operate 15% to 50% of the child’s timetable in a separate area of the school / classroom and the remainder in mainstream lessons. Coteford Infant School did not have a separate area for SRPs. At the end of January 2024, there were 56 children and young people with a primary need of physical disability being educated and supported in mainstream schools in the Borough, compared to 30 being supported in SRPs across Hillingdon. The Council would continue to work with educational settings to ensure that they were inclusive of children and young people with additional needs. If needs were not being met because of a school’s lack of resources, parents were encouraged to contact their Educational Care Coordinator as resources were provided to schools to ensure that they were able to meet the needs of a child as identified within their Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). Schools were also able to apply for funding for equipment. Provision outlined in an EHCP was statutory and there had been no suggestion to change this provision as part of the proposal. Therapies were being delivered across all schools to meet the needs of the provision outlined in individual EHCPs and were delivered by CNWL (which had been jointly commissioned by the Council and the North West London Integrated Care Board). Almost all jointly commissioned therapies delivered by CNWL were undertaken in a school setting in Hillingdon. Irrespective of the decision of the school, therapies would continue to be delivered at the school to any child on roll at the SRP. SRPs typically commissioned their own therapies so the proposed closure might mean that the therapies could be delivered by a different provider but there would be no change to the amount of contacts that a child received which would have been included in their EHCP. The level of funding for each child would not change as a result of the proposal. Coteford Infant School would have the option to keep its current therapists or opt for another service available to all other mainstream schools in Hillingdon. No therapies, support or funding would be removed as a result of this proposal. Schools did not receive separate funding for therapies as this was commissioned centrally. 5.6 QUESTION FROM LINDA GATES OF FORE STREET, EASTCOTE TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: “The results report on the Consultation to close the SRP at Coteford Infant School state that 96% of the community wants the SRP to stay, showing overwhelming opposition to its closure. Given the fundamental purpose of a consultation is to consider community impact and opinions, does the Leader of the Council genuinely care about the views of constituents, or will this decision disregard the voices of the very people it affects most?” Councillor Edwards confirmed that he cared about residents and advised that a decision had not yet been taken by Cabinet. The consultation had been undertaken to help the Council make better decisions and had enabled residents to draw the authority’s attention to issues that may not previously have been considered. However, there was also a need to consider the views of those residents that had not responded to the consultation but who would be affected by any decision made. Councillor Edwards advised that it was important to ensure that disabled children were afforded the same options and choices as able-bodied children. They needed to be able to socialise at school with children from their neighbourhood and grow and learn in an inclusive setting. The formal consultation responses would be considered as part of the decision making process. 32. REPORT OF THE HEAD OF DEMOCRATIC SERVICES (Agenda Item 6) i) URGENT IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS Members noted the urgent decisions taken since the Council meeting in September 2024, as detailed in the report. ii) SELECT COMMITTEES’ TERMS OF REFERENCE Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business and it was: RESOLVED: That Council note the appointment of Cabinet Members and the new portfolios, and the Head of Democratic Services be authorised to make relevant changes to the Council Constitution to reflect the new Cabinet structure – including to the Terms of Reference of the Council Select Committees. iii) CHANGES TO COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS 2024/25 Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business and it was: RESOLVED: That the following changes to committee memberships for 2024/25 be approved:  Registration and Appeals Committee – Councillor D Mills to replace Councillor Tuckwell.  Pensions Committee – Councillor D Mills to replace Councillor Riley and Councillor Riley to replace Councillor Corthorne as a named substitute. iv) APPOINTMENT OF STATUTORY OFFICERS Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business and it was: RESOLVED: That: a) Mr Dan Dickinson be appointed to the statutory role of Monitoring Officer of the Council; and b) the Constitution and the Officer Scheme of Delegations be amended, and Mr Dickinson be empowered to undertake all of the statutory functions of a Monitoring Officer and Head of Legal Services / Borough Solicitor as set out in the Constitution on an interim basis until such time as a formal appointment to the position of Head of Legal Services is made. 33. POLLING DISTRICT AND POLLING PLACES REVIEW (Agenda Item 7) Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business and it was: RESOLVED: That the proposed parliamentary polling arrangements within the Borough for 2025 onwards, as detailed in Appendix B of the report, be approved subject to the Returning Officer being instructed to: a) seek the use of alternative venues, where possible to school buildings in the following Wards:  Belmore,  Eastcote,  Hayes Town,  Hillingdon East,  Northwood Hills,  West Drayton,  Wood End, and  Yeading. b) seek potential additional venues in Charville and Ruislip Wards. 34. YOUTH JUSTICE PLAN 2024-2029 (Agenda Item 8) Councillor O’Brien moved, and Councillor Makwana seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business and it was: RESOLVED: That the Youth Justice Plan 2024-2029, as set out in the appendix of the report, be adopted. 35. MEMBERS' QUESTIONS (Agenda Item 9) 9.2 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BANERJEE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND TRANSFORMATION - COUNCILLOR GODDARD: “It has been widely publicised that local authorities in England & Wales are experiencing serious financial difficulties. Can the Cabinet Member please comment on the extent to which these difficulties are expected to have an impact on the London Borough of Hillingdon, particularly in the light of the budget monitoring pressures in the current financial year recently reported at Cabinet?” Councillor Goddard advised that local government funding had reduced by 70% despite significant rises in inflation and demand for services which had increased costs. In 2025/26, the local government funding gap was in the region of £2.3bn. In 2026/27, it was expected to be around £3.9bn. The cost of adult social care had increased by £3.7bn over the last five years and Home to School Transport costs had increased by 63%. All of this, along with the public sector pay settlement, had resulted in significant financial pressure on local authorities, which was likely to increase following the recent Government budget statement. Although the Government had promised local authorities a three-year settlement, councils had only been given a one-year settlement. Hillingdon already had one of the lowest levels of Council Tax in London which meant that it didn’t have as much leeway to deal with the financial pressures it was now facing. This was a national issue which would not be resolved until the local government funding pressures were addressed by the Government. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Banerjee asked what the financial implications would be of the increased Employers National Insurance (ENI) contributions. Councillor Goddard advised that the ENI contributions had been expected to increase in the autumn statement but the reduction in the threshold at which employers started paying contributions had not been anticipated. There was a possibility that local government could receive relief in relation to ENI but those who contracted with councils were unlikely to receive the same relief. 9.6 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR PUNJA TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: “Can the Cabinet Member explain what will happen to those children with physical disabilities, that will be remaining in Coteford Infant School after the proposed closure of the SRP funding, if the percentage of children having education health and care plans falls below the threshold at which the Council provides this non-statutory funding?” Councillor O’Brien advised that there would be no impact on the funding for children currently on the school roll to 2025. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Punja noted that the Select Committee report had stated that nothing would change, and asked for confirmation that the funding would continue. Councillor O’Brien advised that the Council had committed to provide the equivalent funding of £6k. 9.4 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR HIGGINS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & GROWTH - COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL: “Given the high demand for housing, can the Cabinet Member please provide an update on what is being done to prevent homelessness in Hillingdon?” Councillor Tuckwell thanked officers for their dedication and commitment to preventing homelessness in Hillingdon. They had taken a proactive approach to deal with unprecedented levels of demand (there had been a 28% increase), spiralling costs and a lack of available properties. The Council had taken action to strengthen triage, liaised with landlords and addressed arrears. 259 private sector placements had been made but there had been an increase in the cost of temporary accommodation across London (around £114m each month). Councils were not able to cope with this increasing demand alone and needed the Government to provide additional resources. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Higgins asked the Cabinet Member to provide an update on the work undertaken by the Council to reduce the pressures on temporary accommodation. Councillor Tuckwell advised that officers had drafted the Temporary Accommodation Strategy which would be considered by Cabinet at its meeting in January 2025. The Strategy would help to reduce demand, increase the number of residents in settled accommodation and reduce the costs of temporary accommodation. A new Social Housing Supply Programme was also being developed to take the pressure off temporary accommodation by increasing the housing supply and financial assistance was being provided for private rentals. The Council had been taking direct action to alleviate the pressure on temporary accommodation but costs were spiralling and the situation had become unsustainable. The Housing Team had refined its procedures to deal with residents more quickly but residents deserved a Government that treated the housing crisis as a serious issue that needed to be fixed. 9.3 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR SWEETING TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: “The report to the Cabinet meeting on 7 November 2024 - agenda Item 7, page 125, paragraph 14 - states that the Designated Schools Grant cumulative deficit carried forward to 2025/26 is forecast at £68.8 million “As the Statutory Override which currently separates this deficit from the Council’s General Fund reserves is in place only until March 2026, what plan does the Council have for paying back this deficit which is greater than the Council’s reserves if the Statutory Override is not extended beyond March 2026?” Councillor O’Brien confirmed that the Statutory Override would expire in March 2026. If the Government decided not to extend the Statutory Override, it would become a significant national issue as well as an issue in Hillingdon. As such, it was anticipated that the Government would extend the arrangement. Consideration was being given to possible solutions and progress had been made in relation to in-year places. Councillor O’Brien thanked officers for the work that they had undertaken to meet the demand for high need places. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Sweeting asked what would happen if the Government did not extend the Statutory Override beyond March 2026 and asked for an account of why and how the Council had arrived in this situation when more than 88% of local authorities had not needed to seek a financial bailout. Councillor O’Brien advised that she was unable to provide a comprehensive response. She noted that the opportunity to have a Statutory Override agreement had been withdrawn so additional local authorities in need would not now be able to sign up. The Council would continue to work with the information that was currently available. 9.5 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR DAVIES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES AND PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: “Could the Cabinet Member provide an update on the future of the Beck Theatre, confirm the Council’s commitment to retaining the theatre on its current site to continue serving the local community and, in addition, inform us on the progress with the consultants involved in this matter?” Councillor Davies advised that Councillor Bianco’s response to the public questions had addressed the issue that he had raised and that he would therefore like to withdraw his question. 9.1 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BURLES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE - COUNCILLOR PALMER: “With an ever-increasing demand and waits for GP services, can the Cabinet member please provide an update on the expenditure of funds received from the St Andrews development on the RAF Uxbridge site, for primary healthcare in Uxbridge?” Councillor Palmer advised that NHS providers were responsible for the delivery of health services. The Council had arrangements in place to collect Section 106 money in relation to local developments and had secured £624k from the St Andrews development in June 2015, £117k of which had been used on the Uxbridge Health Centre. In August 2024, approximately £450k had been allocated towards a new Health Hub in Uxbridge – the NHS was currently looking at options and developing a business case. There was no supplementary question. 9.7 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BRIDGES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES AND PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: “Could the Cabinet Member please give the Council an update on the disposal of Barra Hall in light of recent disinformation being disseminated by the Labour Group.” Councillor Bianco advised that the Government had asked that local authorities dispose of their surplus assets. Barra Hall was one such asset which had been underutilised as only a small part had been used as a Children’s Centre but had relocated to the Hayes Family Hub in January 2024, with staff being redeployed to other Children’s Centres. Barra Hall was a listed building that needed a significant amount of investment to bring it up to a standard that would enable it to be leased out. Harrow, Richmond and Uxbridge Colleges (HRUC) had bought Barra Hall which would be used to provide SEND services for those aged 18-25. The sale had included a requirement that the property only be used for education purposes. HRUC would be providing local education placements, supporting the safety valve agreement. The sale of Barra Hall had been deemed to be a good news story as it had provided the Council with a financial saving and capital receipt, ensured the continued use of the building and provided an education facility. There was no supplementary question. 9.8 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MAKWANA TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: “Can the Cabinet Member please explain what has been the impact of the Council's revised Fostering Offer since its launch?” Councillor O’Brien advised that the revised fostering offer had been introduced in May 2024. Fostering provided a stable environment for children’s development and it was important to ensure that sufficient foster carers were available to help children in their communities. The number of people fostering had been at an all time low so the new offer had changed the recruitment approach and simplified the application form to try to recruit more foster carers. Officers had seen an increase in the number of enquiries about fostering since the launch of the new offer (around 200 enquiries since May 2024 compared to 43 in the same period last year). The new offer included an enhanced and streamlined recruitment process that had been simplified. Foster carers were also provided with PACE training (Playfulness, Acceptance, Curiosity and Empathy) as well as a payment and benefit package. There was no supplementary question. 36. MOTIONS (Agenda Item 10) 10.3 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR EDWARDS Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Goddard seconded, the following motion: That this Council is greatly concerned that the government's increase in the Employer's National Insurance Contributions and the reduction in the threshold for payment will add further pressure on Council budgets and on our residents. Whilst the government have said, but not yet confirmed, that Councils will be fully reimbursed for their direct cost arising from this change, financial assistance will not be given to our care service and early year providers and charities upon which this Council relies to support our residents. The additional taxation these providers will now have to pay will most likely cause them to increase their charges and ultimately it is the hard-working families and residents of this borough that will have to pay as that cost is passported on to them. Therefore, to mitigate this new pressure, this Council will reaffirm its commitment to sound financial management and good business practices that has enabled Hillingdon Council to deal with underfunding to date. Those speaking in support of the motion noted that businesses would be paying for the additional burden and that the Council would be unable to absorb this new financial pressure. Inflation would be stimulated and employment stifled. Local austerity had been worsening, in the light of which the Council had reaffirmed its sound financial management. The disposal of Barra Hall and the move of Uxbridge Library would reduce costs to the Council but had been opposed by the Labour Group. An increase in fees and charges and cuts to services would be needed to fund the National Insurance increase which would impact on all working families as costs would need to be passed on to Council Tax payers. Low margin businesses, charities and social care providers would all be impacted by the increase and smaller providers would not be able to provide as many services as it would be unaffordable. Residents had a variety of needs so required a variety of partners for personal services. Although it would be important to continue to support care providers to ensure that residents had a choice, it was suggested that no government of any party had ever followed through to meet the needs of social care. There would need to be a reliance on excellent partnership working to provide care to residents. The majority of charity funding streams were grant based and the funds secured had to be used for the purpose that they had been given. This meant that charities would need to raise additional funds to pay for the increased staffing costs or use donated money that would be better placed supporting clients. Around 7,300 charities and voluntary organisations had urged urgent action but it was queried whether the Government would help them financially, despite having given inflation-busting pay awards to unions. It was noted that, since 2010, the administration had renovated all of the libraries in the Borough, built new school places, improved green spaces and frozen Council Tax. Voluntary groups had been doing a brilliant job but the increased costs would have an impact on the vulnerable residents that they helped. The national living wage increase had been welcomed but had disregarded the pressure on providers and, ultimately, on residents. The Council had a finite amount of money to mitigate the pressures that it faced and, in December 2024, Cabinet would need to consider the budget for 2025/26 to decide what action the local authority needed to take. Those speaking against the motion queried why the administration was so concerned when it had not been concerned before. There had been no concern about the austerity measures put in place in 2010, welfare spend reductions, cuts to the police and courts and the length of NHS waiting lists. It was suggested that motions could have been submitted about these issues previously but it would have been criticising a Conservative Government. The current Labour Government was having to work with the fragile financial situation that had been left by the previous Conservative Government. It was suggested that the motion was being used as an opportunity to criticise the Government, even though it had only been elected six months previously. The administration had used the same argument when the minimum wage had been introduced. It was noted that good charities and businesses would have built resilience into their finances. The previous government had put things in motion which had meant that things now needed to change. The current Government had stated that local authorities would be reimbursed so it was unclear what the impact would be on the Council at this stage. The motion was put to the vote and it was: RESOLVED: That this Council is greatly concerned that the government's increase in the Employer's National Insurance Contributions and the reduction in the threshold for payment will add further pressure on Council budgets and on our residents. Whilst the government have said, but not yet confirmed, that Councils will be fully reimbursed for their direct cost arising from this change, financial assistance will not be given to our care service and early year providers and charities upon which this Council relies to support our residents. The additional taxation these providers will now have to pay will most likely cause them to increase their charges and ultimately it is the hard-working families and residents of this borough that will have to pay as that cost is passported on to them. Therefore, to mitigate this new pressure, this Council will reaffirm its commitment to sound financial management and good business practices that has enabled Hillingdon Council to deal with underfunding to date. 10.1 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR MATHERS Councillor Mathers moved, and Councillor Garelick seconded, the following motion: That this Council deeply regrets the entirely avoidable closure of the Beck Theatre in January 2025 and the significant negative impact this will have on the arts and culture provision within our borough and calls on the Cabinet to: a) reopen the theatre with an appropriate operator at the earliest opportunity in 2025, that maintains the quality of programming and community engagement historically delivered at this wonderful venue and b) immediately conduct an independent review to investigate the delays and communications that occurred between the council and existing operator resulting in the forthcoming closure of the theatre. This review will determine what lessons can be learnt and will be conducted independently of the Council and operator. The scope of the review should investigate:  negotiations between the Council and the operator including offers made informally or formally over recent years, their correspondence, negotiations and preparations for agreements.  the Council’s and Cabinet’s decision making over recent years regarding this tenure.  the use of Council’s external and internal communications including social media channels.  any other relevant aspects as determined by the independent investigator. The review to then be presented to the relevant Select Committee within the next six months. Those speaking in support of the motion noted that there had been a lack of response at the end of the lease, despite dialogue going back to 2021. The Beck Theatre had supported charities and local initiatives which would be impacted by its closure in January 2025. The motion had requested an independent review to investigate the true cost of the decision and its impact and would offer an opportunity to pause, reflect and learn lessons. Consultants had been appointed but it was queried whether their findings would be acted upon as the administration had been trying to sell off assets and kept letting Hillingdon residents down. There appeared to be no long-term strategy for arts and culture in the Borough despite the Council Strategy in November 2022 setting out a goal for all residents to enjoy culture and arts. Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the following amendment (additional words in bold and deleted words crossed through): i) That this Council deeply regrets that Trafalgar Theatres have declined the Council's offer to renew the lease of the Beck Theatre and recognises the entirely avoidable closure of the Beck Theatre in January 2025 and the significant negative impact this will may have on the commercial theatre arts and culture provision within our borough. Notwithstanding the promising progress being made by Blue Horizon, the Council's consultants to help identify a new theatre operator for the Beck, this Council and calls on the Cabinet to: a) reopen the theatre agree terms with an appropriate operator at the earliest opportunity, without the requirement for ongoing financial subsidy from the Council in 2025, that maintains the quality of programming and community engagement historically delivered at this wonderful venue. and ii) delete the remainder of the motion. The amended motion then to read: That this Council regrets that Trafalgar Theatres have declined the Council's offer to renew the lease of the Beck Theatre and recognises the significant negative impact this may have on the commercial theatre within our borough. Notwithstanding the promising progress being made by Blue Horizon, the Council's consultants, to help identify a new theatre operator for the Beck, this Council calls on the Cabinet to agree terms with an appropriate operator at the earliest opportunity, without the requirement for ongoing financial subsidy from the Council, that maintains the quality of programming and community engagement historically delivered at this wonderful venue. Those speaking in support of the amendment noted that the original motion caused unnecessary concern for residents. Rumours had been circulated in relation to Barra Hall for political gain and Labour had been saying that the Council wanted to build housing on the Beck Theatre site. Trafalgar had refused to run the Beck Theatre without the Council providing the company with a subsidy. The Council had observed Trafalgar’s request for confidentiality in relation to negotiations but had been unable to agree to extend the lease based on the requirement for Trafalgar to receive a £20k subsidy each month, free rent and the Council being liable for any repairs. Trafalgar was a private profit-making company and the £648k subsidy demanded over 3½ years was not something that the Council could afford. Conversations had been undertaken with a number of organisations that were interested in running the Beck Theatre and improving the local arts scene. It was anticipated that a new provider would be appointed in the new year. Those speaking against the amendment suggested that it failed to address the real issue and had ignored the need for an independent review. The amendment had removed the key points and bore no resemblance to the original motion. Residents had placed their trust in the Council and deserved an answer but the amendment asked for something that was already happening. The administration had stated that the Council could not afford to pay the subsidy to Trafalgar yet had then paid a private consultant to undertake the procurement of a new provider. There appeared to be conflicting reasons for this public debacle which ranged from issues around rent to lease to subsidy. It had been worrying that the administration had avoided taking responsibility for the failed negotiations and continued to look at ways of selling off green spaces. Concern had also been expressed about the future of the staff currently employed at Beck Theatre. Residents had been disgusted by the way that this situation had been handled. The amended motion was put to the vote and agreed. The substantive motion was put to the vote and it was: RESOLVED: That this Council regrets that Trafalgar Theatres have declined the Council's offer to renew the lease of the Beck Theatre and recognises the significant negative impact this may have on the commercial theatre within our borough. Notwithstanding the promising progress being made by Blue Horizon, the Council's consultants, to help identify a new theatre operator for the Beck, this Council calls on the Cabinet to agree terms with an appropriate operator at the earliest opportunity, without the requirement for ongoing financial subsidy from the Council, that maintains the quality of programming and community engagement historically delivered at this wonderful venue. 10.2 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR KAUR Councillor Kaur moved, and Councillor Curling seconded, the following motion: That this Council recognises that Assets of Community Value (ACVs) such as theatres, community centres, libraries, pubs, and other spaces, provide vital services and activities for residents. This Council believes that it has a pivotal role in supporting and encouraging local communities to nominate ACVs, ensuring that valuable assets are protected for future generations. Therefore, this Council resolves to:  publicly identify and list ACVs  actively promote the ACV nomination process and provide necessary support  launch a targeted communication campaign to raise awareness of the ACV process among residents and community groups Those speaking in support of the motion noted that residents had had sleepless nights about ACVs and the failure to consult on issues such as Yiewsley recreation ground and Uxbridge Library. Residents had felt silenced, cheated and excluded from the decision-making process as they found out about plans when it was too late to have any influence. Inclusion had to be the foundation of the Council’s approach. Concern was expressed that assets such as Winston Churchill Theatre and Uxbridge Golf Course would also be at risk. It was noted that, although Hillingdon did not have any, neighbouring boroughs did have ACVs. Communities needed to be empowered and the Council was urged to work with residents to nominate ACVs, produce a communications plan and provide the tools for residents to save the assets that they loved. It was suggested that nominations be seen as an opportunity rather than a threat. Supporters of the motion stated that £75m of assets needed to be sold for the Council to avoid bankruptcy and asked which assets would be stripped to meet this. It was suggested that it would be valuable to compile a register of community assets Initiatives such as Community Asset Transfers could also be considered. Communities were built on people and places and this motion would act as a promise to future generations. The motion asked that the Council supported assets for future use because, once they were sold off, they were lost forever. The Council had a part to play in securing future assets and didn’t need to spend money if it came up with innovative ways forward. The local authority was the custodian of Council assets and could transfer the ownership to community groups. If assets needed to be sold, the Council should put safeguards on the property’s future use (similar to the action taken in relation to the sale of Barra Hall). The motion asked that the Council took the lead role in generating a list of assets and that it worked with the community to secure those assets for the future. Those speaking against the motion valued the ACV process but stated that the motion was flawed and unnecessary and asked that the Council act unlawfully. The community needed to identify ACVs and the Council would then act as an arbiter if it met the requirements for inclusion on the list. A page was available on the Council website which set out information about the ACV process and provided links. There would be no need to spend money launching a communications plan as information was already publicly available and Councillors should be fulfilling their community leadership role by helping residents. It was important that, once a building had been appointed as an ACV, it fulfilled a use / purpose and had funds available to run it as this would not be something that the Council would be able to do. The motion was put to the vote and lost. The meeting, which commenced at 7.30 pm, closed at 9.46 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Lloyd White, Head of Democratic Services on democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk. Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public.

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

Attendance
Present: Councillor Colleen Sullivan, Councillor Philip Corthorne MCIPD, Councillor Naser Abby, Councillor Shehryar Ahmad-Wallana, Councillor Kaushik Banerjee, Councillor Labina Basit, Councillor Adam Bennett, Councillor Jonathan Bianco, Councillor Wayne Bridges, Councillor Tony Burles, Councillor Reeta Chamdal, Councillor Roy Chamdal, Councillor Farhad Choubedar, Councillor Peter Curling, Councillor Darran Davies, Councillor Nick Denys, Councillor Ian Edwards, Councillor Elizabeth Garelick, Councillor Narinder Garg, Councillor Tony Gill, Councillor Martin Goddard, Councillor Ekta Gohil, Councillor Becky Haggar OBE, Councillor Henry Higgins, Councillor Mohammed Shofiul Islam, Councillor Rita Judge, Councillor Kamal Preet Kaur, Councillor Kuldeep Lakhmana, Councillor Richard Lewis, Councillor Heena Makwana, Councillor Gursharan Mand, Councillor Kelly Martin, Councillor Stuart Mathers, Councillor Douglas Mills, Councillor Richard Mills, Councillor Barry Nelson-West, Councillor Susan O'Brien, Councillor Jane Palmer, Councillor Sital Punja, Councillor John Riley, Councillor Raju Sansarpuri, Councillor Jagjit Singh, Councillor Jan Sweeting, Councillor Steve Tuckwell, Tony Zaman, Dan Kennedy, Lloyd White, Mark Braddock, Morgan Einon, Alice Pringault, Nikki O'Halloran
Apologies: Councillor Kishan Bhatt, Councillor Keith Burrows, Councillor Jas Dhot, Councillor Scott Farley, Councillor Janet Gardner, Councillor Eddie Lavery, Councillor Peter Money BSC (Hons) MSc (Res) PhD, Councillor June Nelson, Councillor Peter Smallwood

Agenda

ONE MINUTE'S SILENCE
Those present observed a one minute’s silence in memory of Past Mayor Michael Markham and former Councillor Michael Bull.
27. Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Bhatt, Burrows, Dhot, Farley, Gardner, Lavery, Money, Nelson and Smallwood.
28. Minutes PDF 419 KB
To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2024 (attached)
📄 Minutes PDF 419 KB
Read the text of this document (8 pages)
Minutes COUNCIL 26 September 2024 Meeting held at Council Chamber - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW Councillor Colleen Sullivan (Mayor) Councillor Philip Corthorne (Deputy Mayor) MEMBERS PRESENT: Councillors: Naser Abby Kaushik Banerjee Labina Basit Adam Bennett Kishan Bhatt Jonathan Bianco Wayne Bridges Tony Burles Keith Burrows Reeta Chamdal Roy Chamdal Farhad Choubedar Peter Curling Darran Davies Nick Denys Jas Dhot Ian Edwards Scott Farley Janet Gardner Elizabeth Garelick Narinder Garg Tony Gill Martin Goddard Ekta Gohil Becky Haggar OBE Henry Higgins Mohammed Islam Rita Judge Kamal Preet Kaur Kuldeep Lakhmana Eddie Lavery Richard Lewis Heena Makwana Gursharan Mand Kelly Martin Stuart Mathers Douglas Mills Richard Mills Peter Money June Nelson Susan O'Brien Jane Palmer Sital Punja John Riley Raju Sansarpuri Jagjit Singh Peter Smallwood Jan Sweeting Steve Tuckwell OFFICERS PRESENT: Richard Ennis, Dan Kennedy, Sandra Taylor, Glen Egan, Lloyd White, Mark Braddock, Morgan Einon, Alice Pringault and Nikki O'Halloran 20. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Shehryar Ahmad-Wallana and Barry Nelson-West. 21. MINUTES (Agenda Item 2) RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 July 2024 be agreed as a correct record. 22. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (Agenda Item 3) Mr Lloyd White, Head of Democratic Services, declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 5ii, as the item related to his role, and remained in the room during the consideration thereof. Mr Richard Ennis, Corporate Director of Finance, declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 5ii, as the item related to his role, and remained in the room during the consideration thereof. 23. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (Agenda Item 4) The Mayor advised that, since the last Council meeting, she had visited care homes and attended a 100th birthday party. She had attended a wide range of engagements involving young people which had showcased their talents, determination and creativity. The Mayor had laid a wreath at the Polish Air Force Commemoration event at the Polish War Memorial and attended the Emergency Services flag raising on the Civic Centre forecourt. Other events had included attending a cake sale organised by the Daniella Logun Foundation and judging various entries at the Autumn Show. 24. REPORT OF THE HEAD OF DEMOCRATIC SERVICES (Agenda Item 5) The Leader provided an update regarding the flooding experienced in the Borough this week which had had a significant impact on some residents. There had been concern expressed in relation to a school that had had to close following flood damage and Council officers continued to help try to resolve the matter and get the school reopened as quickly as possible. 121 homes in Ruislip Gardens had also been significantly impacted by flooding. Whilst the insurance process was progressing, officers had been instructed to investigate the causes of the flooding and report back within the next two weeks. A more comprehensive investigation covering the whole of the Borough would also be undertaken. It appeared that the flood alleviation measures introduced in some areas that had previously been affected had prevented surface water flooding. The Leader advised that, whilst the damage caused by flooding was being repaired, the Council would be adopting a more lenient approach to disposals at the Civic Waste and Recycling Centre. Regarding the situation in Lebanon, the Leader advised that the Council had met with Heathrow to ensure that support would be in place for refugees when arriving in the Borough. i) URGENT IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business and it was: RESOLVED: That the Urgency decisions taken since the last Council meeting, as detailed in the report, be noted. ii) APPOINTMENT OF STATUTORY OFFICERS Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business. Whilst the appointment of Mr Ennis as the Council’s Chief Financial Officer and Section 151 Officer was welcomed, a request was made that the appointment be limited to a specific time period rather than being left open ended. It was noted that the Council was in a stable financial position but faced significant challenges similar to that of many other councils. However, it was not in the position that some other London boroughs found themselves, i.e., on the verge of special financial measures. RESOLVED: That: a) Mr Richard Ennis be appointed to the statutory role of Section 151 and Chief Financial Officer of the Council. b) the Constitution, Financial Regulations and the Officer Scheme of Delegations be amended, and Mr Ennis be empowered to undertake all of the statutory functions of a Section 151 Officer and Corporate Director of Finance as set out in the Constitution on an interim basis until such time as a formal appointment to the position of Corporate Director of Finance is made. c) Mr Lloyd White be appointed as interim Monitoring Officer of the Council upon departure of the current Monitoring Officer. iii) ELECTORAL COUNT ARRANGEMENTS Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business and it was: RESOLVED: That: a) the Head of Democratic Services, in his role as Returning Officer, be requested to carry out a review of electoral count arrangements to ensure that all parties, candidates, counting agents and observers attending the count can be assured of a process that is transparent, efficient and consistent. b) the count for the local elections in May 2026 take place during the day on Friday 8 May rather than immediately after polling closes on Thursday 7 May. iv) MEMBERS’ ALLOWANCES 2024/25 Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business and it was: RESOLVED: That w.e.f 26 September 2024: a) the SRA paid to the Independent Chair of the Audit Committee be increased to £8,000pa for the remainder of 2024/25; and b) an SRA of £8,000pa be paid to the Member carrying out the role of Chair of the Pensions Committee. NB: both SRAs to remain at this level until reviewed with all other allowances in February 2025. v) AMENDMENT TO CABINET PORTFOLIOS Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business and it was: RESOLVED: That the amendment to the Cabinet Portfolios be noted. 25. MEMBERS' QUESTIONS (Agenda Item 6) 6.2 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MAKWANA TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS' SERVICES - COUNCILLOR LAVERY: “What action has the Council taken to safeguard residents from the harm caused by the recent incidents of traffic light destruction?” Councillor Lavery advised that the Council condemned the reckless vandalism of the traffic signals that were owned and maintained by Transport for London (TfL). The Council’s Leader and Deputy Leader had met with senior officials at TfL to discuss the issue of vandalism and the time taken to repair the damage. Although it had been disappointing that the Mayor of London had not listened to residents and gone ahead with implementing the ULEZ scheme in outer London, the Council had been working jointly with the police and TfL to address the vandalism. The Council had taken a proactive approach and would provide Members with an update when information was available. There was no supplementary question. 6.1 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BURLES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS' SERVICES - COUNCILLOR LAVERY: “Regarding access to the new Uxbridge Library, the main ramp to reception and the ramp to the Middlesex suite are long and steep, so it is likely that manual wheelchair users will try to use the shorter ramp leading to the lift. “We have been informed that the internal dimensions of the lift to the library do not meet the minimum requirement for wheelchairs. Can the Cabinet Member please assure us the all-wheelchair users will be able to use the lift and the library?” Councillor Lavery advised that he was pleased that there was so much interest in the new Uxbridge Library project. He noted that that lift dimensions had been measured and advised that the lift would be DDA compliant. There was no supplementary question. 6.3 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MARTIN TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: “It has taken Danny Beales, MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, less than 3 months to break his election pledge, "to put money into the pockets of local people." “With his support, the Government has cut the winter fuel allowance to pensioners, whilst agreeing inflation busting pay rises for their union friends. Many of our older residents must now be fearful of the coming winter. “What steps might the Council take to mitigate the harm that has been widely predicted will be caused by this callous and ill-considered change?” Councillor Edwards was disappointed that, although David Simmonds MP and John McDonnell MP had voted against the proposal, Danny Beales MP had put his party before his constituents and voted to cut the winter fuel allowance, along with the vast majority of Labour MPs. The Council would be looking to put support measures in place but would not be able to mitigate the entire impact that the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance would have on Hillingdon residents. The Council had been given a £2m extension to its Household Support Fund and would use some of this money to commission support to help residents who were eligible to apply for pension credits but who were not currently claiming this benefit. The money would also be used to set up a Pensioners Support Fund and those who lived in Council housing would be given priority with regard to energy efficiency adaptations such as new boilers and improved insulation. There was no supplementary question. 6.4 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR SWEETING TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: “Could the Cabinet Member provide an update on the recent Hillingdon Ofsted and Care Quality Commission Area SEND inspection of 29th April to 3rd May 2024, and the subsequent report which stated that, "overall, children, young people and their families have varied experience," and that, "the local area's approach to quality assuring ECH plans, and annual reviews is not robust."?” Councillor O’Brien advised that the Hillingdon Ofsted and CQC Area SEND inspection had taken place roughly five months after the Council had completed its five year strategy, which had recognised the need for improvements. The inspectors had noted this awareness and recognised the good work that had already been undertaken such as the Council’s approach to joint commissioning. The Council had recognised that it needed to revise its approach to the Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and the CQC had seen that the authority had involved NHS partners, schools and parent carers forums and put measures in place to this effect. Effort would be made to continue to improve the services and support that were available. There were around 3,500 children and young people in the Borough who had an EHCP. Whilst their experiences might have varied, the Council was trying to get it right and manage the various expectations. The goal was to ensure that the annual reviews provided high quality assessments of need so that parents and carers continued to speak highly of the special education provision in the Borough. The Cabinet Member was pleased that the inspection had highlighted the excellent partnership working and advised that she remained committed to working with partners and parents. Areas for development would be addressed and progress would be measured. By way of supplementary question, Councillor Sweeting asked why it had taken a CQC inspection to identify the Council’s failings and provided several examples of those failings. Councillor O’Brien asked that Councillor Sweeting put her question in writing and she would then provide a full written response. 26. MOTIONS (Agenda Item 7) 7.1 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR FARLEY Councillor Farley moved, and Councillor Gardner seconded, the following motion: That this Council asks the Cabinet Member for Residents Services to fix the current gap in co-ordination between Waste Services and Green Spaces so that litter is removed before grass cutting is scheduled. Those speaking in favour of the motion thanked the green spaces, waste services and street cleansing teams for the work that they regularly undertook. Over the summer, it had been apparent that litter picking was not being undertaken before the grass was cut which meant that the litter was being shredded by the blades and being distributed across a much wider area. Concern had been expressed by residents that this was causing a danger to those children, pets and wildlife that used these green spaces and caused costly damage to the grass cutting machinery. A request was made that there was better coordination between the timings of the litter picks and grass cutting in these green spaces. Councillor Lavery moved the following amendment to the motion, which was seconded by Councillor Bianco: i. In the first line after the words “That this Council”, insert the following words: “notes the good work undertaken by Cabinet and officers in terms of its climate change commitment and its approach to re-wilding and biodiversity as part of the development of the verge cutting programme.” ii. After the above, to insert the words “That this Council…” iii. Then to delete the words: “fix the current gap between Waste Services and Green spaces so that litter is removed before grass cutting is scheduled,” iv. and replace with: “continue to liaise with the Corporate Director of Place to ensure that all maintenance activities are delivered in the most efficient way possible.” Those speaking in favour of the amendment noted that most grass verges and green spaces were cut approximately every six weeks between April and October. However, the timing of the grass cutting could be affected by things outside of the Council’s control, such as adverse weather, which then made it difficult to coordinate the activity with litter picking. Reactive crews were available to deal with service requests and officers had been asked to review the scheduling / coordination of services. Those speaking against the amendment noted that there was often rubbish left strewn across green spaces which then turned to confetti when it had been mowed over. This then made litter picking far more difficult, it took much longer to clear up the mess and the smaller pieces could be more harmful to animals. The amendment did not address the concerns that had been raised and did not demonstrate the Council’s commitment to wildlife and rewilding. A true commitment to biodiversity needed a monitoring plan to measure impact. The amendment was put to the vote and agreed. The substantive motion was then put to the vote and it was: RESOLVED: That this Council notes the good work undertaken by Cabinet and officers in terms of its climate change commitment and its approach to re- wilding and biodiversity as part of the development of the verge cutting programme. That this Council asks the Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services to continue to liaise with the Corporate Director of Place to ensure that all maintenance activities are delivered in the most efficient way possible. 7.2 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR PUNJA Councillor Punja moved, and Councillor Abby seconded, the following motion: That this Council notes that the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report condemned unscrupulous manufacturers, a cost-cutting council and reckless deregulations for the disaster in Britain’s worst residential fire since World War II killing 72 people. For the benefit of public safety, this Council acknowledges that there are a number of residential buildings within the borough that are still subject to fire safety remediation from unsafe cladding to wooden balconies and other flammable materials, and instructs officers to provide the Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee with an up to date list of all these buildings, reporting and monitoring on their remediation progress until such time that all residential buildings in the borough meet the required fire safety standards. Those speaking in favour of the motion recognised that the previous Leader of the Council, Sir Ray Puddifoot, had ensured that action had been taken to make all Council properties safe. However, this was not thought to go far enough and further action was needed to ensure that action was taken to complete remediation works in properties that were not owned by the Council. A request was made that the Council compile and share a list of non-Council properties where remediation work was needed and look at temporary accommodation until properties were made fire safe. Councillor Bianco moved the following amendment to the motion, which was seconded by Councillor Lavery: i. In the first paragraph, to remove the words: “cost cutting” and “reckless deregulations”; ii. and replace with: “a failure of Government regulation, amongst others,”; iii. In the second paragraph, to remove the word “this” in the first line; iv. After the word “acknowledges” to insert: “the hard work carried out speedily since the tragedy to ensure that all Council owned buildings are ‘fire safe’. It is also aware”; v. Before the word “residential” insert the words: “private sector”. Those speaking on the amendment noted that policies would only work if consideration was given to the voice of the residents. Residents had raised concerns about homeless people living in areas at the base of the high rises and other tenants smoking on balconies and dropping their burning cigarette butts over the edge, which could set fire to possessions on other balconies. There was also some confusion about what set off the sprinkler systems and how to turn the sprinklers off when they had been set off accidentally. Other concerns had included there not being any sprinklers in the hallways, the lack of regular inspections and the Fire Brigade’s machinery being unable to reach beyond the eighth floor. It was noted that the Council had taken action after the tragedy to ensure the safety of its tenants in high rise blocks in the Borough. Sprinklers, wayfinding signage, electrical safety work and other remediation work had been undertaken and the Council’s high rise buildings were now all classified as ‘low risk’ on the Government portal. Hillingdon was now seen as one of the best performing in London but the action taken did not guarantee a trouble free future. The Council was required to take enforcement action with regard to private sector housing – there were 56 non-Council high rise blocks in the Borough and the Council had recently successful prosecuted one of the management agents. The Council had an inspection programme in place but this would take time to complete and the Select Committee received an annual report on building safety. The Leader of the Council advised that he would be following up on the issues that had been raised by the opposition to ensure that action was being taken to address the concerns. If residents were uncertain about arrangements in their building, they needed to get in contact with the Council. The amendment was put to the vote and unanimously agreed. The substantive motion was then put to the vote and it was: RESOLVED: That this Council notes the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Report condemned unscrupulous manufacturers, a council and a failure of government regulation, amongst others, for the disaster in Britain’s worst residential fire since World War II killing 72 people. For the benefit of public safety Council acknowledges the hard work carried out speedily since the tragedy to ensure that all Council owned buildings are ‘fire safe’. It is also aware that there are a number of private sector residential buildings within the borough that are still subject to fire safety remediation from unsafe cladding to wooden balconies and other flammable materials and instructs officers to provide the Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee with an up-to-date list of these buildings, reporting and monitoring on their remediation until such time that all residential buildings in the Borough meet fire safety requirements. The meeting, which commenced at 7.30 pm, closed at 8.44 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Lloyd White, Head of Democratic Services on . Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public.

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

29. Declarations of Interest
To note any declarations of interest in any matter before the Council
30. Mayor's Announcements
The Mayor advised that she had had a busy few months, attending a variety of functions including a number of Christmas lights switch on events and 100 th birthday parties. She had also had the honour of laying wreaths at memorials in Ruislip and Harefield and at the Royal Naval Association on Remembrance Sunday. The Mayor thanked those Councillors who had laid wreaths in other parts of the Borough on her behalf.
31. Public Question Time PDF 202 KB
To take questions submitted by members of the public in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.
📄 Public Question Time PDF 202 KB
Read the text of this document (3 pages)
Council – 28 November 2024 5.1 QUESTION FROM JONATHAN HAYNES OF THE GREENWAY, UXBRID GE TO THE CAB INET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES & PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: Given that Blue Horizon have been appointed as consultants to find a new opera tor to run the Beck Theatre, what assurances can LBH give that they will act fast and with urgency to secure a new operator assuming one is found, and ensure the Beck’s long -term future? We are at a critical phase and have warned that if the venue closes in January, it will be very difficult for it to re-open - we need to ensure a deal is agreed in order for a seamless de-coupling with Trafalgar and keep the doors open. 5.2 QUESTION FROM EMILY HOPLA OF RUISLIP COURT , RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUC ATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: What evidence exists to support the Council’s claim that there is no demand for the SRP at Coteford School when families like mine requested placements, and I have multiple emails from February—before the consultation closed—stating the SRP was no longer accepting admissions, suggesting this decision was predetermined? 5.3 QUESTION FROM BETHANY GATES OF FORBES WAY, RUISL IP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: Regarding the proposal to close the SRP at Coteford Infant School, how can the Council claim that children in the SRP are in a mainstream setting 100% of the time when we have clear evidence, including timetables, that show speech and language therapy, physiothe rapy and other essential interventions are provided outside the classroom in a specialised setting within the school? 5.4 QUESTION FROM HARPAL TAMBER OF GREAT PARK CLOSE, UXBRIDGE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES & PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: Can the Council categorically confirm or deny that they are in possession of drawings showing a new residential development scheme on the Beck Theatre site? 5.5 QUESTION FROM GEORGINA SWAKER OF HALE END CLOSE, RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATI ON - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: The recent consultation report on the SRP at Coteford states that children with physical disabilities can have their needs met in any mainstream school. However, parents report bein g turned away because local s chools state they lack the necessary resources. How can the council justify closing the SRP without first ensuring that all mainstream schools are adequately equipped and prepared to meet the needs of physically disabled children? QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC Council – 28 November 2024 5.6 QUESTION FROM LINDA GATES OF FORE STREET, EASTCOTE TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: The results report on the Consultation to close the SRP at Coteford Infant School state that 96% of the community wants the SRP to stay, showing overwhelming opposition to i ts closure. Given the fundamental purpose of a consultation is to consider community impact and opinions, does the Leader of the Council genuinely care about the views of constituents, or will this decision disregard the voices of the very people it affects most? 5.7 QUESTION FROM STACY MCGOURAN OF GREEN LANE, NORTHWOOD TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: The council states that the SRP closure at Coteford School is "in the name of inclusivity," yet this decision removes vital therapies for children with physical disabilities without clear guarantees, funding, or support to replace them. How can this be considered inclusive when it leaves families struggling and children without the specialist care they need? Is t his decision truly about inclusion, or is it a cost - cutting measure? 5.8 QUESTION FROM NIKKY HUDSON OF MOUNT PARK ROAD TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: As a parent, I’m concerned that EHCPs don’t cover essent ial costs like therapy and equipment, leaving already deficit -hit schools to fill the gap. How will the Council ensure my child’s needs are fully funded without shifting the burden onto schools? 5.9 QUESTION FROM LEANNE FISHER OF DOVEDALE CLOSE, HAREFIELD TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: The Council claims "nothing will change" as SRP therapies move to the NHS, yet this shift risks harmful delays for children with special needs, ca using developmental regression and long -term damage. How can the Council deny this harm, and what steps are being taken to address it? 5.10 QUESTION FROM EILISH STONE OF HATCH LANE HARMONDSWORTH TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES & PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: My relation ship with the Beck goes back over 30 years when my sons performed with the Youth Theatre and in Summer Projects. This gave them ‘skills for life’ transferable to many different careers, including performing arts. Our Council’s tardy response to securing the future of the theatre has caused much upset and uncertainty to the employees, service users and community groups. As a member of the community choir I despair of our elected Council/Cabinet members who claim t o put ‘residents first’. It seems you only woke from your slumber when our media campaign to Save The Beck took off! Before that it was silence! Council – 28 November 2024 Have you a new operator to take over the running of the Beck when the Trafalgar Group exits on 13 Jan uary and, if not, what is your plan to ensure the th eatre does not close?

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

32. Report of the Head of Democratic Services PDF 236 KB
i) URGENT IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS Members noted the urgent decisions taken since the Council meeting in September 2024, as detailed in the report. ii) SELECT COMMITTEES’ TERMS OF REFERENCE Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business and it was: RESOLVED: That Council note the appointment of Cabinet Members and the new portfolios, and the Head of Democratic Services be authorised to make relevant changes to the Council Constitution to reflect the new Cabinet structure – including to the Terms of Reference of the Council Select Committees. iii) CHANGES TO COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS 2024/25 Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business and it was: RESOLVED: That the following changes to committee memberships for 2024/25 be approved: · Registration and Appeals Committee – Councillor D Mills to replace Councillor Tuckwell. · Pensions Committee – Councillor D Mills to replace Councillor Riley and Councillor Riley to replace Councillor Corthorne as a named substitute. iv) APPOINTMENT OF STATUTORY OFFICERS Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business and it was: RESOLVED: That: a) Mr Dan Dickinson be appointed to the statutory role of Monitoring Officer of the Council; and b) the Constitution and the Officer Scheme of Delegations be amended, and Mr Dickinson be empowered to undertake all of the statutory functions of a Monitoring Officer and Head of Legal Services / Borough Solicitor as set out in the Constitution on an interim basis until such time as a formal appointment to the position of Head of Legal Services is made.
📄 Report of the Head of Democratic Services PDF 236 KB
Read the text of this document (4 pages)
Council – 24 November 2024 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF DEMOCRATIC SERVICES Reporting Officer: Head of Democratic Services i) URGENT IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS RECOMMENDATION: That the Urgency decisions detailed below be noted. Information 1. The Constitution allows a Cabinet or Cabinet Member decision to be implemented before the expiry of the 5 -day scrutiny call -in period, provided the decision is deemed urgent and agreement is given from the Chairman of the relev ant Select Committee that the matter is urgent and to waive the scrutiny call -in period. All such decisions are to be reported for information only to the next full Council meeting. 2. Since last reported to Council, the following decisions have been made using urgency procedures: Date of Decision Nature of Decision Reason for Urgency Decision-Maker 16 October 2024 Platinum Jubilee Leisure Centre – decisions on remaining works to completion To keep the project on track and not delay, as this could result in damage to the structure and additional costs. Leader of the Council, and on behalf of the then Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport and the then Cabinet Member for Finance 25 October 2024 Provision of Repairs Team Back-Up Contractor To avoid the absence of a back-up repairs contractor, which would be to the detriment of Council tenants. Leader of the Council, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property Background Papers: Decision Notices ii) SELECT COMMITTEES’ TERMS OF REFERENCE Background 1. The power to establish and amend Cabinet portfolios and to appoint Councillors to be Cabinet members rests with the Leader of the Council as set out in the Council’s Constitution. 2. The Leader of the Council has notified the Head of Democratic Services that, w.e.f 24 October 2024, the Cabinet would comprise of the following: Council – 24 November 2024 NAME CABINET PORTFOLIO Councillor Ian Edwards Leader of the Council, Chair of the Cabinet Councillor Jonathan Bianco Deputy Leader of the Council, Vice -Chair of the Cabinet & Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property Councillor Martin Goddard Cabinet Member for Finance & Transformation Councillor Susan O’Brien Cabinet Member for Children, Families & Education Councillor Jane Palmer Cabinet Member for Health & Social Care Councillor Eddie Lavery Cabinet Member for Community & Environment  Councillor Steve Tuckwell Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth  RECOMMENDATIONS: That Council note the appointment of Cabinet members and the new portfolios , and the Head of Democratic Services be authorised to make relevant changes to the Council Constitution to reflect the new Cabinet structure – including to the Terms of Reference of the Council’s Select Committees. Information 3. The amendments to the Cabinet membership and portfolios have required some consequential changes to the Council Constitution, the majority of which are relatively minor, textual changes which have been completed by the Head of Democratic Services. 4. The Sel ect Committees’ Terms of Reference are designed to reflect the Cabinet portfolios in order that each Cabinet member can be appropriately scrutinised by the relevant Select Committee. 5. Changing the Terms of Reference of those Committees is a more significan t alteration to the Constitution and Council is recommended to instruct the Head of Democratic Services to make the necessary alterations to ensure a consistency of approach in line with the revised Cabinet portfolios. Financial and Legal Implications 6. There are no financial or legal implications arising specifically from this report. Background papers: none iii) CHANGES TO COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS 2024/25 RECOMMENDATION: That the following changes to committee memberships for 2024/25 be approved: (proposed by the Conservative Group):  Registration and Appeals Committee – Councillor D.Mills to replace Councillor Tuckwell.  Pensions Committee – Councillor D.Mills to replace Councillor Riley and Councillor Riley to replace Councillor Corthorne as a named substitute. Council – 24 November 2024 iv) APPOINTMENT OF STATUTORY OFFICERS Background 1. The Monitoring Officer , Section 151 Officer (Corporate Director of Finance) , and the Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive) are the Council’s three Statutory Officers. These roles are key to ensuring lawfulness, fairness, probity and general good governance that supports the Council in achieving its aims. It is important that they work effectively together yet maintain appropriate independence and that the roles are undertaken by adequa tely skilled and experienced staff supported by appropriate resources. RECOMMENDATIONS: That: a) Mr Dan Dickinson be appointed to the statutory role of Monitoring Officer of the Council. b) subject to the agreement of the Council to a) above, the Constitution and the Officer Scheme of Delegation s be amended , and Mr Dickinson be empowered to undertake all of the statutory functions of a Monitoring Officer and Head of Legal Services / Borough Solicitor as set out in the Constitution on an interim basis until such time as a formal appointment to the position of Head of Legal Services is made. Information Monitoring Officer 2. The appointment of a Monitoring Officer is a statutory requirement under Section 5 of the Local Government & Housing Act 1989. The Monitoring Officer’s role and responsibilities are also defined within the Council’s Constitution. These include ensuring lawfulness and fairness of decision making, receiving reports, conducting investigations, ensuring access to information, advising whether executive decisions are within the budget and policy framework and maintaining the Constitution. 3. At the last Council meeting, in anticipation of the impending departure from the authority of the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer, Glen Egan, it was agreed to appoint the current Deputy Monitoring Officer, Lloyd White, to the role of Monitoring Officer on an interim basis. This appointment ensured continuity in the statutory role within establishment resources whilst longer term options were considered. 4. After careful consideration and consultation with Cabinet Members, it has been recognised that there is now an opportunity to ensure that the Counc il’s legal/governance function is optimally configured to help Hillingdon meet the significant financial challenges it faces, in common with many other local authorities. 5. There are a number of advantages to undertaking that process before making longer-term decisions about how the legal/governance leadership and Monitoring Officer role should be delivered. It is recognised that t here is an Council – 24 November 2024 ever-increasing risk from Mr Egan’s departure until a longer -term decision is made. This risk arises from a lack of le adership capacity within legal services and the absence of a legally qualified Monitoring Officer upon Mr Egan’s departure. 6. To mitigate this risk, a search was undertaken to identify a suitably qualified and experienced candidate to lead and review legal services and discharge the statutory monitoring officer role. As a result, Mr Daniel Dickinson has been appointed, on a short -term basis, to the role of Head of Legal Services and, subject to a Council resolution, to the Monitoring Officer role. Mr Dickinson has been retained for an initial period of 6 months, with a standard 3 month notice period. 7. Mr Dickinson is a qualified solicitor and has worked in local government for 24 years. Originally from a planning, highways and regulatory services background, he has operated as Deputy Monitoring Officer and Monitoring Officer for more than 10 years and has experience delivering modern and effective governance structures in Shire, Unitary, and District Councils as well as within a Mayoral Combined Authority. 8. Council is asked to formally grant to Mr Dickinson authority to exercise the delegated powers of the Monitoring Officer and Head of Legal Services as set out in the Constitution, on an interim basis as detailed above. 9. This proposed appointment will provide appropriate expertise and resilience to the Council in its legal obligations. Financial Implications 10. The cost of this appointment will be contained within existing budgets. Legal Implications 11. The appointment of a Monitoring Officer is a statutory requirement whose appointment is reserved to Full Council. 12. In 2010 the High Court confirmed in the case of Pinfold North Limited v Humberside Fire Authority that there is no legal requirement for a statutory officer to be an employee of the Council. T here is, therefore, no legal impediment to the Council appointing Mr Dickinson as the Monitoring Officer or indeed to delegating him powers under the Council’s Constitution. 13. Appropriate steps have been taken to protect the Council’s interests in line with normal pre-employment checks and processes which have ensured that the terms of Mr Dickinson’s appointment include an appropriate notice period to retain the necessary flexibility and options in how it fulfils this role. Background papers: none

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

33. Polling District and Polling Places Review PDF 442 KB
Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business and it was: RESOLVED: That the proposed parliamentary polling arrangements within the Borough for 2025 onwards, as detailed in Appendix B of the report, be approved subject to the Returning Officer being instructed to: a) seek the use of alternative venues, where possible to school buildings in the following Wards: · Belmore, · Eastcote, · Hayes Town, · Hillingdon East, · Northwood Hills, · West Drayton, · Wood End, and · Yeading. b) seek potential additional venues in Charville and Ruislip Wards.
📄 Polling District and Polling Places Review PDF 442 KB
Read the text of this document (4 pages)
Council - 28 November 2024 POLLING DISTRICT AND POLLING PLACES REVIEW Reporting Officers: Head of Democratic Services and Electoral Services Manager SUMMARY 1. Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended by the Electoral Administration Act 2013, the Council has a st atutory duty to conduct a regular review of its polling districts and polling places . The current review must be completed by 31 January 2025. The last such review was completed in 2019. 2. The aim of the review is to seek to ensure that: (a) all the elect ors in the borough have such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable in the circumstances; and (b) so far as is reasonable and practicable, the polling places are accessible to all electors, including those with disabilities. RECOMMENDATION: That the proposed polling arrangements within the Borough for 2025 onwards, as detailed in Appendix B, be approved subject to the Returning Officer being instructed to: a) seek the use of alternative venues, where possible to school buildings in the following Wards:  Belmore,  Eastcote,  Hayes Town,  Hillingdon East,  Northwood Hills,  West Drayton  Wood End and  Yeading b) seek potential additional venues in Charville and Ruislip Wards INFORMATION 3. The Head of Democratic Services in his role as the Borough’s Returni ng Officer, has conducted the statutorily required review of Polling Places within the Borough. 4. The aim of the exercise is to make voting convenient to electors, providing places that are well located within communities, avoiding road safety hazards and u sing any existing boundaries (i .e. open space land, railway lines etc) but with an eye to economising where possible – particularly in view of the number of electors who now choose to vote by post. 5. This exercise does not allow the movement of ward boundar ies. Such changes would be determined by the Local Government Boundary Commission. This is merely to determine whether the electors in ea ch ward are best served by the proposed polling arrangements. Council - 28 November 2024 DEFINITION OF TERMS 6. To ensure clarity in discussing iss ues arising from the review the following definitions are used:  polling district; a geographical sub -division of an electoral area i .e. a UK parliamentary constituency, a European parliamentary electoral region, a ward or an electoral division.  polling p lace; a geographical area in which a polling station is located. However, as there is no legal definition of what a po lling place is, the geographical area could be defi ned as tightly as a particular building or as widely as the entire polling district.  polling station ; the actual area where the process of voting takes place, which must be located within the polling place designated for the particular polling district. REVIEW PROCESS 7. Public Notice of the review was published widely, and views were invited from all Councillors, the three local MP’s, local political parties , various residents’ associations, community groups , the operators of all the current polling stati ons, as well as such persons as the Council thinks have particular expertise in relation to access to premises or facilities for persons who have different forms of disability. The consultation ran for approx’ 3 months and concluded on 31 October 2024. 8. There is no requirement to change existing arrangements if it is felt that these are suitable, but consultation must take place so that the process is seen to be open and fair and any decision to make no c hange must be clearly supported by a reason, such as that the current arrangements are considered satisfactory. 9. The Returning Officer must comment on all existing polling stations and any proposed or possible new ones. His comments were included in the consultation documents issued. 10. The final stage of the review is for Council to consider all the proposals and comments received, approve and then publish the results of the review. The completion of this review does not preclude a further review of polling places should circumstances change e .g. a better venu e becomes available or an existing polling place is no longer available. 11. It is for thi s reason that a number of the recommendations are for the Returning Officer to explore alternative venues to the number of schools that are used across the Borough as this was a recurring theme of the responses received. 12. Approximately 235 responses were received, mainly from the online consultation process. The majority of respondents expressed satisfaction with the current arrangements. Those with comments on the curren t arrangements are included in the attached Appendix B, by Ward. Council - 28 November 2024 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 13. The costs of the p ublic consultation were met from existing budget s. The cost of running elections are met by the body overseeing the poll and it is only for local elections where this cost is met by the authority. 14. Naturally, venues used as polling pl aces are entitled to make an appropriate charge and, although this is a consideration, it should not be the overriding factor when Council is selecting the number of and suitable locations. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 15. The Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended by the Electoral Administration Act 2013, places a duty on all local authorities to review all parliamentary polling districts and polling places every five years. EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS 16. In accordance with the requirements of the Equality Act 2 010 Public Sector Equality Duty, the proposals of the review have been assessed with regard to any potential adverse impact on groups with protected characteristics. It is not considered that there is any significant adverse effect arising from these recommendations. EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES 17. The review is based on the number of electors on the current register of electors and the current warding arrangements. The aim of the exercise is to make voting convenient to electors, providing places that are well located within communities, avoiding road safety hazards and using any existing boundaries. 18. The borough currently has 59 polling districts. Each polling district should serve approximately equal numbers of electors and polling locations should be 'logical' i.e. electors should not have to travel past another polling place to get to their own and none should be shared by different wards. BACKGROUND PAPERS: Various written responses to consultation; maps of all polling locations Council - 28 November 2024 Appendix A – Warding Arrangements from May 2022

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

34. Youth Justice Plan 2024-2029 PDF 116 KB
Councillor O’Brien moved, and Councillor Makwana seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business and it was: RESOLVED: That the Youth Justice Plan 2024-2029, as set out in the appendix of the report, be adopted.
📄 Youth Justice Plan 2024-2029 PDF 116 KB
Read the text of this document (2 pages)
Council – 28 November 2024 YOUTH JUSTICE PLAN 2024-2029 Reporting Officer: Head of Democratic Services Summary 1. To formally adopt the Council’s Youth Justice Plan for 2024-2029, as recommended by the Cabinet. This Strategy sets out the vision and priorities for how youth justice services are delivered in the next five years and is part of the Council’s policy framework. RECOMMENDATION: That the Youth Justice Plan 2024-2029, as set out in the appendix to this report, be adopted. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 2. At its meeting on 10 October 2024, Cabinet recommended to the Council the adoption of the Hillingdon Youth Justice Services Strategy, also known as the Youth Justice Plan for Constitutional purposes. This p roposed Strategy outlines a clear vision and five priorities for youth justice services over the next five years: i. Prevention and Early Intervention : Addressing the root causes of offending behaviour early to prevent escalation and ensure community safety. ii. Over-representation and Disproportionality : Ensuring fairness and equity in youth justice by reducing barriers and promoting trust in the system. iii. Child-centred Practice: Recognising children as active participants in their lives and advocating for their rights and well-being. iv. Reducing Re-offending: Providing support and rehabilitation to break the cycle of offending and promote reintegration into society. v. Victims and Restorative Justice: Empowering victims by giving them a voice in the justice process and helping them heal and recover. 3. The strategy is a policy framework document as set out in the Council's Constitution and was considered in accordance with the Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules, which required a minimum six -week consultation period and consideration by the relevant select committee. The consultation took place from 1 July 2024 to 11 August 2024 and included feedback from the Children, Families & Education Select Committee on 17 July 2024. The consultation involved a structured survey available to all residents and was actively promoted through various communication channels, including the Council website, press releases, social media, and Hillingdon People. 4. The consultation feedback was positive, with strong support for the five pri orities outlined. Specific feedback was also considered in shaping the final Plan recommended for adoption. The Strategy aligns with the Council Strategy and the Council’s commitment to putting residents first. It will be reviewed annually, with updates provided to the Youth Justice Board, the Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education and the Select Committee. Financial Implications 5. The strategy will be implemented at no additional cost to the Council, using existing youth justice resources. While there are no immediate financial pressures, potential risks include an increase in youth offending, pressure on remand accommodation costs, and reductions in funding, particularly grant funding. These risks will be closely monitored, and the service's b udget management provides confidence that the strategy can be Council – 28 November 2024 delivered effectively within the current budget. Regular monthly budget reviews and the wider MTFF budget setting process will be used to monitor financial implications. Legal Implications 6. Section 40 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a duty on local authorities to produce a Youth Justice Plan relating to the provision of Youth Justice Services. The plan must be produced in consultation with partner agencies either on an annual basis, or for a longer period with annual updates covering progress against priorities and relevant changes in demographics/legislation. Plans must be produced having regard to guidance issued by the Youth Justice Board. Background Papers: Youth Justice Plan 2024-2029 – Cabinet report, Plan and Decision – 10 October 2024

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

📄 241128 - 08 - Youth Justice Service Strategy 2024-2029 , item 34. PDF 587 KB
Read the text of this document (28 pages)
1 Draft Hillingdon Youth Justice Service 5-year Strategy Contents Page 1 Introduction and context 3 2 Governance, Leadership and Partnerships 5 3 Performance data overview: 2019-2024 7 4 Priority 1: Prevention and Early Intervention 11 5 Priority 2: Over-representation and Disproportionality 14 6 Priority 3: Child-Centred Practice 19 7 Priority 4: Re-offending 22 8 Priority 5: Victims and Restorative Justice 25 9 Conclusion 28 2 Foreword As we embark on this journey of shaping the future of youth justice services in Hillingdon over the next five years, it is with great enthusiasm and dedication that I present this strategy document. Our mission is clear: to create a safer, fairer, and more inclusive society for all children, where their rights, needs, and potential are recogni sed and respected. Over the years, our understanding of youth justice has evolved, driven by research, evidence, and the voices of children themselves. We have learned that effective youth justice services require a holistic, multi -disciplinary approach that addresses the underlying causes of offending behaviour and promotes positive development and rehabilitation through a Child First approach. This strategy builds upon our achievements and experiences, while also charting a course for innovation, collaboration, and continuous improvement. It reflects our commitment to embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion in all aspects of our work, ensuring that every child has access to the support and opportunities they need to thrive. Central to our strategy is the principle of early intervention and prevention, recognis ing that addressing issues at the earliest possible stage can prevent escalation and reduce the risk of future harm. We will work closely with partners across sectors to identify and respond to the needs of children and their families and carers, providing tailored support and interventions that address the root causes of offending and children’s safety and wellbeing. Equally important is our commitment to restorative justice principles, which prioriti se accountability, healing, and the repair of harm. We continue to involve children, victims, and communities in the resolution of conflicts and the restoration of relationships, promoting understanding, empathy, and reconciliation. As we embark on this journey, we do so with humility and a recognition of the challenges that lie ahead as we continue to deliver services post the Covid -19 pandemic. We know that transforming youth justice services requires courage, perseverance, and a willingness to challenge the status quo. But we also know that the rewards are great – safer communities, brighter futures, and a more just society for all. I would like to express my gratitude to all those who have contributed to the development of this strategy – our dedicated staff, partner agencies, children, families, and communities. Your insights, expertise, and commitment have been invaluable, and I am confident that together, we can achieve our shared vision of a youth justice system that works for everyone. Together, let us build a future where every child has the opportunity to fulfil their potential, where second chances are not just offered but embraced, and where justice is not just served but served with compassion, dignity, and fairness. [signed] Councillor Susan O’Brien, Cabinet Member for Children, Families & Education 3 Introduction Hillingdon council has a duty under S.38 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to provide youth justice services to children 10-18 years of age. The principle aim of the Youth Justice Service is to prevent offending by children, through early intervention, prevention, intervention, and rehabilitation. The draft Hillingdon Youth Justice Service (HYJS) strategy sets out its approach to work with children and families accessing youth justice services through early help and prevention and statutory intervention. This 5-year strategy will be developed in consultation with children, parents/carers and colleagues across the partnership and communities reflecting on and reviewing its performance over the last 5 years and considering a range of local and national drivers informing our youth justice work in Hillingdon. “We are committed to taking a child first approach to understanding the challenges faced by children and families including social deprivation, discrimination, trauma, unmet health needs, and will actively empower children and families to improve outcomes by providing opportunities for every child to succeed. We take a “justice for all” approach by supporting victims, protecting the public and engaging our communities to divert children from entering the criminal justice system.” The Youth Justice Board (YJB) Strategic Plan 2024 -2027 states that “the YJB’s vision is for a youth justice system that treats children as children” and sets out its requirements for a Child First approach: • Prioritising the best interests of children and recognising their needs and potential. • Promoting children’s individual strengths and their capacities to develop pro -social identities. • Encouraging children’s active participation, engagement, and wider social inclusion. • Promoting a childhood removed from the justice system. Across the youth justice partnership in Hillingdon the use of the word “child” has been widely adopted when discussing children who encounter the criminal justice system. Previous language such as young people or adolescents diluted the focus that those who come into contact with the youth justice system are children and should be supported as such. The work of HYJS and the partnership seeks to support engagement with children in multiple spheres from diversion through the delivery of school- based programme s s u c h a s Y o u r L i f e Y o u Choose, early intervention through active use of Triage interventions and in statutory interventions. Taking a locality, placed based approach by delivering services and interventions to children within their context. Wider work across the local authority, with the development of locality-based family hubs and spoke buildings provides well -resourced and safe places to meet children within the community. Children told us that they are more likely to engage with interventions in familiar surroundings and co ordinating locality delivery supports engagement with wider services. The model works on supporting children to access the right services, at the right time in the right place. Our plan continues to be set within the context of ongoing public service reform, associated organisational change, financial restraints and responding to the challenges which continue post the Covid 19 pandemic. These circumstances present additional challenges to 4 organisations as they seek to deliver their core business whilst also contributing to strategic partnerships. However, the partnership approach to developing and implementing this Youth Justice Plan has been informed by a commitment not only to maintain ou r investment in the youth justice agenda but to enhance it through continued effective collaboration. Our Priorities Hillingdon Council is committed to putting residents first and reflects this commitment across the council’s plans and services. Our youth justice priorities are directly aligned with th is commitment, which will be set out in further detail in this document. The five priorities are: 1. Prevention and Early Intervention 2. Over-representation and disproportionality 3. Child-centred practice 4. Reducing re-offending 5. Victims and restorative justice Context Hillingdon is the second largest London borough, covering an area of 42 square miles over half of which is a mosaic of countryside including canals, rivers, parks and woodland, interspersed with historic towns and villages. It shares borders with Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Surrey, Hounslow, Ealing, and Harrow. Hillingdon is home to Heathrow airport , which is one of the main local employers, but also a significant entry point for children and young people being trafficked into the country. - Hillingdon has a higher proportion of 0 –19-year-olds than the London average with 26% and this proportion is expected to grow. - There are approximately 120,700 children aged 0 -17 residing in the borough which make up 39.69 % of population. - 30,965 (25.65%) of these children are aged 10-17 - According to data from the End Child Poverty Coalition, which combines data from the HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and the Office for National Statistics (ONS), there are approximately 25,347 children in Hillingdon living in poverty , which is approximately 21%. - At the 31 st March 2024 there were approximately 329 children looked after to Hillingdon. - 35% of all residents that are from a black and global majority background. Hillingdon is an ethnically diverse borough with most black and global majority communities residing in the south of the borough. - 62% of Hillingdon children aged 10-17 are from a black and global majority background (2021 Census) - Our residents (aged 3+) speak at least 85 different languages - this is similar to most other London boroughs and other large cities in England & Wales. 5 - The 2021 Census tells us that 77.9% of our residents (aged 3+) have English as their main language, followed by Punjabi (4.6%), Romanian (1.8%), Polish (1.7%) and Tamil (1.6%). - In 2023-2024 3,503 children had an active Education Healthcare plan. This number has steadily increased at an average rate of approximately 11.6% over the last five years. The YJS is located within the Children, Families and Education Directorate and as such the Assistant Director of Prevention and Youth Justice is part of the senior management team in Children's Services. The effectiveness of the YJS collaborative work has been recognised in both our ILACS and SEND inspection outcomes. We have aligned the YJS with our Youth Offer and Early Help under one Assistant Director which supports our holistic planning for vulnerable adolescents. The full staffing structure and budget costs and contributions will be included within annual youth justice plans. Governance, Leadership and partnerships HYJS is funded centrally and through the grant contributions from the Youth Justice Board and statutory partner agencies, in accordance with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. All funds are used to deliver Youth Justice Services in Hillingdon. The work of our HYJS is located within the broader context of our Safer Hillingdon Partnership (SHP) and the Safeguarding Children's Partnership Board (SCPB). Both boards have operational and strategic representation from all partner agencies. HYJS is represented at the SHP and SCPB by the Corporate Director for Children , Families and Education . In achieving our ambitions and vision for our children, we continue to receive full political and corporate support and a level of financial investment which ensures that each year’s budget setting considers both the needs of the service and the contingencies based on demographic growth and increasing levels of complexity. Our elected member for Children, Families and Education and the Chief Executive have an active interest and understanding of the youth justice agenda. They scrutinise children’s services performance and practice updates in quarterly meetings with the Senior Management Team. Complex and high-risk issues have oversight at this level to ensure political, financial and strategic investment to keep children safe. Safer Hillingdon Partnership Board Youth Justice Partnership Board (YJSPB) Children Safeguarding board Executive Leadership Group (ELG) 6 The YJSPB is co-chaired by the Corporate Director for Children, Families and Education and the Detective Chief Inspector for the West Area Borough Command Unit which demonstrates committed leadership. The YJSPB includes representatives from all of the key partner agencies and operates in line with the YJB Governance and Leadership guidance. The Corporate Director for Children, Families and Education is a member of every senior governance board in the borough and can exert influence and leverage support and resources to further the work of the YJSPB. Similarly, there is a direct understanding of other policy and strategy landscapes to inform the YJSPB plan and to inform others’ strategies and plans to be observant of YJS concerns. These include all Council Political meetings, health governance which covers the borough, new ICB, all London DSC Group, West London DCS steering groups, West London Commissioning Allianc e whilst maintaining instantaneous direct access to the most senior leadership across the borough and region. From His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) inspection in 2021, it was noted by the inspectorate panel that we have a strong management board attendance, this has continued since with an average of 73% of senior partners attending. N e w B o a r d m e m b e r s h a v e a n induction to understand the role of the service and explore the expectations and contributions they will be making to the service. Our governance and leadership arrangements are maturing and whilst we believe we have a clear local vision and strategy for the delivery of a high-quality, personalised, and responsive service for all children, we recognise the need to ensure that vision is promoted and understood by all stakeholders. Our partnership relationships are strong at both strategic and operational levels. Local resourcing levels have been retained despite significant financial challenges for all the partners and the partn ership arrangements actively support effective service delivery. Our Board members are active, own the youth justice agenda and recognise the contributions their own agency makes to the it. For example, the ICB rep on the Board initiated a review of the health need of the YJS cohort which resulted in the commissioning of dedicated SALT provision; whilst the Community Safety rep has advocated YJS work and secured MOPAC funding to support early identification and intervention of young people at risk of exploitation. HMIP inspect youth justice services across England and Wales and form part of HYJS’ governance arrangements . This is completed through independent inspection, thematic inspections and reports, recommendations, research and effective practice guidance. The Youth Justice Board (YJB) for England and Wales is responsible for monitoring and measuring our performance through the submission of national KPIs . The YJB undertakes oversight activity to meet its statutory duty to monitor the operation of the youth justice system. This function is undertaken in line with its independence from national and local government and all named statutory partners. The oversight process follows an ongoing cycle of: • monitoring YJS performance against the oversight fields outlined and assigning services to performance quadrants. • identifying the scale and nature of support needs and/or areas of effective performance and evidence-based practice • co-ordinating improvement (and where necessary formal intervention). 7 Performance data 2019-2024 Together with its partners Hillingdon YJS continues to realign resources to meet service demand and the requirements of the wider public sector reform agenda, which supports transformation of essential services in an evidenced based way to promote best practice. The YJS informs and supports the Children ’s’ “High Fives”; Contextual Safeguarding, Neglect, where our children live, Targeted Help, Our people. These 5 key strands of operational and strategic activity drive improved outcomes for children in Hillingdon. The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is responsible for monitoring a number of key performance indicators and each local authority and youth justice partnership must submit quarterly data against each. It is a condition of the Y JB Grant that it is used to achieve a positive reduction across all performance indicators with data being publ ished by the Ministry of Justice on a quarterly basis. The following three performance indicators have been embedded within services and so data has been captured over the years, so we have been able to measure our performance over a longer period. 1. Reduction in First Time Entrants (FTE): children entering the criminal justice system for the first time receiving a disposal at court or a caution. 2. Reduction in Re-offending: monitoring of children who receive a substantiative outcome (not Triage) for a period of 12 months for any further offending and associated frequency. 3. Reduction in the use of custody : reduce the number of children who receive a custodial sentence. Our HYJS and the partner agencies and professionals, who work with them, have an impressive track record of contributing to the realisation of our vision through effective preventative work, as well as out-of-court and post-court case work. Our performance against the first-time entrants’ national performance indicator is consistently strong with the rate below both national and London averages. A focus on early intervention and prevention services across the partnership has contributed to this, including a n effective working relationship between the police and the HYJS with regards to decision making and the delivery of robust assessments and interventions. Our custody rates have shown a gradual reduction over recent years but with complex cohorts of childr en and a national rise in knife crime this remains an area of priority focus. Performance with respect to re-offending should be considered within the context of a much smaller cohort, due to our success at reducing FTEs, containing individuals that often have more complex needs, higher levels of vulnerability and pose a greater risk to others. These young people have a range of challenges and unmet needs, which take longer to address and effect permanent changes in lifestyles and outcomes. As with the national picture we have an over -representation of Black and mixed raced boys in custody which is a priority of activity in this Youth Justice Strategy. 8 Since April 2023 it has been a requirement of youth justice services to report on the following new key performance indicators, with the first nationally published data expected in Spring 2025. 1. Suitable Accommodation 2. Education, training, and employment 3. Special educational needs and disabilities 4. Mental health care and emotional wellbeing 5. Substance misuse 6. Out of court disposals 7. Links to wider services 8. Management board attendance 9. Serious violence 10. Victims Youth justice services have access to the youth justice application framework (YJAF) to view data submitted and compare to national data. Data from quarters 1-3 for 2023-2024 on YJAF tells us that Hillingdon is performing above national indicators in the proportion of children in suitable accommodation (an average of 96% in Hillingdon compared to 86% nationally). The proportion of children in suitable education, training, and employment at the end of their order. Q1-3 showed 87% of school age children were in full time education at the end of their intervention, like the 86% seen at the end of 2022/23. For the non -school age children, 67% were in full-time education up from the 56% seen at the end of 2022/23. We also have a higher than the national average number of children identified special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and additional learning needs (ALN) with a formal plan. This is reflective of the links we have built with our partners in Education and SEND and continue to ensur e that we collaborate with partners to ensure that it is child focused. It is a real strength of HYJS to have a Speech and Language therapist embedded within the service to ensure all children open to the YJS, AXIS and other prevention services such as Turnaround are offered speech and language assessment at the earliest opportunity, to ensure there us an understanding of the needs, collaboration with partners and interventions are personalised to maximise positive outcomes for each child. HYJS have reported an average of 39% of children open to the YJS with a screened or identified need for an intervention to improve mental health or emotional wellbeing compared to 25.6% of the national average for quarters 1-3 for 23-24. The well-resourced Health Hub within the YJS combines the skills of a Liaison and Diversion worker, full time dedicated Speech and Language Therapist and Child and Adolescent Mental Health practitioner to ensure a coordinated approach to meeting the health needs of children entering the youth justice system to promote positive outcomes. The total number of outcomes have decreased over the five years, from 246 in 2019-2020 to 100 in 2023 -2024. It is positive that the number of court outcomes have decreased by 54% over the 5 years. We have also seen a 65% decrease of out of court disposals and a 77.5% decrease in Triage outcomes in the same period. The main cause of this is due to the increase 9 in Community Resolutions being given for low-level offences. It is positive that in the last year we have seen an increase in the rate of engagement as compared to the previous year. The most common offence in 2023- 2024 was Violence against the person related, with 60 offences (29.13%). In 2021- 22, Drugs had been the most common offence, but this has continued to decrease from 52 offences (28.42%) in 2021/22 to 12 offences (5.83%) in 2023/24. This is due to the continued decrease in triage offences, with drug possession offences being dealt with via Community Resolutions. Burglary, Robbery, and The ft and Handling offences accounted for 33.98% of all offences up from 25.23% in the previous year and 11.48% in 2021/22. For the second year in a row, “Burglary other than dwelling” was the single most common offence, representing 9.22% of all offences. It is important to note that a l l 1 9 o f t h e s e o ff e n c e s w e r e c o m m i tt e d b y 2 c h i l d r e n . H o w e v e r , t h e n e x t m o s t c o m m o n offence was “Possess knife blade / sharp pointed article in a public place” with 14 offences, committed by 14 different children. HYJS continues to work with its partners, and this remains a priority for the Safer Hillingdon Partnership. Hillingdon monitors Serious Violence rates with the assistance of the YJB’s “Serious Youth Violence Tool”. The rate of s erious violence increased in 2023 to 7.5, up from 5.3 in 2022 which has put us in line with our YJS Family. This is still lower than historic figures as outlined in the table below. The rate of serious violence offences has fallen in since its peak of 10.7 in 2021. Hillingdon’s rate of serious violence offences has remained below the London rate . Robbery continues to be the most common SY V offence, accounting for 79% of offences in Q1-3 2023/24. Rate of Serious Violence offences - Year ending December 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Hillingdon 4.5 10.5 10.7 5.3 7.5 London 17.5 13.8 12.4 10.4 10.5 10 --- Hillingdon YJS Priorities --- 11 Priority 1: Prevention and Early Intervention Link to Council Priorities : A thriving economy, Safe and strong communities, Thriving healthy households. This priority seeks to address the root causes of offending behaviour and explore the wider determinates of social inequalities , intervene at the earliest possible stage to prevent escalation and reduce the risk of future harm , ensuring the safety and security of our communities. HYJS is situated within the Children directorate and falls under the umbrella of Prevention and Youth Justice. HYJS, and its partners has an impressive track record of contributing to the realisation of our vision through effective preventative work. This continues to be an area of focus over the next 5 years to further develop our prevention offer. Over the last 5 years, we have seen our First-time entrants (FTE) figures decrease during the COVID pandemic and rise again, however we remain below pre-pandemic levels. 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 Number of first-time entrants 64 48 38 46 46 As mentioned previously and outlined in the table below, the total number of outcomes have decreased over the five years, from 246 in 2019 -2020 to 100 in 2023-2024. It is positive that the number of court outcomes have decreased by 54% over the 5 years. We have also seen a 65% decrease of out of court disposals and a 77.5% decrease in Triage outcomes in the same period. The main cause of this is due to the increase in Community Resolutions being given for low-level offences. Outcomes  2019-2020 2020 - 2021  2021 - 2022  2022 – 2023  2023 – 2024  Court  124 76  47  57  57 Pre-Court  122 94  87  56   43  Of Which Triage  98 73  65  33   22 Total  246 170  134  113   100 In the year 2023 -2024 we have seen a varied rate of engagement for children receiving a community resolution (CR) with an average rate of 31% of children consenting to receiving intervention with HYJS. This is an increase from the previous year where we had a n average of 9% of children receiving an intervention. Our AXIS service , unique to Hillingdon, continues to offer understanding of the complexity, risk and safety and wellbeing concerns of local children in 'real time'. AXIS is instrumental in identifying children on the periphery of involvement in C hild Sexual Exploitation, C hild Criminal Exploitation, children arrested for Possession with intent to supply, or those that are linked to suspected 'gang' involvement and serious youth violence . AXIS work with children 12 referred on a voluntary basis or will refer them to Children's Social Care where appropriate. AXIS also supports the wider partnership and local services’ engagement with children and will provide headline data to inform how and where services are delivered in Hillingdon. In December 2022, Hillingdon was provided funding (ending March 2025) from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to mobilise Project Turnaround, to intervene at an earlier stage to prevent children entering the criminal justice system under the Early Help framework. Turnaround has been a success in Hillingdon, and the data shows we have exceeded the MoJ quota of children who ha ve voluntarily engaged with this project and have seen positive outcomes for this cohort for children. 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 MoJ Quota 9 26 27 Number of c hildren engaged with Turnaround 9 32 XXX The Metropolitan Police’s Pan-London Project Engage, funded by the VRU (Violence Reduction Unit) was set up in January 2024 to engage with children in police custody, capturing the teachable, reachable moment to build a positive relationship to understand the causes of their offending and identify bespoke interventions and services best placed to divert children from the criminal justice system. The Engage team foster s good relationships with partners, including community and voluntary groups to support children in their own communities and provide opportunities through social inclusion to divert them from criminality. Our focus under this priority is to embed long term early help systems to enable multi-agency intervention at the earliest opportunity, to divert children from the criminal justice system, build resilience, and promote positive outcomes . This means effective intervention to be targeted towards children and families at risk of experiencing adversity through a myriad of issues including poverty, social exclusion, familial violence, mental health, disability, substance misuse and school exclusions. We believe residents should be able to access the right help at the right time. The Family h ub strategy1 will support this through having integrated services across the disciplines of Maternity, Health, Education, Social Care, and the Voluntary Sector under the principles of Early Help and Intervention, to provide accessible services to families, situated within their own communities, at their point of need. The offer will link support for the whole family where there are children and young people up to the age of 19 (25 for those with SEND), acknowledging the impact of the right support and care, in the right place, at the right time on the future lives of children. Success measures: - Ensure assessments support early identification of risks and vulnerabilities. 1 Hillingdon Family Hub Strategy 2023-2025 13 - Continued prevention service to support children at risk of entering the criminal justice system after MoJ Turnaround funding ceases. - Stronger partnerships with colleagues across the partnership to identify children most at risk at the earliest opportunity. - Reduced FTE rates. - A reduction in suspensions and permanent exclusions in schools 14 Priority 2: Over-representation and Disproportionality Linked to Hillingdon Council Priority: Safe and strong communities, Thriving healthy households. Addressing disproportionality in youth justice is crucial for ensuring fairness, equity, and justice within our society. Disproportionality refers to the overrepresentation of certain groups, particularly from Black, Asian, and other global majority backgrounds, within the y o u t h j u s ti c e s y s t e m . I t i s i m p e r a ti v e t o r e c o g nise and rectify these disparities to create a system that treats all children equally, regardless of their background. By addressing disproportionality, we can reduce the barriers that prevent children from accessing support, thereby promoting trust in the system. The Youth Justice Board states: The Youth Justice Board is committed to recognising and addressing inequality and the children who are involved with the youth justice system reflect a range of social inequalities. There is over-representation of children in care, children living in poverty, those with neurodivergent conditions or speech and language difficulties, and those who have experienced trauma. However, the most persistent and significant overrepresentation is children from minoritised racial communities. 2 The population of Hillingdon has changed significantly over the last decade as outlined in the 2021 census data: • White British made up 50% of the 10-17yr old population in Hillingdon in 2011, this dropped to 31% in 2021. • Asian children made up 24% of the pop. in 2011, this increased to 34% in 2021. • Black African children made up 6% of the pop. in 2011, this is increased to 9% in 2021. • Any other ethnic group saw the largest % increase of 174%. In Hillingdon, black children accounted for 27% of stop and searches compared to 13% of the population in the year 2023-2024. However, 81% of these stop and searches had an outcome of NFA (no further action). There has been a large decrease in the number of children on Bail and those released under investigation in November 2023 (76) compared to February 2024 (19). Black children made up 42% of children bailed/released under investigation in November 2023 but now account for 21% due to an increased focus in this area to reduce the number of children subject to a release under investigation . Our data tells us that Black and Mixed children are less likely to plead guilty; in 2023-2024 8% of black and mixed heritage children were found guilty compared to 3% of White children. In Hillingdon, black and mixed children are more likely to experience adverse childhood experiences, such as poverty, neglect, and parental conflict, in the early years of their lives. 2 Youth_Justice_Board_for_England_and_Wales_Strategic_Plan_2024-27.odt (live.com) 15 Black and mixed heritage children account for 18% of children on a CP plan in Hillingdon, whilst making up 6% of the population of children in Hillingdon. Black children in Hillingdon are 1.4x more likely to be severely obese compared to other ethnicities. 33% of Hillingdon’s current looked after children are of Black or Mixed ethnicity. Black looked after children were less likely to have their health assessment up to date, 72% compared to 95% for White children. They were less likely to have immunisations up to date, 66% compared to 83% for White children. White children had the lowest amount of tooth decay in 5-year-olds. In terms of education outcomes, 29% of exclusions and 33% of suspensions were from Black & Mixed Ethnicities in the 22/23 Academic Year. Boys (52%) were significantly more likely to not have achieved at least the expected standard in Early Learning Goals by age 5 compared to Girls (70%), with Other ethnic boys (48%) and Black Boys (50%) with the lowest %. Illustrated below is the Hillingdon YJS data regarding outcomes for children in the youth justice system. Ethnicity  2019-2020 2020 – 2021  2021 – 2022  2022 – 2023  2023 – 2024  White  44.83% 50.36%  55.56%  49.45%  45.05%  Black  24.71% 17.53%  14.81%  18.68%  19.78%  Asian  15.52% 16.06%  12.04%  6.59%  13.19%  Mixed  13.79% 10.95%  12.96%  16.48%  14.29%  Other 1.15% 5.11% 4.63% 8.79% 7.69%   Black and Asian ethnic children saw an increase in both the number and proportion of children compared to the previous year. White and Mixed Ethnicities decreased in both the number and proportion of clients compared to the previous year. The data pre and post pandemic tells us that fewer B lack and Asian children received an outcome during the COVID period compared to their white counterparts that received a higher proportion of outcomes however we see an opposite trend for both sets of children coming out of the pandemic. Outcomes  Black children have consistently been over -represented in Court and Custodial outcomes, although this has been decreasing in recent years. However, the disproportionality in court and custodial outcomes for mixed race children has been increasing in the last 5 years. Asian children are under-represented at every stage of the Youth Justice service. *GE*GEM, Global Ethnic Majority M, Global Ethnic Majority 16 Children Looked after Looked after children are over-represented in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Looked after children and those with care experience are particularly vulnerable and often the victims of trauma and exploitation. The table below shows the numbers of children open to HYJS that are on a Child in need (CIN) plan, Child Protection (CP) plan and Children looked After (CLA) . In 23-24 20.9% of children open to HYJS were looked after, compared with 0.88% of Hillingdon’s 10-17 population 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 CIN/CP # 49 38 31 31 % 35.8% 35.2% 34.1% 34.1% CLA # 19 9 18 19 % 13.9% 8.3% 19.8% 20.9% The London Reducing Criminalisation of looked after children and care leavers protocol3 was published in March 2021 and sets out the roles and responsibilities of all agencies involved in the care of looked after children and care leavers, in reducing unnecessary criminalisation. HYJS continue to develop its response to this, supporting care homes in managing conflict and behaviour using trauma informed approaches, and advocating for children looked after to reduce them from being criminalised. Speech and Language Children in the youth justice system are significantly more likely to have underlying speech and language needs compared to their peers. Research shows that a large proportion of these children have unmet and undiagnosed speech, language, and communication needs (SLCN), which often remain unrecognised throughout their lives. These challenges can manifest in various ways, including difficulties in understanding and using language, which in turn affects their ability to communicate effectively, understand legal proceedings, and engage with services. Many of these children come from backgrounds where early intervention for speech and language issues may have been limited or non -existent. Factors such as socio -economic disadvantage, lack of access to specialist services, and environments that do not sup port language development contribute to the underdiagnosis of these needs. Additionally, behavioural issues and academic struggles often associated with language difficulties may be misinterpreted as intentional defianc e, rather than being recognised as sy mptoms of underlying SLCN. 3 Reducing criminalisation of looked-after children and care leavers | London City Hall 17 As a result, these children may struggle to articulate their thoughts, understand instructions, or engage in verbal problem-solving, making them more vulnerable to misunderstandings and conflicts with people in authority. In the context of the youth justice system, this can lead to a cycle where communication breakdowns exacerbate behavioural issues, leading to an increased vulnerability to being exploited by others, or engaging in offending behaviour. Addressing these unmet needs is crucial for breaking this cycle. Early identification and intervention can improve outcomes for these children and reduce the likelihood of children entering the criminal justice system. Since March 2018, HYJS have commissioned Speech and Language Therapy input. This input was initially commissioned to investigate the level of speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) of children known to HYJS. The service has now evolved so that all children known to HYJS, AXIS and Turnaround are offered an assessment of their speech, language and communication skills. Between March 2018 and March 2024, 480 children received a speech and language assessment whilst allocated to HYJS or the AXIS service. The table below shows the percentage of children that have presented with an underlying speech, language or communication need (SLCN), and those with moderate -severe speech language or communication needs (MS-SLCN) over the past five years: 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 Number of children assessed 108 64 79 84 79 % of children presented with SLCN 66% 72% 71% 58% 71% % of children presented with MS-SLCN 69% 61% 61% 67% 55% The data shows there is an over -representation of children with speech and language needs as compared to the general population; 15% of the general population present with SLCN and 6% of the general population present with moderate-severe SLCN. Speech and Language training has been delivered to police colleagues at Polar Park custody suite which has resulted in an increase of children being refused detention and being invited to attend a Caution +3 interview at a later date. Children in custody are provided with distraction kits which are also used in interviews with children. A session has been held with Magistrates where guidance was offered to consider how they communicate with children in the court room and are guided by HYJS staff attending c ourt to ensure that children understand the process and are supported in the right way. Refresher training has also been provided to HYJS volunteer community panel members who have reported back to state that they have found it extremely useful when chairing panel meetings and communicating with children. HYJS staff are provided with communication packs that support them in their work with children. The packs contain resources for professionals to use during sessions to support 18 children’s attention and listening, social communication and language. For example: fidget toys/objects, pens and whiteboards. The strategic partnership is actively working on developing a disproportionality plan and has asked ‘’How do we, as a partnership address disproportionality experienced by children in Hillingdon within a Youth Justice context?’’. This plan will focus on identifying the root causes of disproportionality and implementing targeted interventions to address them effectively. By working together to tackle this issue, we can create a youth justice system that is fair, equitable, and supportive for all children. Success measures: - The production of a disproportionality action plan by the strategic management board in consultation with children, families, community groups and other stakeholders. - Increased training across partnerships to recognise and address bias and discrimination and develop an understanding of cultural humility. - Increased provisions and interventions for children with protected characteristics. - Reduction of overrepresentation of certain groups, particularly from Black, and mixed heritage children within the youth justice system. - Increased trust in the justice system among children, families and communities affected by disproportionality. - Collaborate with community organisations, stakeholders, and affected communities to address disproportionality effectively. - Develop and implement targeted initiatives and approaches to address the root causes effectively. - Monitor the progress and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions regularly. 19 Priority 3: Child-Centred Practice Linked to Hillingdon Council Priority: Safe and strong communities, Thriving healthy households. Child-centred practice focuses on the holistic needs of children and their families, promoting their health, well-being, and positive development. By placing children at the centre, we aim to create thriving, healthy households where every child can reach their full potential. It recognises children as active participants in their own lives and advocates for their rights, well- being, and development, creating nurturing environments where every child can thrive. HYJS recognises the importance of listening to the voice of the child and using it to inform service delivery. Children actively participate in staff interviews and have had the opportunity to pose their own questions to candidates and have supported the successful recruitment of three YJS Officers in the past year. In 2023-2024 HYJS board members received training from children open to the youth justice system called Walking in Our Shoes: YJS Edition whereby children shared their experiences of the criminal justice system, facilitated activities to provide an insight to board members on the service they receive from professionals in Hillingdon and wider partners, and presented the voices of other children open to HYJS. As a result, board members were able to consider the approaches used in HYJS, considering ‘what works’ in terms of the impact service delivery has on children. They also reflected on the importance of early intervention and prevention across the wider partnership, and considered how they would embed in their respective services. Following this it has been a commitment to have the voice of the child as a standing agenda item at all board meetings. This has allowed children’s experiences to be brought to the board to develop understanding of the child’s journey through the criminal justice system and where any challenges/barriers are addressed to ensure there is a child first approach across the partnership. HYJS prides itself on the collaboration with partners and has recently been awarded the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Lead Quality Mark with Child First Commendation by Microlink PC. This quality mark highlights the strong partnership working across local authority and health services in Hillingd on. In 2023-2024 HYJS provided bespoke speech, language, and communication training to colleagues in the Metropolitan police working in our local police custody suite, Polar Park. As a result, we have found reduced numbers of children being detained in custody, and increased use of Caution plus 3 interviews. As a result of ongoing work with the custody suite, they have embedded a child- centred approach to custody. Children have access to distraction kits, custody video-books as well as access to child-friendly leaflets outlining the custody process, and possible outcomes. Custody staff have also received speech and language training which has supported custody staff to ensure that they are meeting the speech and language needs of children in police custody. The well-resourced health hub within the YJS combines the skills of a Liaison and Diversion worker, Speech and Language therapist and Child and Adolescent Mental Health practitioner 20 to ensure a co-ordinated approach to meeting the health needs of children entering the youth justice system to promote positive outcomes. The YJS Education and Employment Officer ensure s all children open to HYJS have their education, training and employment (ETE) needs adequately assessed and the appropriate provision is provided both in the community and in custody with the support of partner agencies. This includes Under 16 education and post 16 provision. In the last five years we have experienced a reduction of ETE providers and face barriers in achieving ETE places for children. However, there are good partnerships with colleagues with Education and SEND which supports a collaborative approach in keeping children in education, and re -engaging those children who are NEET or missing from education. HYJS is an accredited centre with AQA and provides children with the opportunity to acquire AQA qualifications as a stepping stone to further ETE pathways. HYJS have developed the intervention 'My Support Plan' which is utilised to support practitioners get to know the children they are working with, understand their life experiences and how it forms part of their identity. The support plan focusses on diversity to understand the child beyond their offence. This is designed as the initial piece of work in the intervention to begin to build rapport, get to know the child and create SMART targets, which has been evidenced in case file audits and has received positive feedback from children and families. HYJS believe children have the right to be heard and participate in decisions that affect them. Capturing feedback from children and families provides valuable insights into their experiences, perspectives and understanding of the criminal justice process. One of the ambitions of the YJB strategic plan 2024-2027 4 is to influence and develop policy and practice of child first across the youth justice system, which includes improving the court experience and outcomes for children. We capture children’s experience of court proceedings to ensure that they are fair, transparent, and based on accurate information. It allows for a more balanced and comprehensive understanding of the situation, reducing the risk of misinterpretation or bias. Children and families are also involved in every step of their involvement with HYJS. The ir participation in agreeing interventions and reviewing their progress leads to better outcomes in terms of their well-being, behaviour, and compliance with court orders. When children feel list ened to and respect ed, they are more lik ely t o eng age positively with int erventions and take responsibility for their actions. Co-production and participation from children and families also helps professionals identify risks or protective factors and inform decisions aimed at addressing their needs and preventing further harm. Our focus under this priority is to further develop our child first approach and support active participation and engagement of children and families to encourage co -production of intervention plans and resources. Success measures: 4 Youth_Justice_Board_for_England_and_Wales_Strategic_Plan_2024-27.odt (live.com) 21 - A commitment to continue to commission training/deliver tailored workshops to further develop practitioner’s understanding of child centred practice. - Speech and language training to be delivered to wider partnerships such as magistrates, and refresher training to be delivered to local police custody suite and YJS staff. - Increased evidence of participation with children to inform service delivery. - Achieving strengthened relationships with colleges and mainstream schools in Hillingdon. - Improved pre -emptive action across the partnership to prevent suspensions and exclusions and widen opportunities for vulnerable learners. - An increase in the availability of ETE providers for our children. - Better collation of children’s feedback regarding their experiences in police custody, court and HYJS. 22 Priority 4: Reducing Re-offending. Linked to Hillingdon Council Priority: Safe and strong communities, Thriving healthy households. Hillingdon Youth Justice Service prioritises the best interest of children and focuses on understanding children’s identity, using trauma informed relationship-based practice w hen working with children to divert and prevent children from offending and re -offending. This includes addressing our re-offending rates and ensuring we have the right process in place to support children’ s desistance against further offending. Our commitment to reducing re - offending is key to creating safe and strong communities. By providing rehabilitation, support, and positive deve lopment opportunities, we can break the cycle of offending and promote the reintegration of children into society. The Proven rate of reoffending data for the period 2021/22, published by the Ministry of Justice, demonstrated a decrease in reoffending (40.5% to 37.5%) when compared to the previous financial year. However, when we compared this to our local data, we saw a large discrepancy. Our loca l data showed a reoffending rate of 2 6.6%, however due to the limitations in both the local and published data sets, we estimate our true reoffending rate to be 32.8% which is slightly above the National (32.1%) and below the London average (33.4%). The published data indicates an increase in the frequency of reoffending with an average of 2.93 further offences compared to 2.13 for the previous year. This increase was also shown in our local data. It is important to note that the 2020/21 cohort was partly tracked through the COVID lockdown periods of 2020, and this is likely to affect the 2020/21 reoffending data.  The result of having a small cohort of children entering the youth justice system is that it only takes a small increase in offending to significantly impact the percentage change. The reduction of the cohorts demonstrates the positive impact of early intervention programmes, effective triage and diversion. Those children who do re-offend, although reduced in number, are often those with the most complex needs. The YJS continues to use the YJB re offending tracker tool, deep dive audits, quality assurance frameworks and a focus on the whole family approach to better understand this cohort and support improved outcomes.  In 2023/24, 22 children were triaged out of the criminal justice system in comparison to the 46 cases entering the system and receiving a formal disposal for the first time. In the previous year, of the 43 triages received, 6 (14%) went on to reoffend within the next 12 months. Additionally, 24 children received a community resolution in 2023/24, with 14 of these proceeding to an intervention. In the previous year, of the 37 clients who received a community resolution, 6 (16.2%) reoffended within 12 months. 0 of the 2 children who engaged with the community resolution reoffended.  HYJS acknowledge the following factors that have contributed to the reduction of re- offending in Hillingdon: - Stable accommodation including care placements. - Early resettlement planning - Access to education, training, and employment 23 - Collaboration between the partnership HYJS are committed to a strengths-based, constructive resettlement approach and ensure that our resettlement work is based on the “5 C’s" – Constructive, Co-created, Customised, Consistent and Co -ordinated. HYJS has a dedicated experienced champion who leads on resettlement to ensure practice and delivery continues to evolve. Continuous partnerships with health and education services supports the transition from custody to the community. T h e r e v i e w o f a l l c u s t o d y c a s e s at the Hillingdon Access to Resource Panel ensures joint strategic oversight in planning and resource allocation. The latest data on the Use of Custody shows that the number of children in Hillingdon receiving a custodial sentence in 2022/23 decreased to 7, compared to 8 for the previous year. The rate per 1,000 of the 10- 17 population use of custody data for Hillingdon in this period was 0.22. Children sentenced to custody often represent the highest risk, and the imposition of a custodial sentence by the court are in response to the offences committed. Data analysis indicates that children in Hillingdon from the Global Ethnic Majority are 3 times more likely to receive a custodial sentence. However , please note due to their being such a small cohort of custodial outcomes, small changes in the data will have large impacts in these figures. The Hillingdon YJSPB are committed to understand and taking action to address overrepresentation with a robust Disproportionality action plan and associated partnership activity.   At the end of 2023/24 there was 1 child remanded into Youth Detention Accommodation (YDA), compared to 3 children at the end of 2022/23. There were 10 remands started in 2 0 2 3 / 2 4 , w i t h a n a v e r a g e ti m e o p e n o f 3 6 d a y s . T h i s i s b o t h a d e c l i n e i n t h e n u m b e r o f remands and length open when compared to the previous year, which had 14 remands starting for an average length of 63 days. Like our custody data, Black and Mixed-Race children are disproportionally over -represented, accounting for 69% of the remands star ting in 2023/24.  HYJS recognised a need for improved transitions work with Probation, which has been a priority for 2023 -2024. We continue to deliver our transitions work without a seconded probation officer which could have significantly impacted on transitions; however, we have worked to ensure alternative interim arrangements have been established whilst a longer- term solution is secured . A t HY JS we aim to ensure all transition plan are personalised and have had the added benefit of welcoming a pilot project in AXIS focusing on the transition ages (18 -24) where other support services will drop, leaving young people at risk of gang affiliation and risk of further serious violence. We recognise that transitioning to adulthood is a journey not an event, and every young person will experience this journey differently. Having this focus requires practitioners to think beyond child/adult silos and consider the nee ds of each individual, and how they can be protected. We aim to build on the support and resources already available across the partnership to ensure all children are effectively supported into adulthood. 24 Success measures: - A continued reduction of our re-offending rates. - Increased resources to address critical transition periods e.g. leaving custody, transition to adulthood. - HYJS to continue to strengthen relationships with the youth custody service and custodial establishments to ensure children are receiving the right services in custody. - HYJS to continue to review the effectiveness of interventions. 25 Priority 5: Victims and Restorative Justice Linked to Hillingdon Council Priority: Safe and strong communities, Thriving healthy households. Vi c ti m a n d r e s t o r a ti v e j u s ti c e f o c u s o n t h e n e e d s o f t h e v i c ti m , p r o v i d i n g t h e m w i t h a n opportunity to heal and recover from the harm they have experienced. It gives victims a voice and an active role in the justice process, empowering them and helping them to regain a sense of control over their lives. Restorative justice holds children accountable for their actions in a meaningful way, promoting a deeper understanding of the impact of their behavio ur. Hillingdon Youth Justice Service (HYJS) strives to provide high quality services to victims in line with The Victim’s Code5. The Victim’s Code sets out the 12 minimum standards that must be provided to victims of crime by organisations in England and Wales. 2021/2022 2022/2023 2023-2024 Number of victims reached/contacted 33 20 21 % of victims consenting to RJ 33% 50% 90% In the year 2023-2024 HYJS successfully contacted 21 victims, a slight increase from 20 the previous year . Of the victims that wanted to engage with restorative justice, 71% (15) requeste d a l e tt e r o f a p o l o g y and 29% (4) agreed to a face-to-face restorative justice conference. Whilst the number of victims reached has reduced, we have increased our engagement rates with victims which is positive. 49 children completed a Restorative Justice screening in 2023-2024. A health screening and Speech and Language assessment is completed with all children prior to their R estorative Justice screening to ensure that the process is delivered in a bespoke and meaningful way (e.g., the delivery of RJ and victim awareness work with autistic children is carefully considered). As a result, 30 children agreed to engage in restorative justice and feedback from children and families regarding th is process, and the victi m empathy sessions has been positive. All victims are offered home visits unless they are corporate victims or reside out of the Hillingdon borough. The home visits consist of victims speaking about the impact of the crime, discussing RJ and choosing the reparation project/s the child will complete to help repair the harm caused. HYJS have an extensive reparation leaflet which includes fifteen projects that cater to children’s diversity and communication needs. All victims are asked if they require additional support and if so, a referral is made to Victim Support who provide practical, emotional and advocacy support. 5 Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales (Victims' Code) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) 26 If a victim do es not w a n t t o r eceiv e furt h er sup port fr om Victim Su ppo r t , t he RJ t eam w ill complete a victim safety plan with them to address any risk posed. This plan can also be shared with police if the victim agrees. The victim safety plan includes: • Scenarios/places where the victim feels safe and unsafe. • Safe Words. • Trusted adults and services they can contact. • Emergency contacts. • External services that can provide support. Victims are provided with an effective and inclusive approach to addressing harm and resolving conflicts within our communities. They promote healing, accountability, and reconciliation, leading to safer, more resilient, and more cohesive communities. Feeback received from victims illustrates how powerful restorative justice is, and the impact it has had on them: In addition to the direct work with victims , our Victims and Restorative Justice offer extends to supporting our partners address conflict and harm in a more positive way. In the year 2023- 2024 we have provided restorative justice training to all secondary schools across Hillingdon and have received positive feedback for those that attended. “You’re very helpful. I was nervous and anxious before the conference, but the conference went well. I came out feeling better in myself because it had been spoken about.” Victim “From a parent’s perspective, you included my daughter and gave her a voice. You could have just listened to what I said, because she’s a child and I’m the parent but you didn’t, you gave her a voice in the process. Going into that conference, I didn’t realise how much it affected me. By sitting in the conference, I could let it go; it felt done and dusted. It felt like there was justice within the conference. You are in a vulnerable situation and once you walk out of the conference, they are left with the thoughts and feelings that you have shared. You are no longer the only one walking around with those thoughts and feelings.” Victim’s parent.

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

35. Members' Questions PDF 267 KB
To take questions submitted by Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11
📄 Members' Questions PDF 267 KB
Read the text of this document (2 pages)
Council – 28 November 2024 9.1 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR BURLES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE - COUNCILLOR PALMER: With an ever -increasing demand and waits for GP services , can the Cabinet member please provide an update on the expen diture of funds received from the St Andrews development on the RAF Uxbridge site , for primary healthcare in Uxbridge? 9.2 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR BANERJEE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE & TRANSFORMATION - COUNCILLOR GODDARD: It has been wide ly publicised that local authorities in England & Wales are experiencing serious financial difficulties. Can the Cabinet member please comment on the extent to which these difficulties are expected to have an impact on the London Borough of Hillingdon, par ticularly in the light of the budget monitoring pressures in the current financial year recently reported at Cabinet? 9.3 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR SWEETING TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: The report to the Cabinet meeting on 7 November 2024 - agenda Item 7, page 125, paragraph 14 - states that the Designated Schools Gr ant cumulative deficit carried forward to 2025/26 is forecast at £68.8 million. As the Statutory Override which currently separates this deficit from the Council’s General Fund reserves is in place only until March 2026, what plan does the Council have for paying back this deficit which is greater than the Council’s reserves if the Statutory Override is not extended beyond March 2026? 9.4 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR HIGGINS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & GROWTH - COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL: Given the high demand for housing, can the Cabinet member please provide an update on what is being done to prevent homelessness in Hillingdon? 9.5 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR DAVIES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES & PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: Could the Cabinet member provide an update on the future of the Beck Theatre , confirm the Council’s commitment to retaining the theatre on its current site to continue serving the local community and, in addition, inform us on the progress with the consultants involved in this matter? 9.6 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR PUNJA TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: Can the Cabinet member explain what will happen to those children with physical disabilities, that will be remaining in Coteford Infant School after the proposed closure of the SRP funding, if the percentage of children havi ng education health QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS Council – 28 November 2024 and care plans falls below the threshold at which the Council provides this non - statutory funding? 9.7 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR BRIDGES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES & PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: Could the Cab inet member please give the Council an update on the disposal of Barra Hall in light of recent disinformation being disseminated by the Labour Group. 9.8 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR MAKWANA TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: Can the Cabinet member please explain what has been the impact of the Council's revised Fostering Offer since its launch?

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

36. Motions PDF 121 KB
To consider Motions submitted by Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12
📄 Motions PDF 121 KB
Read the text of this document (2 pages)
Council – 28 November 2024 MOTIONS 10.1 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR MATHERS That this Council deeply regrets the entirely avoidable closure of the Beck Theatre in January 2025 and the significant negative impact this will have on the arts and culture provision within our borough and calls on the Cabinet to: a) reopen the theatre with an appropriate operator at the earliest opportunity in 2025, that maintains the quality of programming and community engagement historically delivered at this wonderful venue and b) immediately conduct an inde pendent review to investigate the delays and communications that occurred between the council and existing operator resulting in the forthcoming closure of the theatre. This review will determine what lessons can be learnt and will be conducted independently of the council and operator. The scope of the review should investigate:  negotiations between the Council and the operator including offers made informally or formally over recent years, their correspondence, negotiations and preparations for agreements.  the Council’s and Cabinet’s decision making over recent years regarding this tenure.  the use of Council’s external and internal communications including social media channels.  any other relevant aspects as determined by the independent investigator. The review to then be presented to the relevant Select committee within the next six months. 10.2 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR KAUR That this Council recognises that Assets of Community Value (ACVs) such as theatres, community centres, libraries, pubs, and othe r spaces, provide vital services and activities for residents. This Council believes that it has a pivotal role in supporting and encouraging local communities to nominate ACVs, ensuring that valuable assets are protected for future generations. Therefore, this Council resolves to:  publicly identify and list ACVs  actively promote the ACV nomination process and provide necessary support  launch a targeted communication campaign to raise awareness of the ACV process among residents and community groups 10.3 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR EDWARDS That this Council is greatly concerned that the government's increase in the Employer's National Insurance Contributions and the reduction in the threshold for payment will add further pressure on Council budgets and on our residents. Council – 28 November 2024 Whilst the government have said, but not yet confirmed, that Councils will be fully reimbursed for their direct cost arising from this change, financial assistance will not be given to our care service and early year providers and charities upon which this Council relies to support our residents. The additional taxation these providers will now have to pay will most likely cause them to increase their charges and ultimately it is the hard-working families and residents of this borough that will have to pay as that cost is passported on to them. Therefore, to mitigate this new pressure, this Council will reaffirm its commitment to sound financial management and good business practices that has enabled Hillingdon Council to deal with underfunding to date.

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

Order of Business PDF 449 KB
📄 Order of Business PDF 449 KB
Read the text of this document (10 pages)
Council – 28 November 2024 Order of Business 1 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL 28 NOVEMBER 2024 Order of Business ORDER BUSINESS 1. Apologies for Absence - To receive any apologies for absence. 2. Minutes - To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 26 September 2024. 3. Declarations of Int erest - To note any declarations of interest in any matter before the Council. 4. Mayor’s Announcements - To receive the Mayoral Announcements. 5. Public Question Time To consider Questions submitted by Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10. Public question time is limited to 30 minutes. 5.1 QUESTION FROM JONATHAN HAYNES OF THE GREENWAY, UXBRIDGE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES AND PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: Given that Blue Horizon have been appointed as consultants to find a new operator to run the Beck Theatre, what assurances can LBH give that they will act fast and with urgency to secure a new operator assuming one is found, and ensure the Beck’s long -term future? We are at a critical phase and have warned that if the ve nue closes in January, it will be very difficult for it to re -open - we need to ensure a deal is agreed in order for a seamless de-coupling with Trafalgar and keep the doors open. 5.2 QUESTION FROM EMILY HOPLA OF RUISLIP COURT, RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMB ER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: What evidence exists to support the Council’s claim that there is no demand for the SRP at Coteford School when families like mine requested placements, and I have multiple emails from February — before the consultation closed—stating the SRP was no longer accepting admissions, suggesting this decision was predetermined? Council – 28 November 2024 Order of Business 2 ORDER BUSINESS Public Question Time (continued) 5.3 QUESTION FROM BETHANY GA TES OF FORBES WAY, RUISL IP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FA MILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: Regarding the proposal to close the SRP at Coteford Infant School, how can the Council claim that children in the SRP are in a mainstream setting 100% of the time when we have clear evidence, including timetables, that show speech and language therapy, physiotherapy and other essential interventions are provided outside the classroom in a specialised setting within the school? 5.4 QUESTION FROM HARPAL TAMBER OF GREAT PARK CLOSE, UXBRIDGE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES AND PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: Can the Council categorically confirm or deny that they are in possession of drawings showing a new residential development scheme on the Beck Theatre site? 5.5 QUESTION FROM GEORGINA SWAKER OF HALE EN D CLOSE, RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: The recent consultation report on the SRP at Coteford states that children with physical disab ilities can have their needs met in any mainstream school. However, parents report being turned away because local schools state they lack the necessary resources. How can the council justify closing the SRP without first ensuring that all mainstream schools are adequately equipped and prepared to meet the needs of physically disabled children? 5.6 QUESTION FROM LINDA GATES OF FORE STREET, EASTCOTE TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: The results report on the Consultation to close the SRP a t Coteford Infant School state that 96% of the community wants th e SRP to stay, showing overwhelming opposition to its closure. Given the fundamental purpose of a consultation is to consider community impact and opinions, does the Leader of the Council genuinely care about the views of constituents, or will this decision disregard the voices of the very people it affects most? 5.7 QUESTION FROM STACY MCGOURAN OF GREEN LANE, NORTHWOOD TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: The Council states that the SRP closure at Coteford School is "in the name of inclusivity," yet this decision removes vital therapies for children with physical disabilities without clear guarantees, funding, or support to replace them. How can this be considered inclusive when it leaves families struggling and children without the specialist care they need? Is this decision truly about inclusion, or is it a cost-cutting measure? Council – 28 November 2024 Order of Business 3 ORDER BUSINESS Public Question Time (continued) 5.8 QUESTION FROM NIKKY HUDSON OF MOUNT PARK ROAD TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: As a parent, I’m concerned that EHCPs don’t cover essential costs like therapy and equipment, leaving already deficit -hit schools to fill the gap. How will the Council ensure my child’s needs are fully funded without shifting the burden onto schools? 5.9 QUESTION FROM LEANNE FISHER OF DOVEDALE CLOSE, HAREFIELD TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: The Council claims "no thing will change" as SRP therapies move to the NHS, yet this shi ft risks harmful delays for children with special needs, causing developmental regression and long -term damage. How can the Council deny this harm, and what steps are being taken to address it? 5.10 QUESTION FROM EILISH STONE OF HATCH LANE HARMONDSWORTH TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES AND PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: My relationship with the Beck goes back over 30 years when my sons performed with the Youth Theatre and in Summe r Projects. This gave them ‘skills for life’ transferable to many different careers, including performing arts. Our Council’s tardy response to securing the future of the theatre has caused much upset and uncertainty to the employees, service users and community groups. As a member of the community choir, I despair of our elected Council/Cabinet members who claim to put ‘residents first’. It seems you only woke from your slumber when our media campaign to Save The Beck took off! Before that it was silence! Council – 28 November 2024 Order of Business 4 ORDER BUSINESS 6. Report of the Head of Democratic Services - To consider the following: i) URGENT IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS Members are asked to note the urgent decisions taken since the Council meeting in September 2024, as detailed in the report. ii) SELECT COMMITTEES’ TERMS OF REFERENCE RECOMMENDATIONS: That Council note the appointment of Cabinet members and the new portfolios, and the Head of Democratic Services be authorised to make relevant changes to the Council Constitution to reflect the new Cabinet st ructure – including to the Terms of Reference of the Council Select Committees. Report of Head of Democratic Services (continued) iii) CHANGES TO COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS 2024/25 RECOMMENDATION: That the following change s to committee memberships for 2024/25 be approved:  Registration and Appeals Committee – Councillor D.Mills to replace Councillor Tuckwell.  Pensions Committee – Councillor D.Mills to replace Councillor Riley and Councillor Riley to replace Councillor Corthorne as a named substitute. iv) APPOINTMENT OF STATUTORY OFFICERS RECOMMENDATIONS: That: a) Mr Dan Dickinson be appointed to the statutory role of Monitoring Officer of the Council. b) subject to the agreement of the Council to a) above, the Constitution and the Officer Scheme of Delegations be amended, and Mr Dickinson be empowered to undertake all of the statutory functions of a Monitoring Officer and Head of Legal Services / Borough Solicitor as set out in the Constitution on an interim basis until such time as a formal appointment to t he position of Head of Legal Services is made. To be moved by Councillor Edwards and seconded by Councillor Bianco. Other speakers: None. Council – 28 November 2024 Order of Business 5 ORDER BUSINESS 7. Polling District and Polling Places Review To consider the results of the review consultation. RECOMMENDATION: That the proposed parliamentary polling arrangements within the Borough for 2025 onwards, as detailed in Appendix B, be approved subject to the Returning Officer being instructed to a) seek the use of alternative venues, where possible to school buildings in the following Wards:  Belmore,  Eastcote,  Hayes Town,  Hillingdon East,  Northwood Hills,  West Drayton,  Wood End and  Yeading b) seek potential additional venues in Charville and Ruislip Wards. Polling District and Polling Places Review (continued) To be moved by Councillor Edwards and seconded by Councillor Bianco. Other speakers: Councillor Money 8. Youth Justice Plan 2024 – 2029 To consider the recommendation from Cabinet RECOMMENDATION: That the Youth Justice Plan 2024 -2029, as set out in the appendix, be adopted. To be moved by Councillor O’Brien and seconded by Councillor Makwana Other speakers: None Council – 28 November 2024 Order of Business 6 ORDER BUSINESS 9. Members’ Questions - To consider Questions submitted by Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11. Members’ questions time is limited to 45 minutes. 9.2 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR BANERJEE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND TRANSFOR MATION - COUNCILLOR GODDARD: It has been widely publicised that local authorities in England & Wales are experiencing serious financial difficulties. Can the Cabinet Member please comment on the extent to whic h these difficulties are expected to have an impact on the London Borough of Hillingdon, particularly in the light of the budget monitoring pressures in the cu rrent financial year recently reported at Cabinet? 9.6 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR PUNJA T O THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: Can the Cabinet Member explain what will happen to those children with physical disabilities, that will be remaining in Coteford Infant School after the proposed closure of the SRP funding, if the percentage of children having education health and care plans falls below the threshold at which the Council provides this non-statutory funding? 9.4 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR HIGGINS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & GROWTH - COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL: Given the high demand for housing, can the Cabinet Member please provide an update on what is being done to prevent homelessness in Hillingdon? Council – 28 November 2024 Order of Business 7 ORDER BUSINESS Member Questions (continued) 9.3 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR SWEETING TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: The report to the Cabinet meeting on 7 November 2024 - agenda Item 7, page 125, paragraph 14 - states that the Designated Schools Grant cumulative deficit carried forward to 2025/26 is forecast at £68.8 million As the Statutory Override which currently separates this deficit from the Council’s General Fund reserves is in place only until March 2026, wh at plan does the Council have for paying back this deficit which is greater than the Council’s reserves if the Statutory Override is not extended beyond March 2026? 9.5 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR DAVIES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES A ND PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: Could the Cabinet Member provide an updat e on the future of the Beck Theatre, confirm the Council’s commitment to retaining the theatre on its current site to continue serving the local community and, in addition, inform us on the progress with the consultants involved in this matter? 9.1 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUN CILLOR BURLES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE - COUNCILLOR PALMER: With an ever -increasing demand and waits for GP services , can the Cabinet member please provide an update on the expenditure of funds received from the S t Andrews development on the RAF Uxbridge site , for primary healthcare in Uxbridge? 9.7 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR BRIDGES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES A ND PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: Could the Cabinet Member please give the Counc il an update on the disposal of Barra Hall in light of recent disinformation being disseminated by the Labour Group. 9.8 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR MAKWANA TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR C HILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: Can the Cabi net Member please explain what has been the impact of the Council's revised Fostering Offer since its launch? Council – 28 November 2024 Order of Business 8 ORDER BUSINESS 10. Motions - To consider Motions submitted by Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12. 10.3 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR EDWARDS That this Council is greatly concerned that the government's increase in the Employer's National Insurance Contributions and the reduction in the threshold for payment will add further pressure on Council budgets and on our residents. Whilst the governmen t have said, but not yet confirmed, that Councils will be fully reimbursed for their direct cost arising from this change, financial assistance will not be given to our care service and early year providers and charities upon which this Council relies to s upport our residents. The additional taxation these providers will now have to pay will most likely cause them to increase their charges and ultimately it is the hard -working families and residents of this borough that will have to pay as that cost is passported on to them. Therefore, t o mitigate this new pressure, this Council will reaffirm its commitment to sound f inancial management and good business practices that has enabled Hillingdon Council to deal with underfunding to date. To be seconded by Councillor Goddard Other speakers: Councillors Denys, Haggar and D.Mills. 10.1 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR MATHERS That this Council deeply regrets the entirely avoidable closure of the Beck Theatre in January 2025 and the significant negative impact this will h ave on the arts and culture provision within our borough and calls on the Cabinet to: a) reopen the theatre with an appropriate operator at the earliest opportunity in 2025, that maintains the quality of programming and community engagement historically deli vered at this wonderful venue and b) immediately conduct an independent review to investigate the delays and communications that occurred between the council and existing operator resulting in the forthcoming closure of the theatre. This review will determin e what lessons can be learnt and will be conducted independently of the Council and operator. The scope of the review should investigate:  negotiations between the Council and the operator including offers made informally or formally over recent years, the ir correspondence, negotiations and preparations for agreements.  the Council’s and Cabinet’s decision making over recent years regarding this tenure.  the use of Council’s external and internal communications including social media channels. Council – 28 November 2024 Order of Business 9 ORDER BUSINESS Motions (continued)  any o ther relevant aspects as determined by the independent investigator. The review to then be presented to the relevant Select committee within the next six months. To be seconded by Councillor Garelick Other speakers: Councillors Edwards NB: Councillor Edwards to move and Councillor Bianco to second the following amendment s (additional words in bold italics and deleted words crossed through): i) That this Council deeply regrets that Trafalgar Theatres have declined the Council's offer to renew t he lease of the Beck Theatre and recognises the entirely avoidable closure of the Beck Theatre in January 2025 and the significant negative impact this will may have on the commercial theatre arts and culture provision within our borough. Notwithstanding t he promising progress being made by Blue Horizon, the Council's consultants to help identify a new theatre operator for the Beck, this Council and calls on the Cabinet to: a) reopen the theatre agree terms with an appropriate operator at the earliest oppo rtunity, without the requirement for ongoing financial subsidy from the Council , in 2025 , that maintains the quality of programming and community engagement historically delivered at this wonderful venue. and ii) delete the remainder of the motion. The amended motion then to read: That this Council regrets that Trafalgar Theatres have declined the Council's offer to renew the lease of the Beck Theatre a nd recognises the significant negative impact this may have on the commercial theatre within our borou gh. Notwithstanding the promising progress being made by Blue Horizon, the Council's consultants to help identify a new theatre operator for the Beck, this Council calls on the Cabinet to agree terms with an appropriate operator at the earliest opportunity , without the requirement for ongoing financial subsidy from the Council , that maintains the quality of programming and community engagement historically delivered at this wonderful venue. Council – 28 November 2024 Order of Business 10 ORDER BUSINESS Motions (continued) 10.2 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR KAUR That this Council recognises that Assets of Community Value (ACVs) such as theatres, community centres, libraries, pubs, and other spaces, provide vital services and activities for residents. This Council believes that it has a pivotal role in supporting and e ncouraging local communities to nominate ACVs, ensuring that valuable assets are protected for future generations. Therefore, this Council resolves to:  publicly identify and list ACVs  actively promote the ACV nomination process and provide necessary support  launch a targeted communication campaign to raise awareness of the ACV process among residents and community groups To be seconded by Councillor Curling Other speakers: Councillors Bianco and Edwards END OF COUNCIL MEETING

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

Page Updated: