Council

Minutes COUNCIL 11 September 2025 Meeting held at Council Chamber - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW Councillor Philip Corthorne (Mayor) Councillor Reeta Chamdal (Deputy Mayor) MEMBERS PRESENT: Councillors: Shehryar Ahmad-Wallana Kaushik Banerjee Labina Basit Kishan Bhatt Jonathan Bianco Wayne Bridges Tony Burles Peter Curling Darran Davies Nick Denys Jas Dhot Ian Edwards Janet Gardner Elizabeth Garelick Narinder Garg Tony Gill Martin Goddard Ekta Gohil Becky Haggar OBE Mohammed Islam Rita Judge Kamal Preet Kaur Eddie Lavery 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 Colleen Sullivan Jan Sweeting Steve Tuckwell OFFICERS PRESENT: Tony Zaman, Steve Muldoon, Dan Kennedy, Sandra Taylor, Matthew Wallbridge, Lloyd White, 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 former Councillor Pat Jackson. 20. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Adam Bennett, Keith Burrows, Roy Chamdal, Farhad Choubedar, Scott Farley, Henry Higgins, Kuldeep Lakhmana, Richard Lewis, Peter Money, June Nelson and Peter Smallwood OBE. 21. MINUTES (Agenda Item 2) It was noted that the minute’s silence observed at the previous meeting had been omitted from the minutes and would be included. RESOLVED: That, subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2025. 22. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (Agenda Item 3) There were no declarations of interest in matters coming before this meeting. 23. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (Agenda Item 4) The Mayor advised that he had held two very successful fundraising events over the last couple of weeks and thanked everyone who had attended for supporting his charities. The next quiz night would be held on 30 October 2025 at Hayes Cricket Club and everyone would be welcome. The Mayor had been engaging with various individuals and organisations and building relationships. He had also been delighted to spend time with a range of volunteers and had attended a lemonade and cake sale that had been organised by a six year old resident to raise money for Great Ormond Street. 24. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (Agenda Item 5) 5.1 QUESTION FROM ANDREA SCRIVENS OF BROADWOOD AVENUE, RUISLIP, TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES & PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: “Since the announcement on 30th May of the plan to close the RAGC the Council has repeatedly stated that it has no other plans for the site. There is a rumour that the land has been offered for sale. Please could you confirm or deny this rumour?” Councillor Bianco confirmed that this was no more than a rumour and that the Council had no plans to sell the part of the RAGC site that it owned. 5.2 QUESTION FROM JOHN SCRIVENS OF BROADWOOD AVENUE, RUISLIP, TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES & PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: “Friends of RAGC used the procedures laid down on the Council website to nominate the Rural Activities Garden Centre as an Asset of Community Value as specified in the Localism Act 2011. The statutory 8-week period during which the Council is required to make a decision on the nominations expired before the end of August so at the time of writing, the Council is in breach of the Localism Act. “Why did the Council neither process these ACV nominations within the statutory time limit nor provide us with any reason for this failure?” Councillor Bianco apologised for the delay in confirming the decision on this. The timing had coincided with the summer holidays which had had an impact but this should not have prevented the Council from advising of the delay. Work was underway to reach a decision which should be made in the next fourteen days. 5.3 QUESTION FROM LYNN JACKSON OF DOWNS BARN ROAD, RUISLIP, TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT - COUNCILLOR LAVERY: The Mayor read out the following question on behalf of Lynn Jackson: “Having paid to have our garden waste collected, can I please ask why bags are being collected from homes where no payment has been made and the bags have no address or green tags on either? Is there a protocol in place to ensure this doesn't happen, if so, are all workers fully appraised of it? Are the Council also ensuring that garden waste placed in black bags are being refused?” Councillor Lavery advised that the new garden waste service had been working well but that there had been a delay in getting the tags to all of the properties that had subscribed to the service. In the meantime, the refuse vehicles had been fitted with the technology to identify which properties had paid for the service. If garden waste was left outside properties that had not subscribed to the service, the crews had been putting stickers on the bags and leaving them in situ. 5.4 QUESTION FROM DANIEL O’NEILL OF ASHBURTON ROAD, RUISLIP, AND ON BEHALF OF THE HILLINGDON ALLIANCE OF RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATIONS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES & PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: The Mayor read out the following question on behalf of Daniel O’Neill: “The July Cabinet meeting was informed of a "particularly damning" fire risk assessment which identified urgent building safety concerns from inadequate fire detection systems at the Union Park Estate on Packet Boat Lane. “Consequently, Cabinet approved funding for a ‘Waking Watch’ at £4200 per day for six weeks, a measure deemed more cost-effective than the alternative of rehousing 250 households. “Could the Cabinet member please provide an update on the situation, including  how our borough came to have thirteen residential units on a new development with such safety concerns?  what the Waking Watch entails?  how its contract was awarded?  what the day-to-day situation is for the residents on the estate?  the future plan to ensure the buildings are made safe?  when that might be and how the cost will be borne?” Councillor Bianco acknowledged that the situation at the Union Park Estate had been concerning but advised that the Council would continue to try to protect residents. He was unable to provide too much detail as the development was owned privately and an active enforcement case was underway. Seven years ago, the Council had acquired 13 affordable units in the development based on the building regulations for the development being signed off by a private inspector that had been commissioned by the developer. When it had become apparent that there were safety concerns, the Council had worked with Home Group to secure their waking watch provider at short notice. The waking watch entailed trained individuals being on site 24/7 to inspect the premises for any risk of fire and provide alert arrangements in the event of a fire – this was being delivered to London Fire Brigade safety standards. The Council had proactively assessed the risks associated with its properties, would be undertaking remedial works (such as installing an upgraded fire safety alarm system) and had risk assessments and Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans for each tenant. One tenant had been unable to self evacuate and was being helped to decant elsewhere. Priorities included the installation of the fire safety alarm system which would take up to ten weeks to complete. This would depend on the freeholder actively progressing grant application funding from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Council had also asked the freeholder about addressing residents’ concerns about building safety and maintenance. The wider programme of works and how these would be funded was not yet clear. Although the Council was not responsible for the building safety works, it had been pressing the freeholder to confirm their plans. The local authority would also be seeking repayment from the freeholder of the costs for providing the waking watch. The Cabinet Member thanked Council officers for acting quickly and decisively to protect residents and for keeping a close watch on site to ensure residents’ continued safety. 5.5 QUESTION FROM ADE BANJOKO OF THE FAIRWAY, SOUTH, RUISLIP TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: “The protests on Saturday 30th August have spurred racial hatred both online and on the streets of Hillingdon, with calls for immigrants to be sent back. As a resident of the borough, I am deeply saddened and concerned by the rising levels of racial hatred being experienced here. “How can the Council reassure residents that it takes hate crime seriously when its own communications appear to be fuelling hostility against migrants. “I am especially worried about the impact this environment is having on children and young people. Research shows that racial prejudice can begin from as early as the age of four, and recent data reported in the Evening Standard shows over 15,000 suspensions last year for racist behaviour in schools – more than doubling since the pandemic, with incidents involving children as young as four. “Given this worrying trend, what specific actions will the Council take both to challenge racial hatred in our communities and to prevent the normalisation of racism among the next generation?” Councillor Edwards advised that the Council rejected the suggestion that its communications had fuelled racism in the Borough as calling for illegal immigrants to be returned to their country of origin was not racism. The Government had failed to secure the country’s borders and remove people to their own country or a safe third country. Racism had been fuelled by thoughts that illegal immigrants were being treated more favourably than residents. The burden was concentrated in four of Hillingdon’s 21 wards and had been testing residents’ tolerance but the peaceful protest in London on 30 August 2025 had been hijacked by extremists who should be held to account. The Council would continue to provide ongoing assurance and, although flying the St George flag had been associated with xenophobia, it should be a symbol of pride. The Council had been working with the police and other partners to monitor community tensions and would continue to support the interfaith network. 25. REPORT OF THE HEAD OF DEMOCRATIC SERVICES (Agenda Item 6) i) Urgent Implementation of Decisions Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion and it was: RESOLVED: That the urgent decisions taken since the last Council; meeting in July 2025, as detailed in the report, be noted. ii) Cabinet Portfolios Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion and it was: RESOLVED: That it be noted that the responsibility for Fleet Management had been transferred from the Finance & Transformation Portfolio to the Planning, Housing and Growth Portfolio. 26. ISSUANCE OF RECOMMENDATIONS UNDER SECTION 24, SCHEDULE 7(2) OF THE LOCAL AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 2014 (Agenda Item 7) Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Goddard seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business. Councillor Mathers moved, and Councillor Punja seconded, the following amendment (additional words in bold italics and deleted words crossed through): That: a) the recommendations of the external auditor contained within the report issued under Section 24 Schedule 7(2) of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, be welcomed and accepted. b) the programmes of work and actions which were already in place to address the S24 Report recommendations, as clearly set out in the Financial Modernisation Programme (FMP) which commenced in February 2025, and the Governance Review Improvement Plan (GRIP) which commenced in March 2025, be welcomed and approved. revised immediately to be sufficiently robust in order to meet the urgent pace of action required. c) the Audit Committee, who have already been monitoring the progress of the FMP and GRIP, be instructed to continue to monitor the delivery of the actions and report back to Council in a separate itemed report at every Council meeting ahead of the February budget setting meeting, as well as finally report back to Council in no later than 12 6 months, or earlier if required, to ensure the S24 Report recommendations have been fully addressed. Those speaking in support of the amendment stated that the original motion had not reflected the seriousness of the situation that the Council was in. Although “at pace” had been used in the report, the recommendation requested an update in twelve months which did not seem “at pace”. It was suggested that a report be considered at every meeting of the Council until the budget setting meeting in February 2026 to meet the need for urgency, accountability and transparency. The Independent Chair of the Audit Committee had also been concerned about the pace so urgent, decisive action was needed. The Section 24 (S24) notice should be taken very seriously and robust action was needed as Councillors would be personally legally responsible. Even though the S24 Report had highlighted weak oversight and no assurance could be given, it had taken six months to commission the GRIP and only two actions had subsequently been rated green (although most areas had been rated amber, this had not been agreed by Ernst & Young (EY)). Concern was expressed that £1.7m had been spent on external auditors, there had been a high turnover of senior staff (which had caused risk) and the culture leant too heavily on the Finance team. Much of the financial modernisation was being undertaken to clean up years of inaccurate financial reports and transparency had been missing. The message from EY could not have been clearer – there had been systemic weaknesses that had not been recognised by the decision makers. The officer recommendations suggested a ‘business as usual’ response when urgent action was required. Progress had been painfully slow and the Council had been forced to borrow. The Council needed to commit to demonstrating that it could get out of this crisis and needed robust accounts. The amendment called for accountability, humility and immediate action. Those speaking against the amendment noted that the amendment did not add value and had no credibility. Action had been taken with regard to the GRIP before the EY report and monitoring had been undertaken by the Audit Committee and Select Committee. The opposition seemed to denigrate the Council rather than celebrate its successes in areas such as Social Care and Children’s Services. S24 reports were becoming more common and Hillingdon continued to manage pressures around Heathrow Airport. London Councils had now recognised that Hillingdon was one of the most underfunded local authorities in London. Although the amendment suggested that the actions being taken were not robust, EY had not advised that they were not happy with progress and no negative feedback had been given in relation to the actions being taken. The administration had confidence that the Independent Chair and Members of the Audit Committee would highlight if actions were not on track. The amendment was put to a vote and lost. Those speaking in support of the original motion stated that there was no argument about the gravity of the situation and that the S24 Report was important but reflected the situation from six months ago. Audit Committee Members had been asking how, why and what was being done and the Council had been working to achieve its targets. Pace was not just about speed. Training was being rolled out to officers and regular budget reports were now being scrutinised by the Select Committees. The Council’s financial position had been caused by significant underfunding from the Government. This had been further impacted by the cost of things like inflation and asylum seekers. The Council had always provided great value for money services to residents and its per capita costs were lower than its neighbours. The motion was put to the vote and it was unanimously: RESOLVED: That: a) the recommendations of the external auditor contained within the report issued under Section 24 Schedule 7(2) of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, be accepted. b) the programmes of work and actions which were already in place to address the S24 Report recommendations, as clearly set out in the Financial Modernisation Programme (FMP) which commenced in February 2025, and the Governance Review Improvement Plan (GRIP) which commenced in March 2025, be welcomed and approved. c) the Audit Committee, who have already been monitoring the progress of the FMP and GRIP, be instructed to continue to monitor the delivery of the actions and report back to Council in no later than 12 months, or earlier if required, to ensure the S24 Report recommendations have been fully addressed. 27. MEMBERS' QUESTIONS (Agenda Item 8) 8.3 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MAKWANA TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: “Can the Cabinet member please provide an update on the progress of managing the High Needs budget and how the team are progressing the SEND improvement plan whilst being more financially efficient?” Councillor O’Brien advised that the Education team had worked to improve the position of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and an in-year improvement plan had been set. The strategy set out the vision for SEND in Hillingdon and reset expectations underpinning the priority areas to provide early intervention as well as the right support at the right time. There had been a 1% net growth in delivering Education and Health Care Plans (EHCPs) and Hillingdon had achieved 91% compliance in 2024. There had been 3,441 EHCPs at the end of 2023/24 and 5,421 at the end of 2024/25. Early intervention had also helped to deal with persistent and severe absence, which was above compliance levels. Special school banding models had been introduced which provided a fairer and more effective scheme. The Council continued to provide good value for money and the Education and SEND teams had been working to manage the overspend and reduce the deficit this year. There had been an increase in further education placement capacity to meet the complex needs of Hillingdon’s residents but there had been a 15% reduction in funding to independent settings. The average cost of each placement had reduced from £54k to £49k. The outlook was stable and it was anticipated that savings would be seen in 2026. The pressure in the high needs block continued to be significant and there was a high cost pressure on high needs placements. The strain on DSG budgets was being felt across the country and a significant decrease would be needed to reduce the in-year deficit. There was no supplementary question. 8.15 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BURLES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND TRANSFORMATION - COUNCILLOR GODDARD: “The Chief Finance Officer’s Section 25 Statement clause 21 stated, “Government will be reluctant to provide exceptional financial support midyear and therefore, were the authority to be in a position where its outgoings were to exceed its income there is a possibility that a s114 Notice would need to be issued”. “With a forecast opening balance of £6.7M, a £16.4M in-year overspend and a Section 24 notice by external auditors Ernst & Young, the then fragile balanced budget for 2025/26 now looks untenable. “What level of Exceptional Financial Support funding from central Government does the Cabinet member calculate that the Council needs to avoid a Section 114 Notice and what will be the cost to Hillingdon Tax Payers?” Councillor Goddard advised that the Council had been in discussions with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) who had indicated that there was no need for Hillingdon to issue a Section 114 notice. The Council’s request for Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) would be considered for 2024/25 and 2025/26. EFS could be in the form of Government grants, revenue expenditure redone as capital or an increase in the council tax base above the normal limit – the Council had not been pursuing the third option. Hillingdon had received positive service ratings for its adult social care, children’s services and housing and benchmarked favourably with other local authorities. Reforms in relation to digital technology, business intelligence, etc, had started to help officers to make more informed decisions and the Council continued to provide great value for money from a low council tax base. The Cabinet Member noted that public disclosure now would be inappropriate and could affect the outcome of the Council’s request for EFS. MHCLG and the Home Office would need to discuss grant funding for the dispersal programme. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Burles asked why, with a £18.3m overspend, the Council had failed to offer credible solutions or acknowledge the scale of the crisis. Councillor Goddard advised that the problems being faced by the Council were the end product of a lack of funding from successive Governments but that he looked forward with optimism. The Council would need to drive down operating costs as much as possible. 8.13 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BANERJEE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND TRANSFORMATION - COUNCILLOR GODDARD: “There has been much comment in the national media about the indebtedness of councils and the amount of residents’ council tax used to pay the interest on the debt. Would the Cabinet member please tell me what is our level of borrowing and how we compare with other councils?” Councillor Goddard advised that, in quarter 1 of 2025/26, the twenty outer London boroughs had £13.9bn in borrowings (an average of £6.97m). However, Hillingdon was bottom of the third quartile of London boroughs with £5.35m in borrowings. By way of a supplementary question, with £1 in every £5 of council tax applied to debt, Councillor Banerjee asked how Hillingdon was doing. Councillor Goddard advised that, as a result of underfunding from Government over many years, nine London boroughs had sought a total of £989m in Exceptional Financial Support. In Hillingdon, as low interest rates had been secured, only 29p per £5 was being used to service debt. 8.7 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR SINGH TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND TRANSFORMATION - COUNCILLOR GODDARD: “The budget report agreed by Cabinet in July 2025 points the finger at previous Section 151 officers for not remedying the situation. So, will the Cabinet member now be seeking to provide an independent report from Ernst and Young on the reported actual savings against target for the past 15 years, so that this Council has a clearer picture on the state of the Council’s finances?” Councillor Goddard advised that auditors had undertaken a review of savings as part of the annual value for money report. As such, a report would not be sought on this matter. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Singh asked why previous Section 151 officers had been blamed when they had been trying to help. Councillor Goddard advised that he was not trying to point to the finger at the officer team. It was a collective endeavour and he had a lot of confidence in officers. Over the last five years, £87m of savings had been generated. 8.12 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BRIDGES TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: “The Home Office told the Court of Appeal that the rights of people who are in this country illegally outweighed the concerns of British citizens. Does the Leader agree with the Home Secretary, and will her approach determine the actions of this Council?” Councillor Edwards advised that he did not agree with the Home Office or the Home Secretary and that the comments had caused widespread anger and highlighted that the Government was out of touch with communities. The Council continued to protect residents’ safety and wellbeing. The suggestion that the rights of illegal immigrants outweighed those of residents was not acceptable. The Government had failed to stop illegal immigrants from entering the country and had insisted on housing them in HMOs and hotels. Councils had been left having to cope with the consequences of these policies. The ‘move on’ period was being reduced from 56 days to 28 days for single adults and would affect most in London accommodation and could increase levels of rough sleeping. 56 days provided more time to organise support for these individuals. The national policy should not undermine local action and the Council would not let misplaced national priorities dictate. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Bridges asked if residents and Councillors were free to comment and take action to protect freedom of speech. The Leader advised that freedom of speech must be protected but not the incitement of hate or violence. He had met with the Borough Superintendent and Council officers to look at facilitating peaceful protest and to identify those who committed violence. Following a review of the protest on 30 August 2025, alcohol had been deemed to be a problem so the Council would be deploying enforcement officers to ensure that fines were issued for alcohol consumption in areas with a Public Space Protection Order. The Council would not be removing any flags that had been put up unless they posed a risk to pedestrians or vehicle users. The Council would not tolerate any graffiti. 8.5 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR SWEETING TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: “The Audit Committee report of 28th August 2025, page 60, provides details, in the Value For Money section, of the weaknesses highlighted with regards to Financial Sustainability and Quality of Council information, with 7 recommendations proposed in the Final 2023/24 Auditor’s Annual Report, one of which being: “that the Council should seek to balance the schools’ budget to prevent further growth in its Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) deficit……and that the Council should also perform scenario planning for how it would manage the impact of the current deficit on its financial position when the current statutory override ends.” “Although the Government statutory override has now been extended to March 2028, and although the Council has taken action to reduce annual overspend on DSG to £15M at the end of March 2025, could the Cabinet member, provide details of how the deficit of £65.71M is being addressed, as it is still the highest of any London borough and is still increasing?” Councillor O’Brien advised that, at £65.7m, there was no doubt that this was a significant deficit and the highest in London but it was not the highest deficit in the country. In 2023/24, the national DSG deficit had been £2.3bn. The statutory override had been extended to March 2028 and officers had worked hard to get the Council to its current position and would continue to reduce the in-year deficit to break even. The Council had been talking to schools about sustainability and investing in capital programme. Projects planned for the next year included a move to educate closer to home. However, the issue was for the Government to address. Although the Government recognised the challenges faced by local authorities, the DSG deficit needed to be reduced. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Sweeting asked why Hillingdon’s DSG deficit was so many times higher than the average of all of the other London local authorities. Councillor O’Brien advised that she would provide Councillor Sweeting with a written response. However, she noted that the complexity of needs and increased demand had had an impact, alongside the banding structures which had been too favourable (and which had now been revised). WRITTEN RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: The question you have posed asks for information that the Council does not possess as we do not have the full details of other London councils' financial positions or their individual contexts, particularly in respect of the DSG and local demand pressures. That said, there are a number of factors which have contributed to Hillingdon’s position:  Funding formulae differ between areas, and this council sits at the lower end of funding compared to other boroughs, which doesn’t reflect the scale of our demographics.  As an outer London borough with high mobility, Hillingdon is effectively an importer, which adds to pressure on services.  Historically, the level of inclusivity in mainstream schools has not been as high as in some other areas, creating greater reliance on specialist placements that come at a higher cost.  In the past, the authority did not have enough local SEND school placements, meaning we had to fund more expensive out-of-borough provision. Significant work has been done in recent years to expand local capacity, but the legacy of that historic gap is still being felt. It is, in reality, a mixture of factors that have combined over time to put us in the position we now find ourselves. What is important, however, is that significant progress has already been made. The fact that our in-year deficit decreased so much last year is a very positive sign that our early intervention work and closer partnership with schools are making a real difference. 8.1 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR GOHIL TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & GROWTH – COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL: “Can the Cabinet member provide an update on the practical steps the Council has been taking, alongside government, the London Fire Brigade, and the freeholder, to address the building safety issues at Union Park in Cowley - and to give residents the reassurance they need?” Councillor Tuckwell advised that Union Park comprised 253 flats in ten blocks and included 13 Council homes. A fire risk assessment had identified defects but the developer was no longer around to resolve these and the freeholder was overseas. The Council had intervened in July 2025 and agreed to pay for an emergency waking watch to enable the residents to stay in their homes. Although the Council had already undertaken work in relation to the 13 properties that it owned, one of its residents had been supported to move into alternative accommodation. The Council had been working with the Ministry of Communities, Housing and Local Government and the London Fire Brigade to take action. Significant works would be needed to fix the original structural defects and the Council would use its statutory powers to hold those responsible to account. The Council would continue to act decisively. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Gohil asked if residents could be reassured that the Council would take steps to keep them safe until the issues were permanently fixed and those responsible had been held to account. Councillor Tuckwell advised that the Council would continue to pursue the matter and had been taking legal steps to act firmly and decisively on behalf of the residents. 8.9 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR GILL TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND TRANSFORMATION - COUNCILLOR GODDARD: “Can the Cabinet member provide clarity on the reasons why there is now an adverse variance of £31.5M against the outturn 2024/25, representing an adverse movement of £20.5M from month 10 which is made up of the need to write out a negative reserve of £5.5M, an assessment of the Council’s Treasury Approach which has led to an adjustment of £4.5M and an evaluation of the bad debt provision policy which has led to an adverse movement of £4.1M along with £5.1M of previously reported intervention not crystalising, meaning that reserves at the end of the 2024/25 financial year are now a meagre £6.7M which are deemed inadequate by the Section 151 officer?” Councillor Goddard advised that paragraphs 19-32 of the Cabinet report considered at the meeting on 24 July 2025 had provided a comprehensive explanation. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Gill asked if the only reason that the Council had not issued a Section 114 notice was because it had asked the Government for a bail out. Councillor Goddard advised that this was an accounting issue and that many local authorities had gone down this route. There would be no embarrassment about seeking support. ________________________________________________________ AS THE 45 MINUTE TIME LIMIT FOR MEMBER QUESTIONS HAD BEEN REACHED, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WOULD RECEIVE WRITTEN RESPONSES. ________________________________________________________ 8.4 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR DAVIES TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: “Could the Leader of the Council share his view on what message is sent to residents when Full Council votes unanimously to oppose plans for a 3rd runway at Heathrow and then one member of the opposition, who joined the vote to oppose the expansion, then appears in a promotional video supporting the scheme?” WRITTEN RESPONSE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Thank you for your question and for bringing this matter to the attention of Council. The vote to which you refer was a motion passed on 10th July reaffirming the Council's strong, cross-party opposition to a third runway at Heathrow - no ifs, no buts. The vote of each and every councillor present was recorded in favour of that motion - a statement of each councillor’s personal opposition to the third runaway. That a Councillor who voted in that motion should appear in a promotional video backing the third runway since posted on social media is potentially very damaging to that Councillor's integrity, honesty and openness, and consequently their fitness to hold office. That the Councillor permits their image to be prominently used by BackHeathrow.org even today shows that the video was not an isolated matter but is part of a wider picture that is more likely a true reflection of their position with regard to Heathrow. After the events of the last few days it would be an understatement to say that the public do not all have the most favourable opinion of the integrity of politicians. Where it appears that one of us is clearly being two faced, making public statements in one way but acting personally in another, that behaviour, results in the further erosion of trust in what we all say and commit to as councillors. It undermines the work of this chamber and it Members and it damages democracy. It is possible that until you asked this question the leadership of the opposition were not aware of this issue just as I was unaware. Labour will be judged on their actions from this point on as allowing this conduct to occur without challenge not only damages them but becomes a stain on all of us in this Chamber. It does appear to me that there is a powerful argument that the conduct, if proven, breaches the Nolan principles of integrity, openness and honesty which underpin our code of conduct and I urge the appropriate body to now consider this. The public might also expect the Labour group to consider whether this alleged behaviour meets their standards of behaviour and to take action accordingly. 8.8 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR GARELICK TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND TRANSFORMATION - COUNCILLOR GODDARD: “The Annual Audit report by external auditors, Ernst & Young, page 12, states that “We have not been able to complete our specific processes to address the risk of mis- statements due to fraud or error, nor were we able to complete all of our audit procedures over the financial statements and are therefore unable to conclude on whether the financial statements are materially misstated as a result of fraud or error.” “When will this Conservative administration be in a position to provide the required information to the independent auditor which would establish whether the issue is either misstated information or actual fraud?” WRITTEN RESPONSE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: I refer to the answer that I provided in this chamber on 11 July 2024 in response to a question posed by Cllr Denys. As I reported at that time, there is a national problem within the audit profession in terms of the availability of suitable resources to complete audits in the public sector and in the case of Hillingdon, the external auditors were unable to complete all required audit work by the Government defined backstop date. Cllr Garelick therefore incorrectly assumes that the auditors were unable to complete their work due to shortcomings in the Councils books, records and supporting material. This is not the case. It is notable that 47% of Councils in England received disclaimer audit opinions on their 2023/24 Statutory Accounts. Furthermore, the auditor’s report does not imply that there has been a misstatement of information or actual fraud, what is being said is that the auditors were unable to complete their work in order to give such an assurance of the absence of misstatement or fraud. The Council will continue to provide all necessary information and will work with the auditors in order the reach an improved and satisfactory conclusion to the 2024/25 audit within the updated legislative framework. A particular priority will be ensuring that all required material is delivered to the auditors on a timely basis. 8.2 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR DENYS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: “The government announced in November 2024, wide reaching reforms to Children’s Social Care. Can the Cabinet member provide an update on progress made to date in preparing for these reforms and offer assurance of readiness for 2026?” WRITTEN RESPONSE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: I am pleased to provide an update on the progress and offer assurances regarding the council’s preparedness for full implementation of the Children’s Social Care Reforms that will come into force in 2026. Nationally, the reforms are being delivered through the Families First Partnership (FFP) Programme with an aim to rebalance the system of early help, family support, and expert-led child protection, which is outlined in the Children’s Social Care National Framework and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill 2024. It is important to note, that, even though the reforms are being led by the Councils Children’s Services, the reforms cover the multi-agencies who respond to Children and Families in need of help and/or protection. Hillingdon has made considerable progress to position the local delivery model to reflect national expectations. By using best practice, as recommended in the DfE’s guidelines, the council has engaged in extensive consultation with staff, unions and partner agencies by holding a range of knowledge sessions, in order to shape our response and delivery models, to ensure transparency, support, and shared ownership of the changes. Phase 1 of our Family Help locality model went live at the end of August marking a major milestone in the transformation journey, which amalgamated the Stronger Families Key working Service, Referral and Assessment Service and Children’s Social Work Service into a single Family Help Service, structured across three localities, in the South West, South East and North of the borough. Each locality is led by a dedicated Service Manager, with a mix Family Help Key Workers and Social Workers who deliver and support under one umbrella using one framework to create a practice of reducing handovers, avoid repetition and retelling experiences, the goal is to empower families through consistent support. A New Beginnings team has been created to give intensive support to vulnerable mothers who have had previous babies removed from their care or who are at risk of having their baby removed, aiming to prevent repeat removals and improve long-term outcomes. From this initiative, it is hoped that there will be a reduction in children coming into care by wrapping support around these vulnerable parents as early as possible. The council’s transformation is underpinned by robust governance and strategic planning, and includes an Executive Transformation Group overseeing delivery, it includes representation from health, education, police, and the voluntary sector, ensuring accountability and progress tracking. A detailed Delivery Plan for 25–26 has been submitted to the DfE, explaining the phased implementation, anticipated spend, and workforce development strategy. Officers are working on the next submission which will be due towards the end of 2025. With Phase 1 now operational and planning for Phase 2 and 3 is progressing, the council remains committed to delivering a system that is responsive, inclusive, and focused on improving outcomes for children and families. Our children’s social care team are confident that by 2026 the transformation programme will be well underway as Hillingdon is one of the national pathfinder Local Authorities. Updates will continue to be provided through the Children, Families and Education Select Committee. 8.6 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR PUNJA TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND TRANSFORMATION - COUNCILLOR GODDARD: “Can the Cabinet member explain why Grant Thornton were procured for the implementation of the Financial Modernisation Programme in a sole procurement tender, when Cabinet had resolved in February in 2025 that CIPFA would be delivering on financial improvements?” WRITTEN RESPONSE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Members should be aware that I wrote to the then s 151 Officer on 24 November 2024, requesting that a programme of work be initiated, which ultimately came to be known as the Finance Modernisation Programme. I must make it clear that recommendations as to the appointment of advisers within the Finance Modernisation Programme have all been considered and made by Senior Council Officers and referred to the Leader and Cabinet for a decision after fully compliant Procurement processes have been undertaken. I can advise that it is my understanding that Officers proposed the switch from CIPFA to Grant Thornton and that they made this proposal in order to capitalise on Grant Thornton’s existing involvement with and knowledge of Hillingdon, also GT’s expectation that they could deliver the project at a faster pace than CIPFA. I must emphasise that there is no obligation imposed by legislation or the Councils own internal rules to operate a competitive, multi-party tendering process and in the judgement of officers, the imposition of such a competitive process would have caused costly delays, which had the significant potential to outweigh the cost benefits which might have accrued from a competitive tender. I can confirm that I did not make those decisions where the Finance Modernisation Programme was concerned, neither did I actively promote the case for appointing any contractor. 8.11 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MAND TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES & PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO: “At the Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee Meeting of 23rd July 2025, (page 16 refers), it was confirmed that, “There is still no central register of all known hireable Council spaces and buildings, who is responsible for them, how they are let, or importantly, how they are promoted or if they are promoted at all. It appears that there is a lack of comprehensive understanding of what spaces are available, their potential and strategic management of these spaces.” “Therefore, could the Cabinet member provide the timescale for when this vital and important audit of the Council’s spaces and buildings will be completed which would need to show where the responsibility lies for ensuring all marketing potentials are explored?” WRITTEN RESPONSE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: The development of a central register of all known hireable council spaces and buildings is under review with the Select Committee as part of a Council wide initiative to capture all known spaces within both operational and non-operational assets. As part of this work programme, we are reviewing the development of suitable systems to manage the bookings and promotion of these spaces. An audit is underway and will report its progress to the Select Committee on a regular basis in accordance with its agreed work programme. This will enable the Committees findings to be reported to Cabinet along with recommendations as to how the resources will be managed in the future on the basis that they span a number of service areas. Cabinet will be able to decide on where the responsibility for this programme will sit. A good example of where we have sought to increase income from bookings is in the library service which already has a bespoke system in place with all generated income being retained in that service. We are using this model to help us develop a council wide system working in conjunction with the Digital Services Team. 8.10 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MATHERS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: “A report on Hillingdon’s Youth Offer was presented to the Children, Families and Education Select Committee Meeting of 13th November 2024 which stated that, “the Transporter buses were an invaluable resource in youth work…and that funding for two new Transporter buses had been secured and that the Fleet Team were currently working on the tender process, using a similar specification to that of the London Borough of Barnet Youth bus.” “Therefore, could the Cabinet member explain why it has taken multiple attempts by opposition members of the Select Committee in November, January, April and June, plus a Member’s Enquiry and a further enquiry through Democratic Services, to establish that the procurement process for delivering the 2 new Transporter buses had only started in late July 2025, with the estimated completion date being as late as June 2026, meaning that certain areas of the borough with limited or no venues to deliver the Youth Offer will, until June 2026, continue to be deprived of this publicly acknowledged “invaluable resource”.” WRITTEN RESPONSE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Both Youth Services and I recognise that the Transporter Youth buses are vital component of Hillingdon’s Youth Offer, particularly in areas of the borough where there is limited static availability and therefore we have to consider more dynamic means of reaching out to our young people, both in, the South and North of the borough. Even without the Transporter buses, officers ensure that they are delivering mobile, community-based youth work which has been consistently acknowledged including in the report presented to the Children, Families and Education Select Committee on 13 November 2024 as well as the written update at the last select committee meeting. The acquisition of such assets are subject to prioritisation, procurement and governance processes. Work on this began in July 2024 with officers across services establishing the specifications which would be required, Cabinet agreed in principle to the provision of the transporter buses in the November 2024 report. The timeline from the end of 2024 is as follows:  The proposal requiring Capital budget approval & setting of the Fleet Capital Budget March 2025.  Further detailed work took place, with the Procurement launch start and finish in July 2025.  Tender Publication and Evaluation commenced this week.  Governance and Scrutiny takes place between October–December 2025  The Delivery Timeline is estimated between January–October 2026 In the interim our Hillingdon Youth Offer continues to use the outreach model ensuring service delivery is maintained. Detached and outreach work continues across the borough, with staff deployed to key locations to engage young people, build relationships and provide support. The service continues to be proactive, with staff rotation across wards, to ensure a broader coverage to priority delivery areas, using the teams data analysis and community feedback. The service therefore remains responsive to the needs of children and young people in Hillingdon during this transitional period. The procurement of the Transporter youth buses is a priority for the Council and is being pursued with due diligence and urgency. The timeline reflects the necessary governance and financial protocols that underpin all capital investments. The Youth Service continues to engage with stakeholders to ensure transparency and responsiveness throughout the process. 8.14 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR NELSON-WEST TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT - COUNCILLOR LAVERY: “Can the Cabinet member explain the rationale behind closing the RAGC to members of the public who also used and enjoyed the garden for a place of sanctuary and peace?” WRITTEN RESPONSE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:  The Cabinet report presented to the June Cabinet meeting set out the rationale for closing the retail provision of the Rural Activities Garden Centre (RAGC) and the retail garden centre element of the service closed at the end of July 2025.  Further consultation is underway to consider the remaining services being operated at the Centre and the responses to this further consultation will be considered at the end of October.  The RAGC was open to the public as a retail garden centre and not strictly as a public open space although we acknowledge that whilst the retail operations were underway it had been used as such.  Residents of Hillingdon continue to enjoy access to many areas of open space and award-winning parks and gardens open to the public for peaceful enjoyment. 28. MOTIONS (Agenda Item 9) 9.4 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR RILEY Councillor Riley moved, and Councillor Tuckwell seconded, the following motion: That this Council has a proud record and tradition of promoting Civic Pride in many forms and celebrating its heritage encouraging the coming together of our diverse communities. This Council, therefore, reaffirms and supports whole heartedly the Leader’s words in his recent statement about the flying of the flags of the United Kingdom and England across the borough. Those flags represent the history, freedoms and values of this country and its people and they are a beacon to others. We eschew the disgraceful negative attitude of those who are willing to surrender our national flags to extremists by claiming them to be symbols of racism. Flying our country’s national flags serves any numbers of good purposes, providing a sense of identity and belonging and it is supported by our residents. This Council also recognises that increasing protest against the failure of the government to stop illegal entry into this country and stop the housing of asylum seekers in our hotels, may be unnerving to more recently settled residents of this country. It therefore welcomes the recent public statement by Hillingdon Inter Faith Network and commits to working with the Network to ensure community cohesion. Councillor Mathers moved, and Councillor Punja seconded, the following amendment (additional words in bold italics and deleted words crossed through): That this Council has a proud record and tradition of promoting Civic Pride in many forms and celebrating its heritage encouraging the coming together of our diverse communities. This Council, therefore, reaffirms and supports whole heartedly the Leader’s words in his recent statement about the flying of the flags of the United Kingdom and England across the borough. Those flags represent the history, freedoms and values of this country and its people and they are a beacon to others. We eschew the disgraceful negative attitude of those who are willing to surrender our national flags to extremists by claiming them to be symbols of racism. Appropriate flying of our country’s national flags serves any numbers of good purposes, providing a sense of identity and belonging and it which is supported by our residents. This Council also recognises that increasing protest against the failure of the government to stop illegal entry into this country and stop the housing of asylum seekers in our hotels, may be unnerving to more recently settled residents of this country. It therefore welcomes the recent public statement by Hillingdon Inter Faith Network and commits to working with the Network increase tangible council activities to reduce hate crime and increase ensure community cohesion. Those speaking in support of the amendment stated that the original motion used divisive language. Whilst flying flags was not seen to be an issue, the use of Council platforms was seen as an issue and the amendment assisted the Council in remaining neutral. Under the Equalities Act, there was a need to foster cohesion and it would be important to not add fuel to the fire. The country could not be built by pitting neighbours against each other and solidarity was needed to ensure civic pride. It was recognised that this was an emotive subject which had become a symbol of division. Whilst a flag was just a piece of cloth, it was about context. Some flags were being flown for pride whilst others were being used to intimidate asylum seekers. The flags united everyone and it was right to display the flags and be able to hold a peaceful protest. Faith leaders, schools and charities had been working hard to promote cohesion but hotels in West Drayton had been used to house asylum seekers for four years. The interfaith statement had noted that the flags belong to all of us and that it was not right that they were being weaponised. Residents were feeling unnerved by the escalating hate in the Borough. Those speaking against the amendment stated that the original motion had been clear and unapologetic. The amendment had watered down the motion and had cast doubt where there should be certainty. It was a half-hearted statement that stripped recognition of the issue that was concerning residents and weakened the point of the motion. The amendment was put to a vote and lost. Those speaking in support of the original motion stated that Councillor Edwards had provided a strong display of leadership and that the flying of the St George and Union flags displayed a coming together and provided a symbol of unity. Nations’ flags were regularly flown for sporting, mourning and military occasions and were now being used to object to the Government’s poor performance in relation to asylum. The flags were vital and important for unity and national pride but should not be allowed to be denigrated by racists. The flags sent a powerful message to Government and illustrated the concerns of the community. National flags should not be controversial and did not belong to a select few – they belonged to everyone and individuals should not be afraid to use them to show pride in their country. Flags represented history, freedoms and values and the motion supported pride in the nation and its values. The motion was well meant and highlighted that the flags were for everyone and their denigration should not be tolerated. The original motion was put to the vote and it was: RESOLVED: That this Council has a proud record and tradition of promoting Civic Pride in many forms and celebrating its heritage encouraging the coming together of our diverse communities. This Council, therefore, reaffirms and supports whole heartedly the Leader’s words in his recent statement about the flying of the flags of the United Kingdom and England across the borough. Those flags represent the history, freedoms and values of this country and its people and they are a beacon to others. We eschew the disgraceful negative attitude of those who are willing to surrender our national flags to extremists by claiming them to be symbols of racism. Flying our country’s national flags serves any numbers of good purposes, providing a sense of identity and belonging and it is supported by our residents. This Council also recognises that increasing protest against the failure of the government to stop illegal entry into this country and stop the housing of asylum seekers in our hotels, may be unnerving to more recently settled residents of this country. It therefore welcomes the recent public statement by Hillingdon Inter Faith Network and commits to working with the Network to ensure community cohesion. 9.2 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR PUNJA Councillor Punja moved, and Councillor Mathers seconded, the following motion: That this Council notes:  The Council’s finances are in a “critical” state, according to independent auditors Ernst & Young (EY) who have served notice under the Section 24 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.  The Council’s reserves are the lowest of any London borough with insufficient reserves for this financial year.  This Council has had 4 Section 151 officers in the past 18 months.  Persistent delay notices relating to the Financial Report for year ending 2024-25.  Auditors Ernst & Young report “fundamental governance weaknesses”, including poor-quality data and unreliable forecasting.  The Internal Audit report offered “no assurance” on internal controls, risk management, or governance.  The Council Forecasts for 2025-26 show a further £16.4m overspend, more than double the reserves left.  The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) deficit has hit £65.71 million, nearly ten times the Council’s reserves, threatening the future of education funding.  Failure to achieve savings targets year on year leaving £34million in year savings target for 2025/26.  The Council is now seeking an unplanned, midyear “Exceptional Financial Support” from the Labour Government, to cover up their inability to deliver a balanced budget, proving that the Conservative administration has lost complete control of the accounts. Therefore, this Council expresses its complete lack of confidence in:  Cllr Ian Edwards, Leader of Hillingdon Council – for failing to provide leadership or accountability during this financial collapse; and  Cllr Martin Goddard, Cabinet Member for Finance – for presiding over catastrophic budget management, failed reforms, and a total loss of public trust. This Council calls upon the two Members to resign with immediate effect and further instructs the Chief Executive to write to the Government calling for an urgent formal investigation into the financial position of this local authority. Those speaking in support of the motion stated that residents required transparency and accountability. Paragraph 25 of the Section 25 statement had said that action would be taken but that the Council had since had an overspend, had appointed three Chief Finance Officers and didn’t have enough money to run the Council. There had been a heavy reliance on interims, consultants and scapegoats. The Council’s finances were not under control and it had two lame ducks in Section 114 territory. Councillors Edwards and Goddard did not know how much was in the accounts and they were using the excuse of costs associated with temporary accommodation, asylum seekers and SEND. This was not bad luck, it was financial mismanagement and residents were paying for yesterday’s mistakes. They had continually failed the Borough, masked a huge overspend with a budget built on sand and been the only London council not to have published accounts. Hillingdon had the lowest reserves of all the London boroughs and had spent £1.7m on a contract with Grant Thornton. The auditors had lost confidence and it was now time for Council to show that it too had lost confidence. The administration had closed its eyes to financial

Council – 27 November 2025 5.1 QUESTION FROM TONY ELLIS OF KEWFERRY ROAD, NORTHWOOD TO THE LEADER OF THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: The council's Audit Committee papers confirm that leaders were formally warned of "key governance weaknesses" by CIPFA and auditors in February and March 2025. This was at the exact same time the administration was approving the 2025/26 budget Given the administration was formally warned of "key governance weaknesses" before the budget was set, I do not understand how it could have been legitimately claimed to have been robust. What accountability has there been for the leadership's failure to act on these warnings, which preceded the £36m financial collapse? 5.2 QUESTION FROM PATRICIA WARDLE OF WYE CLOSE ROAD, RUISLIP TO THE LEADER OF THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: At the HARA meeting on 17 November, the Leader stated the EFS bailout application was for "the region of 40 million". This figure seems too low to be sufficient to co ver both this year’s overspend and to replenish the reserves, especially as each month in the last three the overspend has increased. Can the Leader provide a more accurate estimate of the kind of figure that the Council has been requesting from the gover nment, given that the £40 million figure doesn’t seem anywhere near sufficient? 5.3 QUESTION FROM SUE MIDGLEY OF HOWLETTS LANE , RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR C HILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: The Council predicts it will have a £78 m cumulative deficit in the Dedicated Schools Grant by the end of the year. The statutory override government protection for this deficit expires in March 2028. What is the Council's plan to handle the £78.4m schools deficit when the government override ends, other than hoping for a second bailout? 5.4 QUESTION FROM SALLY WEBB OF L AKESIDE CLOSE, RUISL IP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR C OMMUNITY & ENVIRONME NT – COUNCILLOR LAVERY: In April 2025, the Leader of the Council, C ouncillor Ian Edwards, personally assur ed the Ruislip Residents' Association that a new, robust risk assessment for Ruislip Lido was a priority and would be 'picked up very quickly' to address the 'obvious risks' of overcrowding. On June 29th, those risks were realised when emergency services struggled to access the site. Yet, as of November, this vital risk assessment has still not been commissioned, and Council officers have confirmed they are still awaiting responses from external specialists. QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC Council – 27 November 2025 Given the Council's failure to deliver this urg ent safety review, how does it justify prioritising new, non-essential spending at the Lido, such as the £19,200 approved in October to refurbish the pirate ship and the £76,949 approved in September for 'infrastructure improvements', which includes 'new picnic tables' - all of which will only attract more visitors to a site the Council has not yet made safe? 5.5 QUESTION FROM DANIEL O’NEILL OF ASHBURTON ROAD, R UISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND TRANSFOR MATION – COUNCILLOR GODDARD: The Month 6 Budget Monitoring Report identifies a £4 million "adverse impact" on the budget caused by a review of the asset sales programme. Can the Cabinet Member confirm if this £4 million deficit exists because the Administration had already spent or committed the money before the assets were actually sold and why was such a large sum spent "at risk" before the funds were actually secured in the Counc il's bank account? 5.6 QUESTION FROM DAVID EDINGTON OF HOYLAKE CRESCENT, ICKENHAM TO THE CABINET MEMBER F OR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT – COUNCILLOR LAVERY: The Chrysalis Fund criteria, presented to the Residents’ Services Select Committee in March 2025, explicitly state the fund cannot fund events, activities or furniture and equipment. Can the Cabinet Member explain why he subsequently approved £19,200 for 'Playground equipment refurbishment' and £76,949 for a project that includes 'new picnic tables' - in direct contradiction of the programme's published rules - and further explain when and by whom the decision was t aken to increase his portfolio's Chrysalis budget from the £1 million stated in his June Capital Release report to the £3 million stated in his September report, given the Council’s current severe financial constraints?

Council – 27 November 2025 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 Chair of the relevant Select Committee that the ma tter is urgent and to waive the scrutiny call -in period. All such decisions, including those also under special urgency provisions, are to be reported for information only to the next full Council meeting. 2. Since last reported to Council, the following dec isions have been made using urgency procedures: Date of Decision Nature of Decision Reason for Urgency Decision-Maker 24/07/2025 Award of Contract: Community Equipment Service This provided the necessary contractual decisions to ensure the Council could respond swiftly to ensure service continuity for residents using this vital service. Cabinet 16/09/2025 Christmas Lights 2025 one-year tender contract recommendation Due to tight time constraints to deliver the lighting programme for Diwali and Christmas on time, as the project was operating under a compressed timeline, impacted by the full tendering process and securing sponsorship funding. Leader of the Council and, on behalf of the Cabinet Member for Community & Environment 10/10/2025 HRA Acquisitions – Property Acquisition & Additional Capital request for Housing Buy- Backs This ensured the property transactions proceeded to provide much needed affordable housing. Deputy Leader of the Council (on behalf of the Leader of the Council) and on behalf of the Cabinet Members for Finance & Transformation and Planning, Housing & Growth 23/10/2025 Contractor for urgent boiler plant room works at Bourne Primary School This ensured remedial action, replacing the boilers, so the school had heating restored before the cold weather. Leader of the Council, and on behalf of the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services & Property and the Cabinet Member for Finance & Transformation, Council – 27 November 2025 Date of Decision Nature of Decision Reason for Urgency Decision-Maker 23/10/2025 Increasing Local Care Provision & Disposal of land at the Civic Centre This ensured the Council could participate promptly in a unique and cost-effective care initiative that responds to increasing local needs. Timely involvement was essential to align with proposed development timelines and maximise the benefits for residents. Cabinet 13/11/2025 Temporary accommodation Leasing Programme - Longford Properties This avoided extra costs for securing costly temporary accommodation for homeless families. Leader of the Council and on behalf of the Cabinet Members for Corporate Services & Property and Planning, Housing & Growth Background Papers: Decision Notices ii) POLITICAL GROUPS ON THE COUNCIL, C ALCULATION OF POLITICAL BALANCE AND COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS Background 1. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 provides a statutory basis for the rights of political groups to secure representation upon Council Committee and Sub-Committee meetings in proportion to their respective political strengths within the Council. 2. A ‘political group’ is one which has been constituted in accordance with Regulation 8 of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990 and consists of at least two Members. It is, therefore, separate from the concept of a political party, although it may well consist of Members of the same political persuasion. 3. The Council currently has three political groups:  The Conservative Group with Councillor Ian Edwards as Group Leader,  The Labour Group with Councillor Stuart Mathers as Group Leader and  The Hayes Independent Party Group with Councillor Peter Curling as Group Leader. RECOMMENDATION: That the alteration of the overall political balance of the Council, following the changes in Group membership detailed in the report, be noted and the following changes to membership of Council Committees etc. be approved:  Councillor Gohil to replace Councillor Singh on the Hillingdon Planning Committee,  Councillor Basit to replace Councillor Nelson on the Health & Social Care Select Committee,  Councillor Farley to replace Councillor Garg on the Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee and Council – 27 November 2025  Councillor Singh to replace Councillor Farley on the Residents’ Services Select Committee.  Councillor Smallwood to replace Councillor Sullivan on the Pensions Committee.  Councillor Punja to replace Councillor Farley as a Labour Group named substitute on the Audit Committee. Information 4. The Head of Democratic Services has recently received the requisite notices of changes to the composition of the Political Groups on the Council, whereby  Councillors Rita Judge and Scott Farley are no longer members of th e Labour Group and have joined the Hayes Independent Party Group,  Councillor Jas Dhot is no longer a member of th e Labour Group and ha s joined the Conservative Group and,  Councillor Naser Abby is no longer a member of the Labour Group and now sits as an independent Member. 5. Council is asked to note the subsequent change in the overall political balance of the Council as shown below: Council composition Members % cttee places Conservative 31 58.49 Labour 16 30.19 Hayes Independent Party 5 9.43 Independent 1 1.89 Total 53 6. As a result of the above:  the Hayes Independent Party Group are entitled to two additional seats on Council Committees  the Conservative group are entitled to one additional seat and  the Labour Group are entitled to three fewer seats. NB – as an independent Councillor, and not member of a Political Group on the Council, Councillor Abby is not entitled to any seats on Council Committees etc. 7. It has been agreed that the membership of the following bodies will be amended as shown below to comply with the revised political balance:  Councillor Gohil to replace Councillor Singh on the Hillingdon Planning Committee,  Councillor Basit to replace Councillor Nelson on the Health & Social Care Select Committee,  Councillor Farley to replace Councillor Garg on the Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee and  Councillor Singh to replace Councillor Farley on the Residents’ Services Select Committee.  In addition to the above, and not related to the changes in Group membership, the Conservative Group have indicated a change in the membership of the Pensions Committee with Councillor Smallwood to replace Councillor Sullivan Council – 27 November 2025 and the Labour Group have indicated that Councillor Punja is to replace Councillor Farley as a Labour Group named substitute on the Audit Committee. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 8. There are no financial implications arising from this report. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 9. These are contained within the report. Background papers: Group Declaration forms iii) APPOINTMENT OF STATUTORY OFFICER Background 1. The Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive), the Section 151 Officer (Corporate Director of Finance) and the Monitoring Officer 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 adequately skilled and experienced staff supported by appropriate resources. RECOMMENDATION: That the Director of Legal and Governance , when confirmed in post, be appointed to the statutory role of Monitoring Officer of the Council. NB – the name and credentials of the successful candidate will be reported to the Council meeting. 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 responsibi lities 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. Members will recall that, f ollowing the departure from the authority of the interim Head of Legal Services and Monitoring Officer in February 2025, Council appointed the Head of Democratic Services, Mr White, to the role. 4. A recruitment process has been undertaken to the role of Director of Legal and Governance and it is intended that this role , being the most senior role responsible for governance in the auth ority, should exercise, the functions of the Monitoring Officer in a manner that enhances the overall reputation of the Council – 27 November 2025 Council with responsibility for the provision of expert legal advice to safeguard Members and officers whilst acting in their official capacities . Such an appointment will be in line with best practice. 5. Mr White will continue in his role as Monitoring Officer until such time as the new Director of Legal and Governance commences employment with the authority and then will revert to the role of Deputy Mo nitoring Officer. This will ensure continuity in the statutory role within establishment resources. Financial Implications 6. The cost of this appointment will be contained within existing budgets. Legal Implications 7. The appointment of a Monitoring Officer is a statutory requirement whose appointment is reserved to Full Council. Background papers: none iv) APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT PERSON SUMMARY 1. In July 2012, Council adopted a new ethical framework in accordance with the Localism Act 2011 [the Act]. The Act made a number of significant changes to the previous ethical framework for Members and Co -opted members of local authorities, which came into force on 1 July 2012, including the adoption of a new Code of Conduct and the appointment of an ‘Independent Person’. 2. Council first appointed an Independent Person in July 2013 for a three -year period and re-appointed the same person in July 2016 and 2019. However, in 2019 Council also decided that three consecutive terms should be the maximum and that, therefore a new person would be appointed in July 2022. Subsequently a further appointment was made in 2022 up until May 2026. 3. Members are asked to give consideration to the recommendation of the Standards Committee for the appointment of a further Independent Person (in addition to the current one) for the next period (until May 2030) – in line with the electoral cycle of the Council – to provide continuity and cover for the role. RECOMMENDATIONS: That: a) Mr Roger Cook be appointed as the Council’s second Independent Person until July 2030 and b) Mr Graeme Armour’s appointment as Independent Person be extended to July 2030. Council – 27 November 2025 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Independent Person 4. The 2011 Act envisaged a new role for an Independent Person and stated that there must be provision for the appointment by an authority of at least one Independent Person whose views are to be sought and taken into account in relation to the conduct of a Member or co-opted member of the authority. 5. Currently the Council has only one Independent Person, but best practice suggests that there should be a ‘pool’ of at least two for the authority to use in order to provide adequate cover and consistency. 6. Accordingly, Members are asked to consider an additional person for the role which, in summary, includes:  assisting the Council in discharging its duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by elected Members (Councillors) of the Council  advising the Council’s Monitoring Officer in connection with the assessment of complaints against elected Members and, in addition, any potential sanctions that might arise from those complaints.  To exercise functions in connection with the proposed dismissal of any of the Council’s statutory officers, being the Head of Paid Service, the Section 151 Officer (Corporate Director of Finance) and the Monitoring Officer. 7. The Independent Person must not be, or have been during the last 5 years, a Member, Co-opted Member or officer of the London Borough of Hillingdon. In addition, persons who wish to be considered for this role cannot be related to or be a close friend of a current or former Member or officer of the London Borough of Hillingdon. 8. Independent persons should be able to demonstrate a commitment to maintaining high standards in public life and have a keen interest in local government. 9. The Act requires that the appointment of an Independent Person be made after the position has been advertised to the general public. Accordingly, the Monitoring Officer has invited expressions of Interest for the role of Independent Person and on 13 October 2025 the Standards Committee interviewed prospective candidates for recommendation to Council. Standards Committee Recommendation 10. The recommended candidate is Mr Roger Cook. 11. Mr Cook is 66 years old, married with five grandchildren and one great grandson. He has been a resident of the Borough for over 50 years 12. Mr Cook retired as a Detective Inspector after 30 years’ service with City of London Police during which time he was the operational head of the DCPCU (bank policing unit 2005 -2007) and in 2007-2016, the UK’s Overseas Anticorruption Unit. During this time, he worked closely with numerous anti- corruption bodies and NGO’ s, formed the Foreign Bribery Task Force with Council – 27 November 2025 the FBI, RCMP and Australian Federal Police and actively contributed to the development and implementation of The Bribery Act 2010, the British Standard 10500 and the ISO 37001 Standard for Anti -Bribery Management Systems. Mr Cook concluded his service as head of an operational Fraud team. 13. Since retiring Mr Cook has worked as an Animal Health Officer at the Heathrow Animal Reception Centre, utilising his BSc Hons Zoology degree, retiring in 2024. 14. Mr Cook descr ibes himself as having a strong sense of justice and ethical responsibility, good verbal and written communication skills and a wealth of experience in engaging with senior political, law enforcement, business, charitable and activist personnel and communi ties at all levels. With more time available, he would like to use his ethical expertise and judgement to benefit the Borough’s community. 15. The Standards Committee were impressed with Mr Cook’s experience and his obvious interest in and enthusiasm for the role.’ Additional Recommendation 16. The current Independent Person is Mr Graeme Armour who has performed exceptionally in the role during his tenure to date and, with the endorsement of the Chair of the Standards Committee, it is recommended that his appointment be extended to July 2030 also to ensure continuity in the role. Financial Implications 17. There are no specific financial implications arising from this report. Although a voluntary role, the position of Independent Person carries a Special Responsibility Allowance of £512.50 paid per meeting required and attended. Legal Implications 18. The legal implications are contained in the body of the report. Background Papers: Standards Committee Agenda 13 October 2025

Council - 27 November 2025 POLLING DISTRICT AND POLLING PLACES REVIEW Reporting Officers: Head of Democratic Services and Electoral Services Manager SUMMARY 1. At the Council meeting in November 2024, polling places for 2025 onwards were approved following the latest regular review aimed at ensuring: a) all the electors 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. 2. As well as approving the polling arrangements within the Borough , Council also instructed the Returning Officer to seek the use of alternative venues, where possible to school buildings in a number of Wards. 3. This report seeks to inform Counci l of the subsequent changes in polling places following that further exercise. Although the polling places are for parliamentary elections they will, of course, be u sed at all elections where possible and, most notably at the local elections in May 2026. RECOMMENDATION: That the changes to polling places, as set out on the attached list, be approved. INFORMATION DEFINITION OF TERMS 4. To ensure clarity in discussing issues arising from the review the following definitions are used:  polling district; a ge ographical sub -division of an electoral area i .e. a UK parliamentary constituency, a European parliamentary electoral region, a ward or an electoral division.  polling place ; a geographical area in which a polling station is located. However, as there is n o legal definition of what a po lling place is, the geographical area could be defined 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 5. The final stage of the polling places review conducted last year, was for Council to consider all the proposals and then publish the results of the review. This was done at the November 2024 Council meeting subject to the Returning Officer being asked to seek alternative venues for a number of schools across the Borough as this was a recurring theme of the responses received in the review. Council - 27 November 2025 6. The following list shows the results of that exercise and is for Member approval. The net result is that the number of schools to be used as polling stations in 2026 has reduced from 11 to 4. 7. Completion of this review does not preclude a further review of polling places should circumstances change e .g. a better venue becomes available or an existing polling place is no longer available. Ward Proposed Polling Station Note: Belmore Grange Park Infant School, Lansbury Drive, Hayes. Retain school as no suitable alternative available. School content with arrangements Charville Hayes End Scout Hut, Len Taylor Close, Hayes. Additional Polling Station in Charville (as requested by Council) as library overloaded Hayes Town Botwell Parish Social Centre, Botwell Lane, Hayes. To replace Botwell House RC School, Botwell Lane, Hayes. West Drayton Yiewsley & West Drayton Community Centre, Harmondsworth Road, West Drayton. To replace West Drayton Academy, Kingston Lane, West Drayton. Wood End Hayes End Community Centre, 70a Kingsway, Botwell. To replace Wood End Park School, Judge Heath Lane, Hayes. Minet Junior School, Avondale Drive, Hayes. Retain school as no suitable alternative available. School content with arrangements Yeading Brookside School, Perth Avenue, Hayes. Retain school as no suitable alternative available. School content with arrangements Eastcote The Tudor Club, 461 Field End Road, Ruislip. To replace Newnham Primary School, Newnham Avenue, Ruislip. Northwood Hills The Central Middlesex Skills Centre, Wiltshire Lane, Northwood. To replace Haydon School, Wiltshire Lane, Northwood Hills. Colham & Cowley Sir Alec Rose Hall, Moorfield Road, Cowley. To replace Cowley Bowls Club, which was being used as a temporary solution Hillingdon East Oak Farm Library, Sutton Court Road Hillingdon. To replace Ryefield Nursery School, Ryefield Avenue, Hillingdon. Ruislip Manor Ruislip Rugby Club, West End Road, Ruislip. To replace Sacred Heart RC School, Herlwyn Avenue, Ruislip. Yiewsley Yiewsley Scout Group, High Street, Yiewsley. To replace Yiewsley Library, 176 High Street, Yiewsley, UB7 7BE (will be unavailable in May ’26) FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 8. 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. Council - 27 November 2025 9. Naturally, venues used as polling places 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 10. 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. Amendments to polling places for other elections is the responsibility of the Returning Officer. EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS 11. In accordance with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty, the pro posals 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 aris ing from these recommendations. EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES 12. The review was based on the number of electors on the current register of electors and the current warding arrangements . The aim of the exercise was to make voting convenient to electors, providing places that are well located within communities, avoiding road safety hazards and using any existing boundaries. 13. The borough currently has 59 polling districts. Each polling district should serve approximately equal numbers of ele ctors and polling locations should be 'logical' i.e. elector s should not have to travel past another polling place to get to their own and none should be shared by different wards. BACKGROUND PAPERS: None Council - 27 November 2025 Appendix A – Warding Arrangements from May 2022

Council – 27 November 2025 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2024/25 Reporting Officer: Ian Kavanagh, Head of Business Intelligence, Corporate Services SUMMARY 1. Cabinet on 18 September 2025 resolved to commend to Council the Annual Performance Report 2024/25 . The report shows how the Council has progressed in achieving its strategic objectives and meeting its ambition of being an efficient, well -run, and digitally enabled organisation. It demonstrates the importance of performance management in local government, using data -driven insights to improve outcomes for residents and ensure accountability. 2. Select Committees have also considered this Annual Report during November, in relation to their respective remits. RECOMMENDATION: That the Annual Performance Report 2024/25 , attached at Appendix A, be noted. 3. Based on feedback from Cabinet th is report will now be produced twice a year, the first is due at Cabinet in December 2025. T he new report will include benchmarking of services across relevant authorities and a financial overview showing value for money of Council services. An example of what will be included in the new performance report (for Children’s Social Care) is:  Hillingdon has the third -lowest net expenditure on Children’s Social Care among its statistical neighbours and remains below both London and national averages. It also ranks second lowest for safeguarding services.  Lower costs align with demand indicators: Hillingdon sits in the lowest t hird for assessments, Section 47 enquiries, and open child protection plans. Referral rates are broadly average at 520 per 100,000 (slightly above the national average of 518 but below London’s 556).  Performance remains strong, with assessment timeliness at 92%—the fourth highest and well above London (86%) and national (84%) averages. Re-registrations for child protection plans stand at 24.5%, close to the national average (24.7%) and above London (21.2%).  Hillingdon continues to deliver children’s social care efficiently, balancing cost control with timely, high-quality assessments and targeted safeguarding interventions. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 4. Performance management is a critical function in local government, enabling councils to use data-driven insights to improve outcomes for residents. It supports accountability — both internally and externally —by demonstrating how public services respond to local needs and ensure value for money. 5. The Council’s performance framework is aligned with the Hillingdon Council Strategy and incorporates a suite of reports accessible to services, senior management, the Corporate Management Team, and Cabinet. This annual report draws on key performance indicators and monitoring data to assess progress against strategic ob jectives. Where applicable, it includes the most recent data available, including pre-2024/25 benchmarks. Council – 27 November 2025 6. Notably, the report integrates indicators from the newly proposed introduced Local Government Outcomes Framework (LGOF), which defines 15 priority outcomes and 115 measures—most of which are statutory and allow for regional and national comparison. Hillingdon will contribute to the development of the LGOF ahead of its formal launch in April 2026 and will assimilate its measures into the Council’s perfo rmance management framework. 7. Performance management is about using data to drive evidence-based decision making to challenge current ways of working and service delivery models. It is an important tool for local government to take responsibility for its own performance and for the public and national governments to hold local service providers to account, ensuring they respond to local needs and that public money is being spent wisely. 8. Performance management includes a range of processes and methods to identify shared goals and various measurements of progress towards these. Closely aligned to the concept of governance it ensures arrangements are in place so an authority’s objectives can be achieved. 9. Within Hillingdon performance is aligned to the Coun cil Strategy, where a suite of performance reports is available to services, senior management teams, our Corporate Management Team, and the Leader and Cabinet. Monthly reports are presented to CMT and action logs completed. 10. This annual report uses key pe rformance indicators and monitoring data to show performance on key services for Financial Year 2024/25 (or in some cases, the latest data available as well as pre-financial year 2024/25). 11. The Annual Performance Report for 2024/25 presents a detailed and transparent account of how Hillingdon Council is performing across its core service areas, with a clear emphasis on putting residents first. The report reflects a council that is actively responding to significant challenges —rising demand, financial pressu res, and evolving community needs—while maintaining a strong commitment to service quality, accountability, and resident wellbeing. Homes and Communities and Residents Services 12. As is the case across many London boroughs, Hillingdon continues to face substantial challenges due to rising demand from homeless households. Since 2022/23, the borough has experienced a more than 50% increase in homelessness presentations, with the unit cost of interim accommodation rising by over 30% annually. These pressure s are driven by market conditions including high property purchase and rental costs, compounded by Hillingdon’s role as a port authority, which contributes to a relatively higher level of need. 13. Social housing providers are also facing competing demands, p articularly the need to improve the condition of existing stock, which is diverting resources away from expanding affordable housing supply. This lack of affordable, good -quality housing —across both public and private sectors—is placing considerable strain on the Council’s finances and its ability to meet statutory responsibilities. It also risks negatively impacting residents’ health, wellbeing, and educational outcomes. 14. Since April 2023, the number of residents approaching the Council due to the threat o f homelessness has doubled. In response, a series of targeted actions are being Council – 27 November 2025 implemented under the Temporary Accommodation Strategy, approved by Cabinet in February 2025, to improve outcomes during 2025/26. These include: a. Increasing proactive homelessness prevention efforts with landlords to reduce presentations by 25 placements per month. b. Introducing a price cap for all nightly charged temporary accommodation placements. c. Securing 100 new leases for temporary accommodation use. d. Expanding the supply of private rented accommodation by 25 units, bringing the total to 349 units for general fund placements. e. Increasing the availability of social rented homes for homeless households, including the delivery of 245 new council properties in 2025/26. 15. Over the past year, the Directorate has strengthened delivery across key areas aligned to the Council’s corporate plan ambitions —particularly around sustainability, affordable housing, and a thriving local economy. 16. Highways maintenance continues to outperfor m London averages, with well -managed street works and an expanding network of EV charging points supporting greener travel and effective traffic management. 17. Housing delivery remains a priority, with over 400 new homes completed and further developments underway, including regeneration schemes at Hayes Town Centre, the Former RAF Uxbridge site, and Grays Road, where early resident consultation has been completed. These efforts are expanding the borough’s housing stock to meet growing demand. 18. Planning and Building Control services remain robust, ensuring safe and well -designed developments. The Local Plan is currently being refreshed, and the Directorate is actively engaging with local businesses to drive inward investment and economic growth. Initiatives such as the Hillingdon Takes Off conference, supported by UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) resources, have brought together over 100 businesses to explore new opportunities for jobs, skills, and apprenticeships. 19. Housing repairs and maintenance have also improved, with over 3,000 repairs completed across council-owned dwellings, contributing to safer, healthier homes and earning a C2 rating in the recent housing inspection. Children Services 20. Children’s Services continues to deliver safe, inclusive, and responsive support for children and families in Hillingdon, despite operating in a complex and high -demand environment shaped by national pressures and the borough’s role as a port authority. 21. Safeguarding remains strong, with effective referral pathways and multi -agency collaboration ensuring timely support. The service maintains a rigorous approach to risk assessment and accountability. 22. Placement sufficiency is a growing concern, particularly around high -cost residential settings. Efforts are underway to rebalance provision, reduce reliance on external placements, and improve care stability through recruitment and innovative care models. Council – 27 November 2025 23. SEND demand is rising, prompting improvements in assessment efficiency and decision- making. Inclusion remains a priority, with a focus on mainstream support and school collaboration. 24. Support for unaccompanied asylum -seeking children and care leavers is being strengthened, with tailored, trauma-informed approaches to help young people transition successfully. 25. Youth justice shows positive trends in early intervention, though reoffending remains a challenge. The strategic focus on prevention and restorative practice is well placed t o address this. 26. Workforce stability is critical, with ongoing investment in recruitment, development, and wellbeing to ensure consistent, high-quality service delivery. 27. Overall, the service is navigating challenges with strategic clarity and resilience. Performance data aligns with priorities, and the focus on transformation, inclusion, and sustainability positions Children’s Services well for the future. Continued collaboration across the council and with partners will be key to maintaining progress. Adult Social Care and Health (ASC&H) 28. ASC&H continues to operate in a challenging environment shaped by demographic shifts, complex care needs, and transitions from Children’s Services. A growing cohort of individuals with autism-only diagnoses and co-occurring mental health needs is placing pressure on service design, workforce capability, and long-term planning. 29. Legislative changes—including the Care Act, Better Care Fund (BCF) requirements, and updates to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)—have added further complexity. Despite this, ASC&H has maintained strong performance in service user satisfaction, quality of life, and early intervention. 30. Digital tools and data analytics are improving access to information, enabling smarter care planning, and supporting independent living. The extra care model remains central to early support, with further innovations underway to enhance service delivery. Key actions taken to manage demand include:  Transformation of the front door through the Single Point of Access (SPA) and Multi- Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), improving triage and safeguarding outcomes.  Expansion of reablement services to promote recovery and reduce long -term dependency.  Timely submission of the BCF Assurance document to secure funding.  Collaborative work with care providers to manage inflationary pressures and maintain market stability. 31. In July 2024, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) rated ASC&H as Good overall, highlighting strong leadership, effective service delivery, and high l evels of user satisfaction. The council was recognised as one of the best performing nationally and in London, with care described as person-centred, safe, and well-coordinated. Corporate Services 32. In October 2024, the Council adopted its first Digital St rategy, setting out a vision to embrace technology for greater efficiency and improved access to services, while Council – 27 November 2025 supporting residents who are digitally excluded. Since then, notable progress has been made across several areas. 33. In November 2024, the Local Government Association’s Cyber 360 review commended Hillingdon for its strong leadership, robust governance, and proactive investment in cyber security. Currently, 97.9% of residents have access to superfast broadband, supporting digital inclusion and connectivity. 34. The strategy has led to a reduction in phone calls and increased use of self -service and the Council website. In parallel, the Counter Fraud team recovered £10.9 million —well above the £8 million target —strengthening the Council’s financial posi tion and reducing fraud. 35. Additionally, there has been a positive shift in local economic engagement. The proportion of spend with local suppliers rose to nearly 25%, and over 43% of individual transactions were placed with local businesses in the most recent quarter. Alternative options considered / risk management None, as it is good business practice to report performance to decision-makers. The full Annual Performance Report is set out in Appendix 1. Select Committee comments Following Cabinet’s consideration of this Annual Report, all 4 select committees have scheduled consideration of this on their work programme in November to enable the monitoring of the performance of services within their respective remits. This ensures the Council can discharge its overview and scrutiny responsibilities effectively. The report has been presented at the following meetings:  Residents Services Select Committee, 6th November  Health & Social Care Select Committee, 11th November  Children & Families Select Committee, 13th November  Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee, 19th November The minutes of the meetings set out the committee’s considerations and any commentary agreed, with a link to this under background papers. Also, any suggestions received from select committees will also be considered in the development of future performance reports. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendation within this report. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct legal Implications that arise out of the recommendations set out in this report. BACKGROUND PAPERS Cabinet consideration on 18 September 2025 - Annual Performance Report 24/25 Select Committee consideration during November 2025 – agenda and minutes

London Borough Of Hillingdon Performance Report 2024/25 (Appendix 1) Leader of the Council: Cllr Ian Edwards For councils, performance management uses data to drive evidence-based decision making, challenging current ways of working and service delivery models. Our digital transformation investment has made this report efficient. It helps local government take responsibility for its performance and allows our residents to hold us to account, ensuring we are meeting local needs and spending their money wisely. Performance management involves setting shared goals and measuring progress towards them. It ensures governance arrangements are in place to achieve an authority's objectives. In Hillingdon, performance is aligned with the Council Strategy, providing performance reports to services, senior management teams, the Corporate Management Team, and the Leader and Cabinet. This annual report uses key performance indicators and monitoring data to show the performance of key services for the financial year 2024/25. Where possible, we have benchmarked these against comparable authorities Cabinet Member: Cllr Steve Tuckwell Portfolio: Planning, Housing and Growth Safe and strong communities A thriving economy Thriving, healthy households Our commitments to residents Corporate Director: Dan Kennedy, Homes and Communities As with many boroughs in London, high levels of demand from homeless households is a significant risk and challenge for the local authority. In line with the London picture, demand from homeless households in Hillingdon remains high and has increased by more than 50% since 2022/23. The unit cost of interim accommodation is rising by more than 30% per year. The rise in homelessness is due to the changing market conditions, the high purchase cost of homes and high rental costs combined with the borough being a port authority with the associated infrastructure which leads to Hillingdon experiencing a higher relative level of need than many other boroughs. The competing demands on social housing providers to improve the condition of their existing homes is also re-directing resources away from providing new affordable housing supply. The lack of affordable housing is putting significant pressure on the council's finances and ability to meet its statutory responsibilities in this area. Insufficient supply of affordable good quality housing in both the private and public sector can lead to a detrimental impact on the health, wellbeing and educational attainment of residents. The total approaches to the council from residents threatened with homelessness remains high and has doubled since April 2023. A number of actions are in place to improve the situation over the course of 2025/26 as part of the Temporary Accommodation Strategy approved by Cabinet in February 2025. This includes: - increasing proactive, homeless prevention actions with those evicting, to reduce levels of homeless presentations (reduce by 25 placements per month) - implementing a price cap for all temporary accommodation nightly charged placements - securing 100 new leases for use as temporary accommodation in 2025/26 - increasing the supply of private rented accommodation by 25 units (total =349 units in 2025/26 for general fund placements) - increasing the supply of social rented homes available to homeless households, to include delivery of 245new council properties in 2025/26. yr Corporate Director: Karrie Whelan, Place To maintain our corporate plan ambitions for sustainability, good quality affordable homes for our residents and maintaining a strong local economy, we have improved many areas of business within the Place Directorate over the last year. Our highways maintenance is one of the best across London with many of our roads being maintained to higher than the London average. We are also increasing the level of EV charging points across the borough as well as effectively managing our street works to ensure effective traffic management during our repairs. We have delivered over 400 new homes for the borough in the last year with more scheduled for delivery this year. Our regenerations schemes at Hayes Town Centre and the Former RAF Uxbridge site are progressing well with the first phases of the Hayes Regeneration scheme scheduled for completion later this year. Our Grays Road development is also progressing with first stages of consultation with local residentscompleted earlier this year. This level of new acquisitions and built homes ensures we are growing ourhousing stock to meet the demands for housing across Hillingdon. Our Planning and Building Control teams are continuing to deliver effective services across the borough and seek to enforce planning and building control breaches across Hillingdon to ensure we live in safe and well-designed buildings. We are currently refreshing our Local Plan for Hillingdon as well as actively working with our local businesses to promote inward investment and economic growth initiatives; these will support more local jobs, provide greater opportunities for local businesses to grow and the delivery of opportunities for enhanced skills and apprenticeship opportunities through our UK SPF funding initiatives including our recent conference at the Battle of Britain Bunker, Hillingdon Takes Off where we saw over 100 local and regional businesses come together to share our local experiences of working to deliver new initiatives across Hillingdon. Our Housing repairs and maintenance of council stock is improving creating good quality homes which are safe and comfortable for our residents increasing their general health, safety and wellbeing within their homes. This last year completing over 3,000 repairs across our council owned dwellings culminating in a good C2 rating from our recent housing inspection. The number of households in temporary accommodation has continued to rise steadily since mid-2023, breaching the initial 1,300 target in early 2024 and peaking at 1,426 in January 2025. Figures have since plateaued, but remain significantly above target, with 1,423 recorded in March 2025. Alongside this, the number of households staying in temporary accommodation for over six months (lower slide) has exceeded the target of 1,050 since March 2024. This group peaked at 1,147 in October 2024 and remains persistently high, indicating growing challenges in moving people on to settled housing. The continued rise in both overall usage and duration reflects sustained pressure on housing supply and limited exit pathways from temporary accommodation. Planning, Housing and Growth The number of households currently occupying temporary accommodation. When a household approaches us at risk of homelessness, we have a duty to help them. If attempts to prevent homelessness are unsuccessful, we place the household into temporary accommodation. This is the number of new residents who are asking for support that are at risk of being homeless leading to increases in temporary accommodation spend. The number of new homelessness presentations has shown a significant increase over the two-year period. In April 2023, there were 297 new cases, rising sharply to a peak of 721 in February 2025. Most months in the 2024/25 financial year recorded higher figures than the same months in the previous year, indicating a year-on-year upward trend. This suggests increasing pressure on housing and support services, particularly during the winter months, where figures were consistently above 600. Planning, Housing and Growth The cost of paid accommodation and the number of high-cost tenancies continued to increase in 2024/25. This is largely due to increasing demand and the rising cost of renting accommodation from private landlords and that cost has been offset by the council using more of its own properties for temporary accommodation. We have also introduced a new policy to cap nightly costs, and we are already seeing the benefits of both initiatives in 2025/26. Planning, Housing and Growth As of March 2025, there were 76 new people sleeping rough over the month (67%, compared to 36% in London and 32% in England). 34% of those sleeping rough had left asylum support in the last 85 days – compared to 7% in London and 4% in England; the high number of placements of asylum seekers and subsequent high eviction rates from hotels, by the Home Office in the borough, has contributed to higher levels of rough sleeping in the borough. (source: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities) Planning, Housing and Growth This is the percentage of all minor development planning applications (PAs) whether or not they have a Planning Performance Agreement (PPAs), Extension of Time (EoT) and/or Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), determined in a timely manner. A timely manner is statutory defined as within eight weeks or unless an application is subject to Environmental Impact Assessment, in which case a 16- week period applies, for all minor applications. Minor includes: dwellings, general industry / storage and warehousing, offices, light industry, retail and services, traveller caravan pitches and other developments. Building Control, Housing and Growth This is the percentage of all major development planning applications (PAs) whether or not they have a Planning Performance Agreement (PPAs), Extension of Time (EoT) and/or Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), determined in a timely manner, each financial year. A timely manner is statutory defined as within 13 weeks or unless an application is subject to Environmental Impact Assessment, in which case a 16-week period applies, for all major applications. Major includes the same categories as Minor but also public service infrastructure developments. Building Control, Housing and Growth Cabinet Member: Cllr Jonathan Bianco Portfolio: Corporate Services and Property Safe and strong communities A digital-enabled, modern, well-run council Our commitments to residents yur Corporate Director: Karrie Whelan, Place To maintain our corporate plan ambitions for sustainability, good quality affordable homes for our residents and maintaining a strong local economy, we have improved many areas of business within the Place Directorate over the last year. We have delivered over 400 new homes for the borough in the last year with more scheduled for delivery this year. Our regenerations schemes at Hayes Town Centre and the Former RAF Uxbridge site are progressing well with the first phases of the Hayes Regeneration scheme scheduled for completion later this year. Our Grays Road development is also progressing with first stages of consultation with local residentscompleted earlier this year. This level of new acquisitions and built homes ensures we are growing our housing stock to meet the demands for housing across Hillingdon. Our capital programmes across the borough are building new homes, a new leisure centre and many new facilities across Hillingdon. Our Housing repairs and maintenance of council stock is improving creating good quality homes which are safe and comfortable for our residents increasing their general health, safety and wellbeing within their homes. This last year we completed over 3,000 repairs across our council owned dwellings culminating in a good C2 rating from our recent housing inspection. These initiatives ensure our assets are kept to a high standard of maintenance and efficiency which in turn assist our residents to control increases in energy costs. We are currently reviewing our assets to ensure we utilise our corporate estate efficiently and have introduced decarbonisation initiatives in a number of our corporate buildings including the Civic Centre. We have also carried out extensive refurbishment works to many properties across the borough and this year have seen the new library and registrars' offices open to the public with the new Jubilee Leisure Centre opening shortly. Our capital works programme is also ensuring we are improving our schools with many new facilities. We are also working hard to ensure our property lettings are increasing the council's ability to raise income for residents whilst also supporting community groups to continue to use our assets to support local initiatives across the borough. This year we have managed to work in partnership with other providers to keep the Beck Theatre and re-open the Uxbridge Golf course. Member Enquiries The chart shows the number of Member Enquiries (MEs) made each month, comparing this year and last year. MEs are questions or requests for information that residents raise with their local councillors— sometimes about problems with council services, sometimes just for more details about a situation. The number of enquiries that are made demonstrates how often Members are requesting assistance to resolve resident queries. The council aims to respond to these enquiries within 10 working days, which helps make sure that any issues or questions Members raise are dealt with promptly. Tracking these numbers over time helps the council improve services. Highways – Classified roads This is the percentage of the local authority’s A roads and motorways (owned principal roads) where maintenance should be considered. This represents the percentage of road that is in the worst condition measured in 10 metre sections. In 2023/24, the percentage of Hillingdon’s A roads and motorways where maintenance should be considered was 3%, which is below the London and England average (6% and 4%). Highways – Classified roads This is the percentage of the local authority’s B and C roads (non- principal roads) where maintenance should be considered. This represents the percentage of road that is in the worst condition measured in 10 metre sections. In 2023/24, the percentage of Hillingdon’s B and C roads where maintenance should be considered was 2%, which is below the London and England average (12% and 7%). As the Graph demonstrates some authorities have not submitted data to the Department for Transport. Highways - Unclassified roads This is the percentage of the local authority's unclassified roads (U roads) where maintenance should be considered. There is no mandated method for collection of U road condition, hence a variety of road condition monitoring techniques are used by local authorities. In 2023/24, the percentage of Hillingdon’s unclassified roads where maintenance should be considered is 5%, which is below the London and England average (12% and 16%). As the Graph demonstrates some authorities have not submitted data to the Department for Transport. Overall, the number of children living in temporary accommodation placed by Hillingdon is below the London average. Planning, Housing and Growth Highways – Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Public EV charging devices per 100,000 population In Q1 (Jan-Mar) 2025, the number of publicly available electric vehicle charging devices per 100,000 population in Hillingdon was 78.9, which is below the London rate of 295.5 (based on charging devices at all speeds). The council has joined forces with Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham, Haringey and Harrow to secure £7.5 million from the government's Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (LEVI) fund. The partnership is in the process of procuring a supplier to install and manage the new EV charge points across all five boroughs, with 1,673 new EV charging points set to be installed across Hillingdon. This chart shows the number of potholes reported each month over the past two financial years. Potholes are a common concern for many residents, as they affect road safety and can damage vehicles. Looking at the data, you can see that the number of reported potholes can change a lot from month to month, often spiking in winter and early spring, when cold and wet weather causes the most damage to road surfaces. Compared to last year, this year has seen fewer reports in several months, especially in April and November, which shows improvement. By tracking these numbers, the council can better understand when and where road repairs are needed most and focus resources to keep roads safer and smoother for everyone in Hillingdon. Community and Environment - Potholes The number of properties acquired by Hillingdon Council which includes new builds and acquisitions to housing stock. By the end of the financial year, the council significantly exceeded its target of increasing housing stock by 300 properties, contributing to a more sustainable and secure supply of homes for local residents. This growth reflects the council’s continued investment in addressing housing need across the borough. Corporate Services and Property – New Builds and Acquisitions Each month, more than 3,000 repair requests are logged. Emergency job volumes have remained stable, while routine repairs have fluctuated slightly. Despite this, overall repair completion rates have steadily improved, meaning more issues are being resolved on time. This improvement helps ensure that homes remain safe, functional, and comfortable. A more reliable repair service also means residents experience fewer delays and less stress, with reduced need for repeated follow-ups. Homes and Communities – Repairs The top graph looks at the number of jobs that have been logged that are either classed as emergency or routine. Emergency jobs require either next day or out of hours attendance. Routine jobs are up to 90 working days depending on the severity. The bottom graph looks at overall jobs completed. The top graph shows the number of responsive repairs completed for every 1,000 properties. This is used to measure the average core demand (Target Line) placed on the sector. Based on this the sector's average is 295. The bottom graph also looks at responsive repairs completed on time but as a percentage and the target for this is 89%. Since September 2024, Hillingdon has consistently achieved the target of responsive repairs completed within the required timescales each month which means most residents can now expect a more dependable and timely repairs service. Homes and Communities - Repairs Cabinet Member: Cllr Susan O'Brien Portfolio: Children, Families and Education Our commitments to residents Thriving, healthy households Corporate Director: Julie Kelly – Children Services Children’s Services has demonstrated a strong commitment to delivering safe, inclusive, and responsive support for children and families across Hillingdon. The service continues to operate in a complex and high-demand environment, shaped by national pressures, local demographics, and the borough’s unique role as a port authority. Despite these challenges, there is clear evidence of progress and resilience across key areas of delivery. Safeguarding remains a central focus, with well-established referral pathways and robust multi-agency engagement. The service has maintained a consistent approach to identifying and responding to risk, ensuring that children receive timely and appropriate support. Assessment processes are embedded and continue to reflect a culture of accountability and professional rigour. Placement sufficiency is a growing concern, particularly in relation to high-cost residential settings and the availability of local options. The service is actively working to rebalance provision, reduce reliance on external placements, and strengthen the stability of care arrangements. This includes ongoing efforts to recruit and retain foster carers and residential staff, as well as exploring innovative models of care that better meet the needs of children and young people. SEND provision continues to evolve, with increasing demand for Education, Health and Care Plans and a rising volume of assessment activity. The service is responding with improvements in process efficiency and decision-making, while also recognising the financial and operational pressures associated with specialist provision. Inclusion remains a strategic priority, with a focus on supporting children in mainstream settings wherever possible and working closely with schools to build capacity and confidence. The borough’s role in supporting unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and care leavers adds further complexity to the landscape. These young people often present with significant vulnerabilities and require tailored, trauma-informed support. The service is committed to strengthening its care leaver offer, ensuring that young adults are equipped with the skills, stability, and opportunities they need to thrive. Youth justice performance reflects a positive trend in early intervention, with fewer young people entering the system for the first time. However, reoffending remains a concern, highlighting the need for more joined-up and sustained support for those already engaged with services. The strategic focus on prevention and restorative practice is well placed to address these challenges. Workforce stability is a critical enabler of service quality. Recruitment and retention of social workers continues to be a priority, with investment in professional development, supervision, and wellbeing. The service recognises the importance of a skilled and resilient workforce in delivering consistent, high quality support to children and families. Overall, Children’s Services is navigating a demanding operating environment with determination and strategic clarity. The alignment between performance data and service priorities is evident, and the focus on transformation, inclusion, and financial sustainability positions the service well for the future. Continued collaboration across the council and with partners will be essential to maintain momentum and deliver improved outcomes for Hillingdon’s children and young people. Performance information within this pack that benchmarks Hillingdon will be the latest available that has been a validated and normalised data set from national statutory returns to ensure fair and consistent reporting. There is always a delay due to the nature of collection, therefore you may see 2023/24’s data as this is the most recent at time of publishing this report. A referral to children’s social services happens when someone is concerned that a child may be at risk of harm. This prompts the local authority to assess whether the child or family needs support or protection. All referrals require statutory intervention. The top graph shows the number of referrals received each month during the past two financial years. This helps us understand demand for services, spot emerging concerns, and evaluate the impact of early help and prevention work. The bottom graph shows the source of the referrals, such as residents, schools, health professionals, or the police. Tracking this helps ensure that residents and professionals are aware of safeguarding concerns. Lower referral rates compared with our statistical neighbours may indicate a need to strengthen safeguarding partnership’ training and awareness. The highest number of referrals continue to come from the police, followed by schools and health services which is in line with statistical neighbours and local expectations. (Statistical neighbours are local authorities with similar characteristics, used to make fair comparisons in areas such as education, health, and children’s services.) Children, Families and Education – Social Care Demand - Referrals Each contact received by Children’s Social Care goes through a rigorous screening process to determine the most appropriate response. Wherever possible, the service explores whether support can be provided through universal services, Early Help, or other preventative pathways to avoid unnecessary escalation. For children where concerns are more significant, a full statutory assessment is undertaken to understand the child’s needs and determine whether further support or protection is required. These assessments are subject to a national target of completion within 45 working days, ensuring that children and families receive timely and appropriate help without unnecessary delays. Assessment times can vary depending on complexity, and in some cases, may take slightly longer. However, we continue to complete the majority of assessments within the target timeframe. Hillingdon has consistently performed above the England average and better than our statistical neighbours for the past four years. (Statistical neighbours are local authorities with similar characteristics, used to make fair comparisons in areas such as education, health, and children’s services.) Children, Families and Education – Social Care Demand - Assessments National 2024/25 data not yet available Our children are those cared for by the local authority. This includes children seeking asylum who have no parent or guardian in the UK. The council and the elected members hold parental responsibility and corporate parenting duties for most of these children. The top graph shows the total number of our children at the end of each month. This helps us track long-term demand and plan the right level of support and resources. Higher numbers generally mean increased pressure on council services and budgets. Hillingdon had corporate parenting duties to 330 children at the end of March 2025. The figure has remained relatively consistent throughout the year. The bottom graph shows how many children came into our care each month. Spikes in this data highlight pressure points in safeguarding and a growing need for placements, especially during times of increased family breakdown or risk to children. Children, Families and Education – Looked After Children (Our Cared for Children) The top graph shows the types of placements for our children. Foster care remains the preferred option, as it provides a stable, family-based environment for those children who cannot live with their own families. However, alternative placement types may be required depending on a child’s individual needs. The bottom graph focuses on high-cost residential placements, which are often used in emergency situations or for children with high-risk needs. Monitoring these placements helps us plan more effectively, manage costs, and explore more local, sustainable options. It also highlights the number of children placed in external residential settings, those not managed by Hillingdon which are significantly more expensive than in-house alternatives. By tracking this data, we aim to meet children’s needs while maintaining financial sustainability. In line with the national trend, the high-cost residential placements have increased throughout the financial year and now represent a significant proportion of the Children’s Social Care budget. Children, Families and Education – Placements – Where Our Children Live Child Protection Plans (CPPs) are implemented when there is a significant concern that a child may be at risk of harm, including abuse, neglect, or other forms of abuse. These plans are developed through multi-agency collaboration and outline specific actions to safeguard the child and promote their overall wellbeing. They are reviewed regularly to ensure that the support provided remains appropriate and effective. The top graph illustrates the total number of children subject to an active Child Protection Plan at the end of each month. Monitoring this figure helps us understand the overall level of safeguarding demand and informs workforce and resource planning. The bottom graph shows the number of new Child Protection Plans initiated each month. Fluctuations in this data can indicate changes in local safeguarding pressures, such as increased risks within families or improved identification of harm through professional vigilance. As of March 2025, there were 240 children with active Child Protection Plans, an increase from a low of 207 in May 2024. Children, Families and Education – Child Protection Plans As a port authority area, due to the presence of Heathrow Airport, Hillingdon continues to play a critical role in supporting Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASC). These young people arrive in the UK without a parent or guardian and therefore have significant vulnerabilities. Consequently, they require tailored support to ensure their safety, wellbeing and integration. The top graph shows the number of UASC in Hillingdon’s care at the end of each month. While these figures have remained relatively stable over the past year, 71 in March 2025 compared to 73 in April 2024, this stability is in part due to the operation of the National Transfer Scheme (NTS). The NTS enables the redistribution of UASC across local authorities to ensure a more equitable sharing of responsibility and to prevent disproportionate pressure on port authority areas like Hillingdon. Throughout the year, a number of UASC have been successfully transferred to other local authorities through this scheme, helping to manage local capacity while ensuring children continue to receive appropriate care. The bottom graph shows the number of UASC supported by each London borough in 2023/24, adjusted per 10,000 looked after children. This allows for fair comparisons between boroughs of different sizes and highlights the continued importance of national coordination in supporting this vulnerable group. Children, Families and Education – Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children Children, Families and Education – Care Leavers Local authorities have a statutory duty to support care leavers, young people who have been in the care of the local authority, as they transition into adulthood. This support extends beyond the age of 18 and includes the provision of a personal adviser, pathway planning, and access to advice, emotional support, and practical assistance with housing, education, employment, training, and financial management. The duty continues until at least the age of 21, and in many cases up to age of 25, depending on the young person’s needs and level of engagement. A key measure of this support is the suitability of accommodation provided to care leavers. Ensuring that young people have access to safe, stable, and appropriate housing is fundamental to their wellbeing and long-term outcomes. The graph on this page shows how each London borough performed on this measure in November 24, based on the latest published data (next update due late 2025). As a port authority borough, Hillingdon supports a significantly higher number of care leavers than many other local authorities, due in part to the volume of Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASC) who enter care locally and later transition into care leaver status. This places additional pressure on housing, education, and support services. In response, Hillingdon continues to strengthen its care leaver offer, with a focus on increasing access to suitable accommodation, improving pathway planning, and ensuring young people are well supported to achieve independence and thrive in adulthood. Children, Families and Education – Social Worker Recruitment and Retention Recruiting and retaining qualified children’s social workers remains a significant national challenge, driven by rising demand, high caseloads, and increasing competition across the sector. These pressures are particularly acute in areas like Hillingdon, where the complexity and volume of cases, especially linked to our role as a port authority, require a highly skilled and resilient workforce. Maintaining a stable and experienced team is essential for building trusted relationships with children and families, ensuring continuity of care, and delivering high quality, timely interventions. The graph on this page shows the latest published vacancy rates for children’s social workers across London. Monitoring these rates is critical for identifying workforce pressures and informing strategic planning. In Hillingdon, we have taken proactive steps to strengthen recruitment and retention, including the introduction of a refreshed workforce strategy, enhanced supervision and support structures, and targeted recruitment campaigns. We are also investing in professional development pathways and promoting Hillingdon as a place where social workers can thrive and make a meaningful impact. Despite these efforts, vacancy rates remain a concern, and we continue to work closely with regional partners and national bodies to explore innovative approaches to workforce sustainability. Our aim is to ensure that every child and family receives consistent, high-quality support from a skilled and stable workforce. Children, Families and Education – Early Contact with the Youth Justice System In 2024, Hillingdon recorded 104 first-time entrants to the youth justice system per 100,000 young people aged 10–17, a figure notably below the London average of 158 per 100,000. This metric is a key indicator of how many children and young people are entering the criminal justice system for the first time, either through conviction or youth caution. A lower rate of first-time entrants is often interpreted as a sign of effective early intervention and prevention strategies, reflecting the strength of local safeguarding partnerships and the proactive work of services across education, social care and health . In Hillingdon, this positive trend aligns with the borough’s strategic commitment to a child first approach, which prioritises the rights, needs, and potential of children while aiming to divert them from formal justice pathways wherever possible. Children, Families and Education – Youth Justice: Reoffending Rates While the rate of first-time entrants is encouraging, it is important to note that reoffending rates remain a concern. In the 12 months to Q2 2023, 37.7% of young people known to have committed an offence in Hillingdon reoffended, which is above the London average of 28.6%. This measure tracks the proportion of young people who commit a further proven offence within a year of a previous offence. A higher rate may indicate challenges in rehabilitation, support, or community intervention Therefore, this suggests that while initial diversion efforts are working, there is a continued need for targeted, multi-agency support to address the complex needs of young people already within the system. Children in the youth justice system often face multiple and overlapping challenges, including social deprivation, trauma, discrimination, and unmet health needs. These factors underscore the importance of joined-up working across sectors, ensuring that interventions are not only timely but also holistic and tailored to individual circumstances. The borough’s strategic documents, including theHillingdon Youth Justice Service Strategy 2024-2029 emphasise a commitment to early identification, inclusive practice, and continuous improvement, with a focus on reducing disproportionality and promoting restorative justice. Children, Families and Education - Children with SEND – Need Assessment Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment (EHCNA) Requests are formal applications that trigger a multi-professional review of a child’s needs. Increasing numbers may indicate greater awareness, earlier identification, or growing demand for support, all contributing to timely and appropriate provision. The year began with 46 requests and saw several peaks in demand, particularly in the early months. A noticeable dip occurred during the summer period, with numbers rising again in the latter part of the year. By the end of March 2025, the number of requests had increased to 60. EHC Needs Assessments Agreed to Assess: The EHCNA Agreed to Assess stage reflects the council’s decision to proceed with a full Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment. This represents a formal commitment of professional and administrative resources to thoroughly assess and understand the child’s needs.Rising volumes increase pressure on council services. This demand also drives higher assessment and support costs, impacting overall budget sustainability. At the start of the 2024/25 financial year, 43% of EHCNA requests were agreed to proceed to assessment in April. By the end of the year, this had increased to 71% in March 2025. This represents a positive shift of 28percentage points over the year, indicating a higher proportion of requests being progressed to formal assessment. This suggests more appropriate requests are being received for assessment. Children, Families and Education - Children with SEND – Need Assessment Children, Families and Education – Children with SEND – EHCP Demand We are tracking both the number of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) issued and the volume of Needs Assessment Requests. EHCPs define the tailored support that children and young people with SEND are entitled to, ensuring they have access to the appropriate education, health, and care services. Number of Education Health Care Plans (EHCPs): At the start of the financial year, there were 3,427 active EHCPs. Over the year, the number steadily increased, reflecting continued demand for support. As of the end of March 2025, the total stood at 3,524—representing an overall increase of approximately 2.8% compared to the sta rt of the year. This is a lower increase to prior years. Children, Families and Education – Children with SEND – EHCP Demand The Agreed to Issue decision is made by week 16 of the process. This measure captures whether, following an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment (EHCNA), the decision is to issue an EHCP. It reflects how often the council agrees that statutory support is needed and will be provided for a child or young person with SEND. In 2024/25, the rate of agreed-to-issue decisions fluctuated over the year — starting at 84% in April 2024 and rising to 93% by March 2025. Typically, this outcome does vary throughout the year. Children, Families and Education – Final EHCP 20 Week Timeliness This indicator tracks the percentage of final Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) issued within 20 weeks of the initial request, in line with the statutory timescale set out in the SEND Code of Practice. Exemptions apply in limited cases (e.g. during periods of school closures), but in most circumstances, a plan should be completed within 20 weeks. A higher percentage reflects better timeliness and system responsiveness to children and young people with special educational needs. At the start of the financial year 2024/25, 28.95% of final EHCPs were issued within 20 weeks. The early dip in performance was as a result of the three- week local area Ofsted inspection which took place in April 2024.Timeliness increased significantly throughout the year but then faced a dip by the end of March 2025 at the time of phase transfer. However, performance in March was above national (46.4%) and significantly improved position compared to the start of the year, reflecting a clear upward trend in the timeliness of plan finalisation. Children, Families and Education – Funded Early Education for 3 and 4-Year Olds Take-up Rate of the 3 and 4-Year-Old 15 Hours Childcare Offer In 2024, 7,417 children aged 3 and 4 in Hillingdon received up to 15 hours of funded early education. This is higher than the average for London (5,780 children). This number reflects how many children in this age group are benefiting from the government’s offer of free early education, helping them get a strong start to their learning and development. Providing funded early education supports children’s social, emotional, and cognitive skills, preparing them well for starting school. Children, Families and Education - NEET Outcomes for 16–17 Year Olds Percentage of Young People (16-17) Not in Education, Employment, or Training (NEET) In 2025, 2.5% of 16 and 17-year-olds in Hillingdon were not in education, employment, or training (NEET). This is higher than the average for London, which stands at 1.9%. The chart compares Hillingdon’s NEET rate with other London boroughs, showing that while some areas perform better, a number of boroughs face even higher NEET rates. Monitoring and addressing NEET levels is important to help young people access opportunities and support them to achieve positive outcomes. By focusing on this indicator, the council can work with local schools, employers, and training providers to help more young people in Hillingdon stay engaged and move into successful futures. Source: Department for Education, NEET and participation. Data updated: 17 th July 2025 Cabinet Member: Cllr Jane Palmer Portfolio: Health and Social Care Our commitments to residents Thriving, healthy households Corporate Director: Sandra Taylor – Adult Social Care and Health Adult Social Care is adapting to national pressures in the NHS. In Hillingdon there is a renewed focus on system-level collaboration to improve outcomes. Integrated neighbourhood models, digital care, and joint commissioning are streamlining pathways and reduce delays. Locally, timely interventions and smoother service transitions are emphasized, with a strong focus on community-based care to reduce hospital reliance. Equally, there is a strong emphasis on admission avoidance through reactive care initiatives in the community. Our urgent response teams, enhanced reablement offer, and third-sector partnerships are supporting residents to remain safely at home, reducing reliance on hospital-based care and improving recovery outcomes. Adult Social Care and Health (ASC&H) continues to operate within a landscape of intensifying demand and evolving legislative frameworks. The 2024/25 performance narrative reflects a service under pressure but actively responding with innovation, transformation, and strategic partnerships. The year saw a marked increase in demand across ASC services, driven by: • demographic changes, including an ageing population and increased complexity of needs • transitions from Children’s Services, particularly for young people with SEND and complex care requirements, which continue to place increasing pressure on Adult Social Care. We are seeing a growing cohort of individuals with autism-only diagnoses and co-occurring mental health needs, which do not align with traditional learning disability pathways. This presents challenges in service design, workforce capability, and long-term planning requiring tailored support and robust multi-agency coordination These pressures are compounded by significant legislative shifts, including the implementation of the Care Act, Better Care Fund (BCF) requirements, and the evolving Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) framework. Despite these challenges, ASC&H has maintained strong performance in several key areas, including service user satisfaction and quality of life indicators remain high. Access to information and early intervention has improved. Digital tools are improving access to information, enabling smarter care planning, and supporting residents to live independently. The use of data analytics is helping us identify trends, target interventions, and monitor outcomes more effectively. Our extra care model is a core part of the early support offer which includes integrating digital solutions to support older adults with emerging and complex needs. We are exploring further innovations to enhance service delivery and resident experience. To manage demand and sustain performance, ASC&H has implemented a series of targeted actions: • Transformation of the front door - The ASC&H Single Point of Access (SPA) and Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) have been instrumental in reshaping our front door. These services have strengthened early intervention, improved triage, and ensured timely safeguarding responses. The SPA has helped reduce unnecessary referrals into long-term care by connecting residents with community-based support and third-sector services. MASH continues to deliver robust safeguarding outcomes through multi-agency collaboration. Performance data shows a steady volume of referrals being managed effectively, with assessment timeliness improving and contact-to-referral ratios stabilising. • Reablement remains our most effective intervention for supporting residents following a health or care crisis. It enables recovery, promotes independence, and reduces long-term dependency. Our expanded reablement offer is helping us intervene earlier and avoid escalation into long-term care, which is critical for sustainability. • A fully completed BCF Assurance document has been submitted within required timelines, ensuring compliance and unlocking funding streams. • To support a sustainable care market and manage inflationary pressures, ASC&H has worked closely with providers to maintain service quality and financial viability. The council has prioritised collaborative approaches that help providers absorb cost pressures, stabilise pricing, and continue delivering high quality care. This partnership model has proven effective in maintaining market resilience, ensuring continuity of care, and avoiding disruption to residents. Providers have responded positively, engaging in joint planning and resource alignment to support shared outcomes. In July 2024, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) conducted a comprehensive inspection of ASC&H services rating us as Good overall. Their assessment of ASC&H evaluated how effectively the council is meeting its duties under Part 1 of the Care Act (2014). The inspection focused on the quality, accessibility, and responsiveness of adult social care services provided to residents. Key findings included outstanding performance and being rated as one of the best performing councils nationally and in London reflecting its strong leadership, effective service delivery, and commitment to continuous improvement. The report highlighted high levels of satisfaction among service users, with care described as person-centred, safe, and well-coordinated. The council demonstrated robust governance structures and clear accountability mechanisms, ensuring transparency and responsiveness in service provision. Contacts can be for any age and can be made via various methods by various persons (current clients, potential clients, care providers, police) and could be general enquiries, requests for assessments or safeguarding issues. Contacts could lead to a referral, meaning that the person in question may receive an assessment. This could be for adult social care, occupational therapy, sensory or property adaptations. We have seen a slight decline in the number of contacts in the last few months. However, the number of referrals is fairly steady. This could suggest that the number of requests for support is the same, but the additional contacts are not needed as we are dealing with the needs of the resident faster than previously.This decline in contacts will lead to a lower burden on funds to support residents. Health and Social Care - Adult Social Care Demand The top chart illustrates the number of unique clients receiving home care— whether in their own homes, supported living, or extra care settings— which has gradually declined during the past two years. In contrast, the bottom chart shows the total number of services provided to clients, which has steadily increased, reaching 5,432 as of March 2025. This reflects the growing complexity of need, where individuals often require multiple types of support, such as home care combined with outreach. To respond to this increasing demand, the council has expanded its Reablement Services - short-term, targeted interventions designed to maximise independence and reduce reliance on long-term care. By offering reablement to more residents, the council is able to support individuals with complex needs earlier in their care journey, increasing the number of active services while helping to avoid unnecessary escalation into costly, long-term home care. This approach ensures that residents receive the right level of care at the right time, tailored to their evolving needs and promoting sustainable service delivery. Health and Social Care - Adult Social Care Demand It’s important for everyone, particularly those with learning disabilities, to benefit from living independently and in stable environments. By doing so it: • promotes personal growth and self- esteem • encourages social inclusion • improves mental health • supports customised living • fosters responsibility and accountability • leads to better long-term outcomes In 2023/24, the percentage of adults (aged 18-64), with a learning disability, who live in their own home or with their family in Hillingdon was 81.7%, higher than the London average (79.5%). The higher the score, the more people living independently and in a stable environment. Health and Social Care - Adult Social Care – Learning Disability clients The top chart shows how many residents are in residential or nursing care each month. Overall, the number has slightly decreased over the year but has started to rise again in recent months. These placements are arranged or paid for by the council. The lower chart shows the average number of support hours given to each resident with an Adult Support Plan. This has remained fairly stable, though there have been some small increases recently, suggesting a growing level of need among residents. Health and Social Care - Adult Social Care Demand Number of residents in Residential or Nursing Placements The top chart shows the average age of people starting to receive adult social care each month. This has stayed fairly steady over the year, generally between 63 and 66 years old. It helps us understand who is coming into the care system and how needs might change over time. The bottom chart shows how many people aged over 85 have contacted adult social care services each month. These numbers go up and down, but we’ve seen some noticeable increases in certain months. This reflects the ongoing and often urgent needs of our older population, who are more likely to need support to stay safe and independent. Health and Social Care - Adult Social Care Demand Adult Social Care has set an ambitious target of 80% to complete all new client assessments within 28 days of referral, ensuring timely engagement and reducing delays in care. This target supports early identification of needs and swift access to support, helping to minimise risk and improve outcomes for residents. The graph indicates that whilst this has been achieved at times our work to achieve consistency io ongoing. Some assessments justifiably take longer due to complex needs, multi-agency coordination, or planned reviews. In these cases, professional judgement and triage ensure that care is prioritised appropriately, balancing performance with quality and safety. This reflects a person-centred approach that values responsiveness without compromising thoroughness. Health and Social Care - Adult Social Care Assessments The bottom graph shows the volume of Adult Social Care assessments completed each month, reflecting the sustained efforts of our social workers to respond to referrals and ensure residents receive the right level of support. This activity highlights not only the scale of demand but also the dedication of teams working across complex and varied cases—balancing timeliness with quality to deliver person-centred care. Every year, a survey is sent to randomly selected service users. This provides an excellent way for service users to feed back on a multitude of topics. It’s also helpful for Hillingdon and the government to understand service users’ views so that services can continue to be improved. Eight of the questions within the survey are combined to give a ‘Quality of life’ score, relating to social care. In 2023/24, Hillingdon scored 19.1 out of 24, based on responses to surveys sent to service users; the average for London was 18.4. The higher the score, the better quality of life. The score takes into consideration: -control -dignity -personal care -food and nutrition -safety -occupation -social participation -accommodation. ‘Service users’ definition: People receiving partly or wholly supported care from their local authority and not wholly private, self-funded care. Health and Social Care - Adult Social Care Service User Survey Responses (1) Health and Social Care - Adult Social Care Service User Survey Responses (2) Every year, a survey is sent to randomly selected service users. This provides an excellent way for service users to feed back on a multitude of topics. It’s also helpful for Hillingdon and the government to understand service users’ views so that services can continue to be improved. It’s important that service users’ satisfaction with care and support is as high as possible. In 2023/24, Hillingdon scored 58.4%, for social care- related satisfaction with care and support, based on responses to surveys sent to service users; the average for London was 60.5%. The higher the score, the more satisfied. Score based on those responding: 'I am extremely satisfied’ or 'I am very satisfied’ to 'Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the care and support services you receive’ and those responding: 'I am very happy with the way staff help me, it's really good’ to 'How happy are you with the way staff help you?‘ ‘Service users’ definition: People receiving partly or wholly supported care from their local authority and not wholly private, self-funded care. Every year, a survey is sent to randomly selected service users. This provides an excellent way for service users to feed back on a multitude of topics. It’s also helpful for Hillingdon and the government to understand service users’ views so that services can continue to be improved. It’s important that service users have as much control over their daily life as possible. In 2023/24, Hillingdon scored 77.0%, for those service users who reported having control over their daily life, based on responses to surveys sent to service users, higher than the London average of 71.8%. The higher the score, the more service users had control. Score based on those responding: ‘I have as much control over my daily life as I want’ or ‘I have adequate control over my daily life’ to: ‘Which of the following statements best describes how much control you have over your daily life?’ ‘Service users’ definition: People receiving partly or wholly supported care from their local authority and not wholly private, self- funded care. Health and Social Care - Adult Social Care Service User Survey Responses (3) Every two years, a survey is sent to randomly selected carers. This provides an excellent way for carers to feed back on a multitude of topics. It’s also helpful for Hillingdon and the government to understand carers’ views so that services can continue to be improved. In 2023/24, Hillingdon scored 6.8 out of 12, for carer-related quality of life, based on responses to surveys sent to carers, lower than London (7.2). The higher the score, the better quality of life. The score takes into consideration: -occupation -control -personal care -safety -social participation -encouragement/support. ‘Carer’ definition: Person providing unpaid support, where they have: -received ongoing support during the year, even if no review of those arrangements took place And/or -have been assessed or reviewed for support during the year, even if no support was provided. Health and Social Care - Adult Social Care Carer Survey Responses (1) In 2023/24, Hillingdon achieved a carer satisfaction score of 36.3% for care and support services—based on survey responses from carers. This is above the London average of 33.1%, indicating relatively higher satisfaction among local carers. The score reflects those who responded with 'extremely satisfied' or 'very satisfied' to the question: “Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the support or services you and the person you care for have received from Social Services in the last 12 months?” The term ‘carer’refers to individuals providing unpaid support who either received ongoing support during the year (even without a formal review) or were assessed or reviewed for support (even if no support was ultimately provided). Health and Social Care - Adult Social Care Carer Survey Responses (2) In 2023/24, Hillingdon’s Adult Social Care staff turnover rate was 13.2%, well below the London average of 19.4%. This figure covers employees across both the independent and local authority sectors, spanning all service areas— community care, day care, domiciliary care, and residential care. A lower turnover rate reflects greater workforce stability and consistency, which supports better outcomes for residents. The rate is calculated by expressing the number of leavers during the year as a percentage of employees, with both leavers and employees referring to permanent and temporary staff only. Health and Social Care - Adult Social Care Staff Turnover There is concern about the rise of childhood obesity and the implications of obesity persisting into adulthood. The risk of obesity in adulthood and risk of future obesity-related ill health are greater as children get older. Studies tracking child obesity into adulthood have found that the probability of children who are overweight or living with obesity becoming overweight or obese adults increases with age. The health consequences of childhood obesity include Type 2 Diabetes, hypertension and the exacerbation of conditions such as asthma and psychological problems such as social isolation, low self-esteem, teasing and bullying. 18.7% of Reception children were overweight or living with obesity in 2023/24, lower than both London and England. Health and Social Care – Public Health, prevalence of overweight (including obesity) in Reception aged children Year 6 prevalence of overweight (including obesity) is 37.5% in 2023/24; this represents a difference of 18.8 percentage points from Reception to Year 6, which is higher than the London and England differences (16.9 and 13.7). Hillingdon’s trend is below England for Reception but above England for Year 6. Reducing childhood obesity is a strategic priority for Hillingdon’s Health & Wellbeing Board throughout 2025-28. Health and Social Care – Public Health, prevalence of overweight (including obesity) in Year 6 children This is the estimated percentage of children aged 5 to 16 (Year 1 to 11 pupils) who participated in an activity once a week or more, in the last seven days when the survey was completed. Only activity of at least moderate intensity is included. This is taken from one or more broad activity categories of active travel, walking, cycling, riding a scooter, active play/informal activity, fitness, dance, and sporting activities. In 2023/24, the percentage of children who participated in an activity once a week or more in Hillingdon was 92.1%, which is slightly better than the London average of 91.2%. Health and Social Care – Public Health, physical activity (children) This is the percentage of respondents aged 19 and over, doing less than 30 moderate intensity equivalent (MIE) minutes' physical activity per week in bouts of 10 minutes or more in the previous 28 days expressed as a percentage of the total number of respondents aged 19 and over. In 2023/24, the percentage of physically inactive adults in Hillingdon was 30.9%, above the London average of 22.5%. Health and Social Care – Public Health, physical activity (adults)

Council – 27 November 2025 Proposed Article 4 Direction (Houses in Multiple Occupation) Reporting Officer: Julia Johnson , Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth and Chief Planning Officer SUMMARY This report recommends the making of a new Immediate Article 4 Direction, to remove permitted development rights for the conversion of dwelling houses (Use Class C3) into Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) for up to six residents (Use Class C4) across th e whole borough. This borough-wide Article 4 Direction would require all new small HMO conversions to obtain planning permission, enabling the council to better monitor and control the impacts of these developments in the interests of protecting the amenity and character of our communities. This is part of a package of measures being proposed by the council with regards to the management of HMOs across the borough. The Council’s existing part-borough Article 4 Direction for HMOs covering the fo rmer Brunel and Uxbridge South Wards will be cancelled once the new Article 4 Direction is confirmed. RECOMMENDATIONS: That: 1. the making o f an immediate direction under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) to remove the permitted development right for the change of use of building and any land within its curtilage from a use falling within Class C3 (Dwellinghouse) of the Town and Country Plann ing (Use Classes) Order 1987 (Amended) Order to a use falling within Class C4 (House in Multiple Occupation) of that Order being development comprised within class L(b) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development ) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (“GPDO”) within the area identified in Appendix 1, be approved. 2. the cancellation of the existing Article 4 Direction for Houses in Multiple Occupation, Brunel and Uxbridge South wards once the new Article 4 direction is confirmed, be approved. 3. It be noted notice given for the Article 4 Direction will be made as soon as practical following approval, and that Full Council will receive a further report at the end of the representation p eriod to consider whether, in light of any representations received, the new direction should be confirmed. 4. Authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer and the Head of Legal Services to authorise the relevant notices to enact the proposed Immediate Article 4 Direction. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Reason for Decision 1) To mitigate the impacts of HMOs by requiring proposals for changes of use from class C3 to class C4 within the designated area to apply to the local planning authority for Council – 27 November 2025 planning permission, and allowing these applications to be determined in accordance with local plan policies and other material planning considerations. (2) To meet the requirements of Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 in respect of the procedure for article 4(1) directions with immediate effect. (3) To avoid duplication across Article 4 Directions, as the borough-wide immediate direction will cover these areas. This cancellation will take effect on the same day that the new borough-wide direction comes into force. Background 1. Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) are defined in the Housing Act 2004 as properties lived in by three or more unrelated people who share facilities such as a kitchen or bathroom. Small HMOs (3–6 people) fall under Planning Use Class C4, while larger HMOs (7+ people) are classed as sui generis and always require planning permission. Under current permitted development rights, moving between Class C3 (single households) and Class C4 (small HMOs) does not require planning permission provided no local restriction applies. However, changes from Use Class C3 to large HMOs do require formal approval. These national rules were introduced to reduce unnecessary burdens where HMOs do not create local issues. 2. At present, the London Borough of Hillingdon has a partial restriction of these permitted development rights covering the former Brunel and Uxbridge South wards surrounding Brunel University. This restriction, known as an Article 4 Direction, was introduced in 2013 in response to pressures for the conversion of houses to HMOs for student accommodation, which was negatively impacting the amenity and character of these areas. 3. Since 2013, the role of HMOs within the broader private rented sector in the borough has expanded, serving as an option fo r providing affordable housing for all communities, not just students. Consequently, they are a growing element of the borough’s overall housing provision and broaden the choice of accommodation for a growing population faced with high housing costs and a limited supply. 4. Since 2011, the number of private rented properties has increased by over 50%, leading to a significant corresponding rise in smaller HMOs. However, HMOs require proper management, as poor maintenance can result in unsuitable housing and h arm to the amenity, affecting both residents and the wider neighbourhood. There are also concerns about how converting family homes into HMO s may change the character of communities and reduce the supply of appropriately sized homes for families . The impacts of these changes can include issues related to waste management, noise and disturbance, negatively impacting the area's appearance, and sometimes lead to anti -social behaviour. Reports to the council’s Planning Enforcement and Private Sector Ho using teams show growing community concerns about HMO conversions, as reflected in a previous motion at Full Council in July 2024. In response, the council commissioned research to better understand the scope and impact of HMOs in the area. This work is also being used to support the council’s initiatives on additional and selective licensing schemes. The full evidence is presented in Appendix 2 of this report. Council – 27 November 2025 Location of HMOs in Hillingdon 5. The evidence shows that there are an estimated 2,537 HMOs in the borough, equivalent to 8.7% of all private rented sector (PRS) dwellings and 2.2% of all dwellings in the borough. The geographical data shows that there are HMOs present in every ward of the borough with the highest numbers in central and western areas. Northwood is a notable exception in the north. HMOs and Housing Conditions 6. The recent review of Hillingdon’s HMO st ock has provided insights about the predicted presence and distribution of a range of housing factors in HMOs in the borough. HMOs can exhibit some of the worst housing conditions , and the evidence shows these are likely to be widespread in HMOs across the borough. The proportion of HMOs with poor housing conditions is also significantly higher than in the general private rented sector, with 30% of HMOs having at least one serious housing hazard, compared to the PRS average of 10%. Belmore, Uxbridge, Yeading, Wood End and West Drayton have the highest numbers of HMOs with serious hazards. This suggests that HMOs present a disproportionatel y high risk of substandard living conditions, particularly in neighbourhoods with concentrated HMO activity. HMOs and Anti-Social Behaviour 7. Evidence indicates a notable association between HMOs and anti-social behaviour (ASB), with 151 ASB incidents per 100 HMO dwellings, compared to 24.9 incidents per general private rented sector dwelling. ASB reports are widespread across the borough but are more common in southern and southeastern wards such as Belmore, Yeading, Wood End, and West Drayton. The most common property-related ASB is flying tipping (34%), followed by various noise issues, which account for 15% of incidents. These patterns suggest that while ASB occurs throughout the area, higher concentrations of HMOs may exacerbate existing pressures on local environments and services, especially in neighbourhoods with higher densities of shared housing. HMOs and Planning Enforcement Complaints 8. The evidence regarding the number of complaints about potential conversions of dwelling houses to HMOs since 2022 (when the ward boundaries last changed) also maps closely to the wards with ASB and housing hazard concentrations. However, what is most notable from the planning enforcement data is that the large st number of complaints have been received about properties in the Heathrow Villages ward. It should be noted that the majority of these complaints (104/196) have been closed with no further action because they are small HMOs and therefore do not require planning permission. Together, these patterns indicate that while concerns about HMOs are concentrated in familiar hotspot areas, the high volume of Heathrow Villages complaints largely reflects small HMOs operating within existing planning rules, pointing to a gap between community expectations and what current legislation requires. Council – 27 November 2025 Additional Measures to restrict future small HMOs – Article 4 Direction 9. Local planning authorities can remove certain permitted development rights when local circumstances require tighter control over specific types of development. Article 4(1) of the GPDO allows authorities to withdraw these rights where there is a clear and evidenced need to do so. When such rights are removed, the measure is known as an Article 4 Direction. 10. An Article 4 Direction does not block development outright. Instead, it requires that planning permission be obtained before the development can proceed. This gives the Council the ability to assess proposals in more detail and to apply the policies within the Local Plan when determining applications. 11. Paragraph 54 of the National Planning Policy Framework (202 4) explains that Article 4 Directions should be used only where necessary to protect local amenity or the wellbeing of an area, and must be supported by robust evidence. Additionally, they should apply to the smallest geographical area needed to address the identified issue. The terms “local amenity” and “wellbeing” are not strictly defined and can vary depending on context. For example, visual amenity relates to the appearance of an area, while residential amenity concerns the living conditions of occupants. 12. Planning Practice Guidance reinforces that Article 4 Directions must be measured and targeted. They should be evidence -led, geographically limit ed, and focused on clearly identified harms that the Direction seeks to manage. Where a Direction covers a large area, such as a significant part of a borough, a particularly strong level of justification is required. 13. When introducing an Article 4 Directi on, the GPDO provides two options: a non - immediate direction or a direction with immediate effect. An immediate direction removes permitted development rights straight away, but it must be confirmed by the local planning authority within six months to remain in force. A non-immediate direction only takes effect after consultation and formal confirmation by the authority, and typically provides around 12 months’ notice before it becomes active. Council – 27 November 2025 14. Under Sections 107 and 108 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Compensation) (England) Regulations 2015 (as amended), compensation may be payable when an immediate direction is used. In contrast, a non - immediate direction that gives at least 12 months’ and no more than 2 years’ notice can be introduced without triggering compensation requirements. Immediate Directions also require evidence that permitted development presents an immediate threat to local amenity or prejudices the proper planning of an area. Recommended Approach 15. Based on the evidence set out above and expanded in the background document it is considered that an immediate Article 4 Direction to remove permitted development rights for HMOs in Hillingdon is justified because the evidence shows a clear and pressing threat to local amenity and the proper planning of the borough. HMOs are increasing in every ward, and their associated impacts are already significant, including disproportionately high levels of anti-social behaviour, increased planning enforcement complaints, and far higher rates of serious housing hazards than the wider private rented sector. These impacts are concentrated but not contained, with clear risks of displacement if controls are applied unevenly. 16. These potential impacts were acknowledged in the government’s Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the legislative change that introduced permitted development rights for small HMOs. It states that the new C4 use class was introduced to help local authorities address issues like increased noise and c ommunity imbalance resulting from clustered HMOs by differentiating them from family homes. The Memorandum further notes that in areas where HMO concentrations substantially affect residents’ quality of life, local authorities can use Article 4 Directions to require planning permission for such changes of use. 17. It is considered that the current ability to convert dwellinghouses to small HMOs without planning permission limits the Council’s capacity to manage these pressures, resulting in unmanaged clustering, harm to neighbourhood character, and reduced quality of living conditions for residents in HMOs. Given the borough-wide scale of these issues and the speed at which HMO growth is occurring, an immediate Direction is necessary to prevent further harm while allowing the Council to apply its planning policies effectively. Implications and Impacts 18. The introduction of an Article 4 Direction will enable better regulation and monitoring of HMOs due to the requirement for planning permissions. However, it must be emphasised that an Article 4 is not an automatic ban on new HMOs. The Article 4 Direction does not prohibit the conversion of dwellings to HMOs, as planning permission may still be granted for such conversions where appropriate, and they can continue to play a valuable role in addressing housing needs. Furthermore, it does not apply retrospectively, so it would not apply to small HMOs that already exist when the Article 4 Direction comes into force. 19. A landlord of a class C4 HMO that is in existence prior to the Article 4 Direction can apply for a ‘certificate of lawful use’ to confirm that it is a lawful use that does not require planning permission. It is important to note that such certificates are not an assessment Council – 27 November 2025 of the ‘planning merits’ and are instead confirmation of whether something can continue to proceed lawfully without planning permission because of permitted development rights. 20. Where new HMOs are proposed after the Article 4 Direction has been amended, applications for planning permission will be assessed against Policy DMH5: Houses in Multiple Occupation and Student Accommodation and other Development Plan policies. However, par ts of this policy were designed specifically for small HMOs occupied by students, which are exempt from council tax. Therefore, when evaluating new planning applications for non-student small HMOs, the planning authority will need to rely on the general principles of these policy sections, which aim to prevent over-concentration within a particular area and along a specific stretch of street. More usefully, the policy also states that all HMOs within an area covered by an Article 4 must comply with planning standards concerning car parking, waste storage, retention of amenity space, and garages, and must not adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. These requirements would apply to all planning applications for HMOs. Potential Risks 21. There are three key potential risks associated with the proposed HMO Article 4 Direction with immediate effect, which are explored in turn below. Notifying the Secretary of State 22. A local planning authority must, as soon as practicable after confirming an Article 4 Direction, inform the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will be notified of the relevant details on the date the notice is first published and displayed, and foll owing its confirmation by the Council. The Secretary of State does not have to approve Article 4 Directions, however the Secretary of State does have the power to modify or cancel Article 4 Directions at any time before or after they are made. However, the se powers should not be used unless there are clear reasons why intervention is necessary and there have not been interventions in any recent HMO Article 4 Directions proposed by other Local Planning Authorities , including our neighbouring boroughs of Eali ng and Hounslow. Compensation Payments 23. Within the first 12 months after an immediate Article 4 Direction is introduced, property owners may be potentially eligible for compensation if they have planning permission refused for a conversion which would otherwise be permitted development or if conditions are attached to a planning permission which make the conversion more onerous than it would have been were it to have been undertaken under permitted development. 24. It is unknown how many planning applications will be received and the outcome of these planning applications. It is therefore impossible to quantify the potential liability resulting from this decision. Any claim would divert resources. No budget has been identified to cover the cost of any subseq uent potential compensation claims. However, it should equally be noted that the three Local Planning Authorities who introduced immediate Article 4 Directions relating to HMOs more than 12 months ago (Trafford and the London Boroughs of Merton and Ealing) did not receive any valid claims within the claim period. Council – 27 November 2025 Local Planning Authority Workload 25. The widening of the Article 4 Direction to cover the whole borough will result in additional workload for the planning authority , which will need to be monitored and may require additional resourcing in the short to medium term. The additional work will come from three main sources: i. Landlords with existing small HMOs will apply for Certificates of Lawful Development to regularise their current properties. ii. All landlords seeking to convert C3 dwelling houses to C4 small HMOs will no w be required to apply for planning permission creating an additional pipeline of planning applications. Local plan policies will need to be amended to reflect the removal of permitted development borough wide and new assessment criteria. Mention impact on planning committee iii. It is anticipated that there will be a significant increase in the number of HMO planning enforcement complaints that will require investigation. It was noted earlier in the report that 50% of all complaints about HMOs are currently closed with no further action due to the permitted development rights that were in place. However, some level of investigation will now be required for all enforcement complaints to ensure that either the HMO was in place before the Article 4 Direction or that planning permission is now required. There is likely to be a need to respond to the increased workload through temporary increases in capacity with the Development Management and Enforcement service which is discussed further in financial implications. Immediate Article 4 Direction Process 26. The process for introducing an immediate Article 4 Direction is as follows:  The Local Planning Authority ( Full Council) makes the Direction and notifies the Secretary of State.  The Article 4 Direction will come into immediate effect on the chosen date.  The Article 4 Direction will be publicised by the council by placing a public notice, displaying Article 4 Direction site notices in at least two locations in the borough and placing a notice on the council’s website.  Once the direction is made, a six-week consultation will be carried out.  After consultation has concluded, and should no amendments be felt necessary, as a result of considering the responses, the making of the Article 4 Direction will need to be formally confirmed by Full Council within 6 months. Select Committee comments 27. None FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 28. The estimated revenue cost of publicising the Article 4 Direction, including the placement of a public notice, is estimated at a maximum of £1,500, which will be funded by existing planning authority budgets. 29. There is the potential for landowners to claim compensation in the first 12 months after the Direction is introduced for abortive costs and loss or damage due to the withdrawal of Council – 27 November 2025 permitted development rights . It is unknown how many applications are likely to be submitted and how many of these might be refused , which could result in compensation claims. The extent of any financial risk to the Council, cannot be accurately predicted.and no financial resources have been budgeted to pay out on potential claims and their associated costs. It should equally be noted that of the three Local Planning Authorities who introduced immediate Article 4 Directions relating to HMOs more than 12 months ago, received no compensation claims. 30. It is anticipated that there will be an increase in the required level of resources of the local planning authority, including the Planning Enforcement service and the Development Management service, which are not covered by planning application fees. An increase in workload is anticipated due to the need to process planning applications, issue certificates of lawful development and handle appeals. Senior managers in the Local Planning Authority will monitor the situation closely . It is anticipated that up to two additional planning enforcement officers could be required with an annual cost of approximately £130k, and a request has been made for the 2026/27 budget . It is proposed that work volumes are closely monitored , and any requests for further resourcing would be progressed through the council’s existing MTFS process. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 31. Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015/596 (“GPDO”) provides that if the Secretary of State or the local planning authority is satisfied that it is expedient that development described in any Part, Class or paragraph in Schedule 2 of the GPDO should not be carried out unless permission is granted for it on an application, the Secretary of State or the local planning authority, may make a direction that the permission granted by article 3 does not apply to— (a) all or any development of the Part, Class or paragraph in question in an area specified in the direction; or (b) any particular development, falling within that Part, Class or paragraph, which is specified in the direction. 32. The direction must specify that it is made under Article 4 to be valid and it must specify the classes or parts of classes of Schedule 2 to the GPDO to be restricted. In this case it is Schedule 2, Part 3, Class L(b) of the GPDO. 33. The legal effect of making a direction under Article 4 (1) of the GPDO is that deemed planning permission (permitted development rights) for the classes of developments specified in the direction are restricted. This in turn means that a planning application would need to be made to the Council in respect of the classes of development which are restricted. 34. Once an Article 4 direction comes into force it remains in force indefinitely, unless the direction is cancelled by a further direction pursuant to Article 4(4) and paragraph 1(13), Schedule 3 of the GPDO. It is noted that there is an existing Article 4 direction restricting Use Class C3 to Use Class C4 permitted development rights at the former Brunel and Uxbridge South wards. Should a borough wide Article 4 direction come into effect, it would render the Brunel and Uxbridge directions unnecessary and therefore they should be cancelled. Council – 27 November 2025 35. Immediate Article 4 Directions pose a higher risk of compensation payable to landowners/ developers than non -immediate Article 4 directions because the immediate directions usually come into force without providing applicants with notice. 36. A claim may arise if a planning application is refused, which would otherwise be granted as permitted development under Class L of Part 3 of the GPDO or planning permission is granted and is subject to more restrictive conditions that would have otherwise been the case under permitted development. The same would apply to any other area removing Class L rights for HMOs with immediate effect (or other PD rights) (section 108, TCPA 1990). 37. Section 108(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that compensation is only payable if an application for planning permission for certain development formerly permitted by the GPDO 2015 is made within 12 months of the Article 4 direction t aking effect. No compensation for the withdrawal of certain permitted development rights is payable if the Council gives notice of the withdrawal between 12 months and 24 months in advance. 38. The claim for compensation can include abortive expenditure and other loss or damage directly attributable to the withdrawal of the permitted development right. This can include the difference in the value of the land if the development had been carried out and its value in its current state, as well as the cost of preparing the plans for the works (section 107, TCPA 1990). The financial implications are set out in more detail above. 39. The Council’s decision to make an Article 4 direction can be subject to judicial review proceedings. If the proceedings are successful the Article 4 direction could be quashed. Any claim would need to be brought within 6 weeks of the date of the decision. This would in practice be six weeks from the date that the direction is confirmed. EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS 40. The EHRI assessment concludes that the introduction of an Article 4 Direction for small HMOs, which does not prevent HMOs but simply requires planning permission for new ones, is likely to have a broadly positive or neutral impact on equality, with some risks that need careful monitoring. By enabling the council to manage the location, quality and concentration of new HMOs, the measure can help improve housing standards and neighbourhood amenity in areas where high levels of hazards, disrepair, ASB and deprivation disproportionately affect older residents, disabled people, minority ethnic communities and low-income households. Better oversight can reduce the prevalence of unsafe or overcrowded conversions and support more stable, cohesive communities by preventing over-concentration of HMOs. However, there is a potential risk that requiring planning permission could marginally reduce the supply or slow the delivery of lower-cost shared housing, which may negatively affect younger people, low paid workers, students, and others for whom HMOs are an essential affordable option. With clear communication, consistent decision-making and safeguards to protect affordable provision, the Article 4 Direction is expected to support more equitable housing conditions while avoi ding disproportionate impacts on protected groups. BACKGROUND PAPERS: Appendix 1: Draft Borough-Wide Article 4 Direction Appendix 2 Additional HMO Licensing Consultation - Evidence Pack Appendix 3: Equalities and Human Rights Impact Assessment

London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 1 DRAFT Putting Our Residents First Additional HMO Licensing Consultation - Evidence Pack London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 2 Table of Contents Title Page Numbers Glossary 3-4 Executive Summary 5-6 Introduction 7-8 The Private Rented Sector in Hillingdon 9-10 Hillingdon’s Population 10-15 Housing Conditions 15-17 Distribution of HMOs in Hillingdon 18-19 Property Licensing schemes 19-21 What are the benefits of property licensing schemes? 21-22 Proposals for an Additional HMO Licensing Scheme 23-28 Addressing Poor Conditions and Management Standards through Licensing 30 -31 Proposed Licensing Scheme Conditions 31 - 32 Proposed Licensing Scheme Fees 32 - 33 Other Options Analysis 34-35 Proposed Scheme Objectives 35 - 37 Licensing and the wider council strategies 37-39 Further Information - Public Sector Equality Duty 40 References and Data Sources 41-42 Appendices 43 London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 3 Glossary Term Meaning Private Rented Sector (PRS) The portion of housing in the borough that is rented from private landlords. Privately Rented Homes rented from a private landlord. Privately rented Homes rented from a private landlord. Socially rented Homes rented from the council or a Housing Association. Selective licensing A discretionary licensing scheme which requires landlords to have a licence to legally let their property to a family or no more than two unrelated sharers. Additional Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Licensing A discretionary licensing scheme which requires landlords to have a licence to legally let eligible HMOs occupied by three or four unrelated persons living in two or more separate households sharing one or more basic amenity, which fall outside the scope of Mandatory HMO licensing. Mandatory Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Licensing A national scheme which requires landlords to have a licence to legally let eligible HMOs occupied by five or more unrelated persons living in two or more separate households sharing one or more basic amenity. Designation The formal process by which a local authority declares an area subject to selective licensing under section 80 of the Housing Act 2004, based on criteria such as low housing demand or ASB. Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) A government prescribed system that rates housing hazards based on their risk to occupiers’ health, safety, and welfare. Category 1 The most serious hazards under the HHSRS, which include immediate risk to a person's health, safety and welfare. Category 2 Less serious hazards under the HHSRS. Whilst considered less serious they can still be regarded as placing the occupiers’ health, safety and welfare at risk. Statutory notice A legal document issued by the council that requires the recipient to complete specified actions within a specified timeframe. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) Behaviour related to the occupiers of, and/or visitors to, a rented property that causes nuisance, annoyance and irritation to neighbours and the community. Most commonly noise, litter and waste Deprivation A condition measured by the Indices of Multiple Deprivation, reflecting lack of access to resources and services. Used by local authorities to justify selective licensing designations. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 4 Indices of Multiple Deprivation A dataset produced by the government to give a relative value to how deprived an area is, compared to the rest of the country. Barriers to housing and services One of the government’s measures of deprivation. It combines measures relating to housing affordability, overcrowding and homelessness. Fuel Poverty Fuel poverty is when a household cannot afford to heat their home to a safe and comfortable level due to low-income, high-energy costs, or poor energy efficiency. Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard (MEES) Regulations that set a minimum energy efficiency standard (EPC rating of E) that applies to privately rented properties. Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) EPCs rate how energy efficient properties are using grades from A to G (with ‘A’ the most efficient grade). Accreditation Schemes overseen by various organisations, including local authorities and landlord associations, to provide training and encourage good practice by private landlords. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hillingdon, in line with the wider London region, faces a significant shortage of affordable housing, with property prices remaining prohibitively high for many residents. The demand for social housing considerably exceeds the available supply and consequently, private renting is increasingly becoming the only feasible housing option for a growing number of Hillingdon residents, including those who are vulnerable and on low incomes. At present, there are a total of 113,124 residential properties in Hillingd on and 26% (29,099) of this is within the private rented sector (PRS), representing one of the highest proportions in London. This figure is anticipated to continue rising in the future. Hillingdon Council is dedicated to fostering a fairer Private Rented Sector (PRS). Our objective is to enhance the condition and quality of rental properties, establish an equitable environment for both tenants and responsible landlords, and take firm action against rogue landlords and those who let substandard accommodation. Through these measures, we aim to raise standards across the sector for the benefit of all parties. Private renting continues to be a necessity rather than a choice for many tenants, due to factors such as lack of rent controls and security of tenure. While the Council has improved a large number of privately rented homes, the worst housing conditions are still likely to be experienced by tenants who rent privately, and communities are more likely to be adversely impacted by issues arising from poorly managed privately rented properties. The council recognises that houses of multiple occupation ( HMO) are an important, much needed source of accommodation in our PRS. We want our HMO accommodation to be good quality, safe and well managed. However, the Council also recognises that HMOs are dispersed across the whole borough and in all wards, HMOs have been identified to have serious housing hazards, and a high proportion are also directly associated with persistent antisocial behaviour (ASB), such as noise, waste and other environmental ASB issues. To support our ambition, we are undertaking a public consultation on a proposed new borough wide Additional Licensing Scheme. Subject to consultation the scheme would apply to all HMOs except those that require a mandatory licence. Property licensing serves as a mechanism to promote safer living conditions and improved standards in privately rented homes. Although many properties within the PRS are well maintained and safe, there is an increasing number that fall below acceptable standards and may pose significant risks. One of our aims is to ensure that landlords are fully informed of the latest legal obligations and safety regulations as such properties can endanger the health, safety, and wellbeing of tenants, contribute to neighbourhood disruption, and place considerable strain on council services that are already under pressure. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 6 It is therefore imperative that the Council uses all available options to enhance conditions for tenants residing in this sector and property licensing is a vital component of this approach. The Renters’ Rights Bill, introduced to Parliament in September 2024 and expected to be enacted later this year, is intended to provide private tenants with enhanced security and stability. However, it does not supersede private sector licensing; rather, it is designed to complement it, with the shared objective of improving conditions within the sector. While the Act will confer greater investigatory and enforcement powers upon the Council, it does not establish the proactive framework for maintaining housing standards that licensing facilitates. Consequently, in the absence of an Additional Licensing Scheme, the Council would remain dependent on tenant complaints and the voluntary disclosure of issues by landlords. Subject to approval by the Council’s Cabinet, this scheme could be implemented in 2026. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 7 Introduction Hillingdon Council recognises that Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) constitute a significant source of affordable housing. Nevertheless, such properties often n eed enhanced regulatory oversight, as they are frequently among the most complex to manage within the housing sector and pose distinct and unique challenges. In response to this, local authorities can implement an additional HMO licensing scheme with the aim of improving both the management and overall standards of HMOs within their boroughs. Hillingdon Council is proposing, subject to consultation, to implement a borough-wide Additional HMO Licensing Scheme that would apply to all HMOs except those that require a mandatory HMO licence and will last five years. The document demonstrates that Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) are dispersed throughout the borough and have been found to exhibit serious housing hazards and elevated levels of anti -social behaviour, including noise disturbances, improper waste dispo sal, and other environmental concerns. It further explains how the proposed Additional Licensing Scheme for HMOs is intended to address and mitigate these challenges. This consultation document outlines the scale and nature of issues associated with substandard housing conditions, anti -social behaviour (ASB), and poor property management within Hillingdon’s private rented sector. It presents and provides the evidence ba se to support the Council’s proposal to introduce a new Additional Licensing Scheme and also provides a comprehensive overview of the proposed licensing scheme, including licence conditions, associated fees, and the objectives of the scheme. We are seeking your views on these proposals prior to making any final decisions regarding the future of property licensing in Hillingdon. We are particularly interested in hearing from individuals and organisations likely to be affected by the proposals, including local tenants, landlords, managing agents, and members of the community who reside, operate businesses, or deliver services within the proposed designated areas or their surrounding neighbourhoods. We encourage you to share your views by completing our online survey, available at: www.hillingdon.gov.uk/hmo-additional-licensing In addition, a series of forums will be held throughout the consultation period. If you wish to share your experiences and perspectives, please contact us via email at: additionallicensingconsultation@Hillingdon.gov.uk The consultation will run for 10 weeks from 31st October 2025 until 11th January 2026. For further information about the proposed new licensing scheme, assistance with completing the survey or to request a paper copy of the consultation please contact: London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 8 Email: additionallicensingconsultation@Hillingdon.gov.uk Once the consultation has closed the council will review the replies. A full consultation report, including the council’s response to any alternatives suggested, will be published on the property licensing pages of the website at www.hillingdon.gov.uk/hmo-additional-licensing. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 9 The Private Rented Sector in Hillingdon In order to obtain a greater understanding of the PRS in Hillingdon, the Council worked with internal and external agencies to review multiple intelligence sources relating to the housing stock in the borough, undertaking analysis to provide estimates of: • Current levels and breakdown of PRS properties and tenure change over time. • Levels of serious hazards that might amount to a category 1 or high -scoring category 2 hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). • Other housing related stressors, including ASB, service demand, population and deprivation linked to the PRS. The full results are presented within the Housing Stock Conditions Report (HSCR), which is attached as Appendix 1; however, some key findings from the report are detailed below. Housing tenure There is a total of 113,124 residential properties within the London Borough of Hillingdon. Of this number, 29,099 properties, are within the private rented sector (PRS). This number is distributed across all 21 wards and the number of PRS per ward ranges from 283 – 2,231 with the highest number of PRS properties in Uxbridge (2,231), and Heathrow Villages (2,197). The lowest are in Harefield Village (283). Hillingdon saw London’s joint second largest percentage point rise in the proportion of privately rented homes from 19.1% in 2011 to 25.9 in 2021. This is consistent with long term nationwide and regional trends. The distribution of PRS dwellings across the London Borough of Hillingdon shows concentrations in the southern and central wards (e.g. Uxbridge, Hayes Town, Heathrow Villages, and Colham & Cowley, Figure 1). London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 10 Figure 1 – Distribution of PRS dwellings in Hillingdon by ward, 2025 (source: Ti) Flats (44%) and Houses (46%) make up the majority of PRS property types while bungalows represent the smallest percentage (2.4%) of PRS dwellings in Hillingdon. Hillingdon's Population According to the 2021 Census, the estimated population of Hillingdon was 305,900, representing an increase of 11.7% compared to the 2011 figure of 273,936. This rate of growth exceeded the average across London. The most recent available data from 2024 indicates a population of 329,185, signifying a total increase of 16.9% between 2011 and 2023. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 11 The median age of the population has seen a shift upwards since 2012, with the latest estimate being 36.3 (2024), this compares to previous ages of 37.1 (2021) and 35.0 (2012). The 2021 Census data show that in Hillingdon there were 109,229 separate households. These varied from 1 -person households to households with 8 or more persons. In 2021 there were 40,245 households (37% of all households) with dependent children. Rent and affordability One of the major changes to the PRS across London over the last 20 years has been the increase in rents. Private rents vary by area. As this report is concerned with housing conditions and other housing stressors, the average (median) rents for different dwelling types were examined. Overall, Hillingdon average rents are £1,533 (Figure 2). The overall average in Hillingdon is £1,533, which is lower than the (overall) London average (£2,250), and higher than the (overall) average for England (£1,398). Hillingdon overall rent ranks 29th (of 32) London Boroughs. Figure 2 - Median monthly rent (£), July 2025 (source: ONS) London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 12 Deprivation The Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is a measure of relative deprivation for small areas (Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs)), based on seven domains of deprivation, including income, crime, living environment and barriers to housing and services. Overall, the London Borough of Hillingdon is less deprived in comparison to other London Boroughs: Figure 3 – Deprivation quintiles, London (2019) The darker shades highlight the most deprived areas. Hillingdon is the 13th least deprived London borough (out of 33). Hillingdon has no LSOAs in the most deprived decile on the overall indices. Fuel poverty Fuel poverty in England is measured using the Low -Income Low Energy Efficiency (LILEE) indicator. Under this indicator, a household is considered to be fuel poor if they are living in a property with a fuel poverty energy efficiency rating of band D or bel ow and when they spend the required amount to heat their home, their disposable income London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 13 is below the official poverty line. In general, fuel poverty relates to households that must spend a high proportion of their household income to keep their home at a reasonable temperature. Fuel poverty is affected by three key factors: • a household’s income; • fuel costs; • energy consumption (which in turn is affected by the energy efficiency of the property). The fuel poverty score was produced by the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero using 2023 data and published in 2025. Over the coming years these figures are likely to change significantly because of acute fuel price increases during much of 2023/24. Notwithstanding this, Hillingdon has a lower proportion in fuel poverty (9.1%) than the national average (11.4%), and lower than the London average (9.3%). Five of the wards in Hillingdon have values above the national average (Table 1). Table 1 – Percentage of households in fuel poverty (after housing costs ) 2023, by ward: Ward Fuel Poverty Percent Hayes Town 13.6 Belmore 13.2 Pinkwell 12.7 Wood End 12.2 Yiewsley 12.1 Charville 10.9 Heathrow Villages 10.1 Colham & Cowley 9.7 Yeading 9.3 Hillingdon East 9.1 West Drayton 9.1 Hillingdon West 8.9 Uxbridge 8.8 Northwood Hills 8.2 South Ruislip 8.2 Ruislip Manor 7.4 Eastcote 7.2 Northwood 7.1 Harefield Villages 6.7 Ruislip 6.6 Ickenham & South Harefield 6.4 Borough Average 9.1 (source: Department for Energy Security & Net Zero) London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 14 Child Poverty Increasingly in Britain, families with young children are living in HMOs, with whole families sometimes renting a single room in an unlicensed property in what is very likely to be substandard conditions. In Hillingdon 33% of children experience child poverty after housing costs. This is higher than the England rate of 29% and slightly higher than the London rate of 32%. As the cost -of-living crisis continues, it is likely that many households with children will be unable to afford to put the heating on - or incur debts in doing so -, making homes more susceptible to damp, mould and cold. Children aged 14 years or under are at the greatest risk of ill health caused by damp and mould in their homes. The percentage of children living under the poverty line in each London Borough in the period 2023 – 2024 show that Hillingdon has slightly above average child poverty (33%): Figure 4 - Percentage of children living in poverty (after housing costs) across London Boroughs 2022-2023 (Source: Trust for London 2025). Hillingdon ranks 20th (out of 32) in terms of child poverty across the London Boroughs. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 15 Poor energy efficiency Hillingdon has 2,667 PRS properties with EPC records that are E, F, & G rated. This represents 9.69% of PRS properties for which there are EPC ratings in Hillingdon. EPC ratings E, F, & G represent properties with the least energy efficiency. The Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard (MEES) came into force in England and Wales on 1 April 2018. The regulation applies to PRS properties and mandates that all dwellings must have an EPC rating of E and above to be compliant. It has been calculated usin g the matched addresses that 0.79% (217) of PRS properties in Hillingdon have F and G rating. It is possible that these properties have been excluded from the MEES regulation requirements on technical grounds. Housing conditions Hillingdon Council uses a range of interventions to improve standards in the HMO sector, including regulation and enforcement. These include using the Housing Act 2004, the Housing and Planning Act 2016, and other public protection legislation to serve statutory notices, impose civil penalties and, in the most serious cases, take prosecution action. Interventions can be a result of a complaint being made by a tenant about their accommodation or as a result of a proactive inspection by the council. Under the HHSRS, category 1 hazards are the most serious housing hazards and may result in the immediate risk to a person's health and safety. A significant category 2 hazard, although less serious or less urgent, can still be regarded as placing the occupiers’ health, safety and welfare at risk. Following a formal HHSRS inspection, if a local authority identifies a category 1 hazard, they are required to serve a statutory notice compelling landlords to improve property conditions. The recent review of Hillingdon’s housing stock has provided insights about the presence and distribution of a range of housing factors in the borough. This was developed independently by Metastreet Ltd who implemented a stock -modelling approach based on metadata and machine learning to provide insights about the prevalence and distribution of a range of housing factors. This approach has been used by several councils to understand their housing stock and relationships with key social, environmental, and economic stressors. In 2024, 10% of private rented dwellings in England had at least one Category 1 hazard; this was a higher proportion than the average for the total housing stock (7%), and significantly higher than owner occupied dwellings (8%) or social rented dwellings (4%). Furthermore, the private rented sector had the highest proportion of non-decent homes (21%). Our evidence indicates that there are 4,157 PRS properties (including HMOs) with at least one serious home hazard in Hillingdon (figure 5) and these are distributed across London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 16 the whole borough. This represents 14.3% of the PRS stock, which is higher than the national average (10%). Figure 5 - PRS properties with serious hazards (HHSRS A-D) across Hillingdon 2025 (source: Ti). The highest number (355) of PRS properties with serious hazards are in Heathrow Villages, whilst the lowest number (48) are in Harefield Village. Antisocial Behaviour ASB incidents (noise & waste) linked to PRS properties include domestic noise (music, alarms and parties) and waste (e.g. accumulation of household waste in gardens, pavements or communal areas, fly-tipping by tenants or failure to dispose of bins properly). ASB (noise and waste) is linked to private rented properties across wards in Hillingdon. Over a five-year period from April 2020 to March 2025 7,240 incidents of ASB were recorded, a rate of 24.9 per 100 PRS dwellings. Belmore (688) had the highest numbers of recorded ASB incidents at PRS, whilst Harefield Village (70) had the lowest. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 17 Wards in the south of the borough reported higher number of incidents: Figure 6 – Anti-Social Behaviour incidents at PRS dwellings, by ward April 2020 to March 2025 (source: Ti) Fly-tipping was the most prevalent category during the period April 2020 – March 2025 (34%). Other notable categories include Graffiti (12.2%), Abandoned Vehicle (11.7%), and Music noise (7.1%). The various noise categories combine to account for 15% of incidents. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 18 DISTRIBUTION OF HMOS IN HILLINGDON At the time of modelling there were 666 licensed HMOs across Hillingdon however the predictive modelling indicates that there is likely to be a high proportion of unlicensed HMOs across the borough with variation between wards with Uxbridge ward recording the highest number of HMOs. The figures indicate a total estimated HMO population of 2,537 properties representing 8% of properties. This represents 26% of the potential number of HMO licences across Hillingdon, implying that there are 1,871 hidden HMOs in Hillingdon. Uxbridge (98) had the most licensed properties whilst the lowest number was in Northwood (0). Northwood has the highest percentage of hidden HMO (100%), whilst the lowest is in Heathrow Villages (49%). When considering compliance rates, most wards have high proportions of HMOs that are likely to be unlicensed (over 50%), with wards in the north of the borough showing higher non-compliance rates: Figure 7 – HMO licences issued, and percentage unlicenced/hidden by ward, 2025 (source: Ti). HMO properties in Hillingdon can be divided into two main categories: • Licensed HMOs – where occupants share basic amenities such as kitchens and bathrooms. There are currently 666 licensed properties in this category. • Predicted or unlicensed (“hidden”) HMOs . These properties also share basic amenities (Housing Act 2004, Section 254) but are not currently licensed. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 19 These hidden HMO share basic amenities but have not been licensed under either Mandatory or Additional licensing powers. It is assumed that this group of properties is inhabited by three or more occupiers, residing in two or more distinct households, and sharing common amenities like a kitchen or bathroom. Figure 8 – number of all HMO properties (known and predicted/hidden), by ward 2025 (source: Ti). PROPERTY LICENSING SCHEMES What is property licensing? Where the relevant legal test is met, property licensing allows the Council to regulate private rented properties in their area by issuing a licence to the person responsible for the property, usually the landlord. The aim of such schemes is to improve the private rented market by ensuring that the licence holder is a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold the licence and that the property is of a decent standard for a landlord to rent out. Licences come with conditions that relate to the use and management of the property. Some of these conditions are mandated by Government; however, the Council has scope to add its own conditions that are tailored to dealing with specific problems in the designation relating to the private rented sector. The Housing Act 2004 sets out London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 20 three types of property licensing schemes and prescribes how the Council can implement them. Mandatory HMO licensing Under Part 2 of the 2004 Act, HMOs falling within a prescribed, statutory description must be licensed in order that they can legally be let. Most HMOs occupied by five or more persons living in two or more households, and where those persons share (or lack) facilities, such as kitchens/bathrooms/WCs, fall within the scope of mandatory HMO licensing. All local authorities in England must operate a mandatory HMO licensing scheme. Additional HMO licensing (discretionary) Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004 also allows local authorities to designate areas as being subject to an additional licensing scheme. A licence is required for most HMOs, in that area, which are not already subject to mandatory HMO licensing, and are occupied by three or four persons living in two or more households, and where those persons share (or lack) facilities, such as kitchens/bathrooms/WCs. Additional licensing can also include properties converted into flats known as section 257 HMOs. These are buildings which have been converted into and consist entirely of self -contained flats where less than two thirds of the flats are owner -occupied, and the conversion into flats did not comply with the appropriate building regulations. In order to make an additional licensing scheme, the local authority must consider that a significant proportion of the HMOs in the area are being managed ineffectively, so as to give rise to one or more particular problems, either for those occupying the HMOs or for the public. A proposed additional licensing scheme forms part of this consultation and the Council welcomes feedback regarding the proposals. Selective licensing (discretionary) Under Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004, local authorities may also designate an area as subject to selective licensing, requiring those managing or having control of other privately rented accommodation that does not have to be licensed under other licensing schemes, to obtain a licence to let their property. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, properties rented to either an individual, a single family or two unrelated sharers. In order to designate an area as a selective licensing area, the local authority must be satisfied that certain, prescribed conditions are met. In summary, the designated area must be experiencing one or more of the following: a) low housing demand (or likely low housing demand in the future); b) a significant and persistent problem caused by ASB; London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 21 c) poor housing conditions; d) high levels of migration; e) high levels of deprivation; and/or f) high levels of crime. In addition, with regard to criteria c) to f) above, the designated area must have a high proportion of property in the private rented sector (PRS). What are the benefits of property licensing schemes? Benefit Description Improved Housing Standards Ensures properties meet minimum safety, repair, and amenity standards. Tenant Protection Helps safeguard tenants from exploitation and poor living conditions. Accountability of Landlords Encourages responsible management and maintenance of rental properties. Better Regulation & Oversight Enables local authorities to monitor and enforce housing regulations. Reduction in Anti-social Behaviour Licensing can include conditions to reduce noise, waste, and nuisance issues. Data Collection & Planning Helps councils gather data for housing strategy and resource allocation. Revenue for Enforcement Licensing fees fund inspections and enforcement activities. Community Improvement Promotes safer, cleaner, and more stable neighbourhoods. Working with and supporting good landlords and agents We recognise that the majority of landlords in the borough are both responsible and cooperative. We have taken a more educational approach seeking to work with landlords and bring about compliance through informal means. We have particularly encouraged lan dlords to become accredited to increase their professionalism in managing their properties. Through accreditation, landlords are able to achieve a level of knowledge and competence before letting a home, which is key to raising standards in the PRS. As of April 2025, Hillingdon had 1,968 landlords accredited to the London Landlords Accreditation Scheme (LLAS). Detailed guidance for landlords on their legal obligations and responsibilities has been produced and made available online. Through the licensing schemes, a database of more than 10,000 landlords and agents operating in Hillingdon has been compiled, supporting better communication and engagement with the sector. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 22 Supporting private rented sector tenants In promoting tenants’ rights and responsibilities, tenants’ awareness of the minimum standards to be expected in rented accommodation can dramatically be increased. Tenants have been encouraged to report landlords who have not licensed their properties or who do not comply with licensing conditions. In the 5 -year period, October 2019 to September 2024, the Council has received approximately 1,900 service requests from tenants in PRS dwellings across Hillingdon, resulting in significant interventions and pro perty improvements. It is clear from running the mandatory HMO and the discretionary licensing schemes, that licensing allows the Council to work proactively with landlords and tenants. Licensing provides clear conditions for landlords to comply with, prom otes an improvement in property conditions and enables ASB to be minimised through better, more effective management. Licence conditions can be enforced against much more effectively and quickly than using other powers available to the Council, such as Part 1 of the Housing Act (2004). Formal action under Part 1 is generally a slow process, with appeals allowed for most types of notices, which can significantly delay the time period for compliance. Whilst the mandatory HMO and discretionary licence schemes have enabled the Council to begin to make some progress in raising standards in the PRS, there is still much more to do. WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP TO IMPROVE THE PRS Landlord Incentive Programme Hillingdon Council launched the Landlord Incentive Programme to increase the supply of safe, affordable housing by partnering with private landlords. Through this scheme, landlords receive generous financial incentives based on property type and condition. All participating properties must meet strict safety and quality standards, including valid certificates and Council inspections. Landlords retain flexibility to manage tenancies while benefiting from reduced void periods and reliable income. The Council supports landlords with training opportunities via the London Landlord Accreditation Scheme (LLAS). Grants are also available for property improvements in exchange for nomination rights. This partnership model has helped improve housing conditions and reduce homelessness across the borough. It demonstrates how collaborative working can raise standards in the PRS while supporting both landlords and vulnerable tenants. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 23 PROPOSALS FOR AN ADDITIONAL HMO LICENSING SCHEME Criteria that must be considered before designating an additional HMO licensing scheme To introduce an additional HMO licensing scheme the council must be satisfied that: • a significant proportion of the HMOs are being poorly managed and are giving rise, or likely to give rise, to problems affecting the occupiers or members of the public • a decision to implement an additional HMO licensing scheme must be consistent with the council’s housing strategy • it is part of a coordinated approach for dealing with homelessness, empty homes and other related policies • there are no other courses of action that might provide an effective remedy and that introduction of a licensing scheme will significantly assist in dealing with the problem. Local authorities can designate an Additional HMO Licensing Scheme in their area, provided there is a minimum 10-week consultation period. Consultation should be with those likely to be affected by any designation, and any representations made must be given due consideration. What the Council is proposing In order to obtain a greater understanding of the HMO tenure in Hillingdon, the council worked with internal and external agencies to review multiple intelligence sources relating to the housing stock in the borough, with a focus on the following key areas: • Distribution of HMO properties • Housing conditions of HMOs • HMO related stressors, including ASB and service demand • Quality of management if HMOs, including regulation and enforcement. The evidence base demonstrates that the criteria for a borough -wide additional licensing scheme is met in that a significant proportion of the borough’s HMOs are being poorly managed and are giving rise, or are likely to give rise, to problems affecting their occupiers or members of the public. The HMO sector in Hillingdon is affected by poor housing conditions and incidences of repeat ASB, which are worsened by other issues such as overcrowding and poverty. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 24 Whilst we have made good progress in identifying and improving mandatory HMOs, there is more to be done as our evidence shows that a significant proportion of HMOs in the borough are being managed ineffectively, proven by the cumulative presence of serious housing hazards and/or significant and persistent ASB. We are therefore proposing to introduce an additional HMO licensing scheme that will apply to all wards in the borough. The evidence clearly demonstrates that HMOs with poor housing conditions, inadequate management, and repeat ASB incidents are not confined to a single ward or cluster but are distributed across all 21 wards in Hillingdon. Predictive modelling shows that approximately 74% of HMOs are likely to be unlicensed, with high non -compliance rates even in wards with lower concentrations of PRS properties. Applying the scheme borough-wide ensures consistency, fairness, and avoids displacement of rogue landlords to unregulated areas. A targeted or ward- specific scheme would fail to capture the full scale of the problem and undermine the Council’s ability to deliver strategic improvements across the sector. The borough-wide approach is therefore essential to achieving the scheme’s objectives and aligns with the Council’s housing strategy and wider priorities. Subject to consultation and approval, the scheme will come into force in early 2026 and last for five years. An additional HMO licence will be required for properties that are: • HMOs rented to three or more occupiers in two or more households that share (or lack) toilet, washing and cooking facilities. • This excludes HMOs that require a mandatory HMO licence. • This includes multiple-occupied flats in purpose-built blocks (with over two flats) where more than three people live in the flat. The proposed additional HMO scheme will not apply to certain converted flats or blocks, known as Section 257 HMOs. What is the evidence to support the Council’s proposals to implement an additional HMO scheme? • Numbers and type of HMO as a subset of the private rented sector • Hillingdon has HMOs (known and predicted) distributed across all 21 wards London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 25 Figure 9 – Number of all HMO properties (known and predicted/hidden) by ward, 2025 (source: Ti) London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 26 Figure 10 – distribution of all HMO properties (known and predicted/hidden) by ward, 2025 (source: Metastreet) HMOs & Housing Conditions Poor housing conditions are prevalent in Hillingdon’s HMOs. The recent review of Hillingdon’s HMO stock has provided insights about the predicted presence and distribution of a range of housing factors in HMOs in the borough. HMOs can exhibit some of the worst housing conditions of any tenure if poorly managed. The main finding is that poor housing conditions are likely to be widespread in HMOs across the borough and the evidence shows that 762 HMOs in Hillingdon are predicted to have serious hazards. This represents 30.1% of all HMOs in Hillingdon and is three times the national average of 10%. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 27 Under the HHSRS, category 1 hazards are the most serious housing hazards and may result in the immediate risk to a person's health and safety. A significant category 2 hazard, although less serious or less urgent, can still be regarded as placing the occupiers’ health, safety and welfare at risk. Figure 11 – HMO properties (known and predicted/hidden) with serious hazards (HHSRS A-D) by ward, 2025 (source: Ti). London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 28 Figure 12 – complaints at HMOs (known and predicted/hidden) by ward, April 2020 – March 2025 (source: Ti). HMOs and ASB Complaints made by tenants and others to Hillingdon Council about poor property conditions and inadequate property management are a direct indicator of low quality and poorly managed HMOs. HMOs with complaints linked to them are distributed across all wards, with Belmore and Yeading having the highest levels. The evidence shows that there is a connection between HMOs and poor waste management. Over a five -year period, 3,396 ASB incidents (noise and waste) have been linked to HMOs in Hillingdon. Repeat incidences of ASB (two or more ASB investigations linked to one dwelling) in HMOs indicate that some landlords are failing to take appropriate action to address issues of ASB when it first occurs and is a direct indicator of poor management. While the Council already deploys a range of enforcement tools to tackle anti -social behaviour (ASB) and waste -related issues — including statutory notices, civil penalties, and partnership working with police and environmental services — these methods are largely reactive and dependent on tenant complaints. Licensing provides a proactive framework that places a legal duty on landlords to manage ASB and waste effectively. Through licence conditions, landlords are required to provide adequate waste facilities, respond promptly to noise complaints, and take reasonable steps to prevent repeat ASB incidents. This shifts responsibility from enforcement alone to London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 29 prevention and accountability, ensuring that poor management practices are addressed before they escalate. The licensing regime therefore complements existing enforcement powers by enabling earlier intervention, clearer expectations, and faster resolution of issues that impact tenants and the wider community. All property licences contain a condition that the holder must provide adequately sized bins and sufficient recycling containers for the occupiers. HMOs with at least one ASB incident by ward (HSCR 2024) Repeat incidences of ASB (two or more ASB investigations linked to one dwelling) in HMOs indicate that some landlords are failing to take appropriate action to address issues of ASB when it first occurs and is a direct indicator of poor management. Repeat ASB in HMOs is evident within the majority of wards in Hillingdon. Figure 13 – Total ASB incidents linked to HMOs (known and hidden/predicted) by ward, April 2020 – March 2025 (source: Ti). The evidence demonstrates a link between HMOs and poor housing conditions, poor management and ASB. As the PRS continues to grow, with an increasing use of multi- occupied properties, more residents are negatively impacted by these conditions. Poorly managed HMOs not only place extra demands on the Council, but they also create problems for their tenants and the surrounding community. It is vital that all HMOs meet an adequate standard, are effectively managed and offer a safe home to their occupants. By introducing an additional HMO licensing scheme, the Council will be able to regulate HMOs that do not already require a mandatory licence. This will London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 30 enable us to continue improving conditions in this important sector and tackle the identified problems. Addressing poor conditions and management standards through licensing The proposed additional HMO licensing designations would allow the Council to bring about a significant improvement to property conditions and property management in the area during the life of the scheme, reducing incidences of serious housing hazards within the borough. As demonstrated, our evidence shows that a high proportion of PRS properties in the proposed additional licensing designation area are predicted to have unacceptably high levels of serious hazards. The Council believes it is necessary to inspect a large number of these properties to accurately identify the type and severity of hazards present. If any hazards are found, the Council will take the re quired enforcement actions to rectify them. Our evidence also shows that a high proportion of additional HMOs in the borough are being managed ineffectively, proven by the cumulative presence of serious housing hazards and significant and persistent ASB. Through these licensing regimes and the granting of licences, standard licence conditions would be imposed that require licence holders to manage their properties proactively and to take reasonable action to address any identified problems. We will ensure that properties identified as ‘high risk’ are prioritised for inspection by officers to check for hazards and compliance with the licence conditions. This will allow the Council to take enforcement action (under Part 1 of the Housing Act), w here necessary, to improve conditions. The licensing inspection regime will also enable us to identify tenants on low incomes who are living in homes with an E, F or G EPC rating and those who may be affected by fuel poverty. Tenants will be referred to th e appropriate services to ensure they receive the available support, and landlords will be advised accordingly. For those whose properties fall below the legal requirement and who ignore the advice and support of the Council, the Private Sector Housing team will work to bring them into compliance. Licensing also gives the Council further powers to reduce ASB in the PRS. Without licensing the Council is only able to take action against tenants for ASB, as opposed to licensing, which places a duty on landlords to manage ASB in their properties as well. Landlords will receive guidance and advice on managing tenants involved in ASB, particularly in cases of serious ASB requiring formal court action. The Council will expect property management issues identified during an inspection to be resolved within a reasonable period, depending on the severity of the issue. Improvement notices, overcrowding notices and prohibition orders are formal notices that may be issued to bring about improvements in properties. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 31 Landlords who fail to license their properties could also receive a civil penalty or may be prosecuted. We will also continue to collaborate with the local Police, the London Fire Brigade and other Council departments to identify properties that need improvement. The Council will proactively work with landlords to address poor housing conditions and poor property management and help them to comply with the licence conditions in the borough. We will provide information and guidance on managing properties via the Council’s web site and through forums (either in person or online). We will use licensing to empower tenants by educating them on the standards that they should expect from their rented accommodation, their rights and how to access Council services that can support them if needed. Exemptions While the proposed scheme would extend regulation to a wider range of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), certain exemptions mean that some properties would not require an additional HMO licence, even if they meet the general occupancy and shared-amenity criteria. Key exemptions include: • Buildings managed by public sector bodies, such as local authorities, police forces, or health services. • Properties managed by housing associations registered with the Regulator of Social Housing. • Buildings occupied entirely by students, where the accommodation is owned or managed by an educational institution and subject to an approved code of practice. • Properties occupied by an owner and up to two lodgers (which are not classified as HMOs under the Housing Act 2004). • Buildings already subject to mandatory HMO licensing (i.e. those with five or more occupiers forming two or more households). • Certain converted buildings (Section 257 HMOs), Schedule 14 of the Housing Act 2004 sets out the full list of building categories that are exempt from HMO licensing requirements. A full list of exemptions can be found on the Housing Act 2004 on the link below. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/schedule/14 Proposed licensing scheme conditions There are two types of conditions that can be applied to an additional licensing scheme: mandatory and discretionary. The mandatory conditions are required by law (Schedule 4 of the Housing Act 2004) and must be included in a licence. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 32 The conditions that the Council proposes to include in licences granted under the additional HMO schemes can be seen in Appendix 2 and the documents downloadable from the consultation web page. Each set of proposed licence conditions includes, for ease of reference, both mandatory conditions that the Council is obliged to include under statute, and discretionary conditions that we pr opose to include in licences granted in Hillingdon. As part of the consultation process, respondents are able to give us their views about the proposed discretionary conditions for the additional licensing schemes. Please note, the proposed licence conditions represent the conditions that the Council would normally impose in respect of a licence granted on application for an additional licence. However, the Council may impose alternative (bespoke) conditions, where necessary and appropriate, on an individual case basis. Proposed licensing scheme fees Fee proposal Licence applicants will be required to pay a fee for each property that needs a licence. The HMO licensing fees are set to cover the cost of administering the licensing scheme functions (administration and enforcement). The proposed additional HMO licence fee is £1,401 per property. Licences will be granted for the duration of the scheme (up to 5 years) unless we have concerns about the management, use, condition or occupation of the property, in which case we may decide it is necessary to issue a licence for a reduced duration in certain circumstances, including: • Where there is a history of non-compliance • The property has been identified as a result of a complaint, and is unlicensed • Where conditions are attached to the licence requiring its regular review • The applicant is not able to demonstrate they will maintain full control over the property for five years • Where the licence holder and/or agent presents a cause for concern. • The property’s planning status is under question Where we take enforcement action, the licence may be revoked or varied to a shorter term. Licences are not transferable. If a person wants to become the new licence holder for a property, they must apply for a new licence and pay a new licence fee. Full payment must be received and cleared before a licence is issued. Further information is available in the proposed schedule of fees, charges and discounts, attached as Appendix 3. These fees form part of the consultation, and the Council welcomes any views on them. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 33 Fee split By law, the fee must be levied in two parts. Part A will be payable on submission of the application and will cover the cost of processing and the administration in determining the eligibility of the application. Should the application be refused or reject ed by the council or withdrawn by the applicant this first Part A payment will not be refunded. Part B will be payable once the application has been assessed and the decision is made to grant the licence. This will cover the administration, management, and enforcement of the licensing functions for the scheme. In the event that we decide to refuse a licence application, only the Part A fee will be payable. How the fees are calculated The proposed fees have been calculated on the basis that the schemes will be cost - neutral to the Council and will not generate a profit. Licence fees cover our costs of administering the schemes and meeting the scheme objectives that are set out below. A significant proportion of the licence fee income will meet the necessary staffing costs to deliver the scheme outcomes, but the fees will also meet other running costs, such as IT expenditure, with appropriate allowances made for inflationary increases during the life of the scheme. The proposed fees are underpinned by assumptions about the level of income the fees will generate, based upon the number of properties that we expect to be licensed during the life of the schemes and the numbers of those properties that we expect to be eligible for discounts. Fee comparisons The table below shows how the proposed fee compares with the published fee structures for some other London Boroughs with similar schemes. Local Authority Additional Licence Fee LB Hillingdon (Proposed fee) £1401 LB Ealing £1300 plus £50 per habitable room LB Hounslow £1550 LB Westminster £1450 LB Brent £1040 LB Enfield £1450 LB Lambeth £1518 LB Redbridge £1698 - £1800 LB Newham £1250 LB Wandsworth £1450 London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 34 Other Options Analysis We have considered other courses of action, or alternatives to the licensing proposals. But we do not believe that they provide an effective means of tackling poor housing conditions and repeat ASB in the borough. Option Description Council's Assessment Legal Risks if Not Implemented Do Nothing Maintain current arrangements without introducing additional licensing. Not effective. Would leave the Council reliant on tenant complaints and reactive action. Failure to meet duties under Housing Act 2004 to proactively address Category 1 hazards, risk of breaching duty to inspect within 5 years. Rely on Existing Enforcement Powers Use existing powers under Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 to address issues. Considered slow and less proactive. Enforcement is delayed due to appeals and legal processes. The powers do not place any obligation on landlords to be proactive in improving conditions. Formal action is generally slow, with appeal provisions against most types of notices served, which can significantly delay the time period for compliance. Work in default can be effective, but it is expensive and time- consuming to the council, with the risk that not all costs are recovered. Successful prosecutions and civil penalties do not in themselves secure improvements in property conditions and the council’s costs in pursuing legal action are often not met in full. Enforcement under Part 1 must be separate from licensing; delays may breach statutory timelines. London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 35 Voluntary Accreditation Schemes Encourage landlords to join schemes like LLAS to improve standards. Helpful but limited reach. Many landlords do not participate, and it lacks enforcement power. No legal enforcement mechanism; cannot compel landlords to meet minimum standards. Targeted Education and Support Provide guidance and training to landlords and tenants. Useful but insufficient alone to tackle widespread poor conditions and ASB. No statutory authority to enforce compliance; relies on voluntary uptake. Not a Borough- Wide Policy Implement licensing only in selected wards or areas with high ASB or poor housing conditions. Would miss many problematic HMOs spread across the borough. Less effective in addressing borough-wide issues. May not meet Housing Act 2004 requirements for borough-wide issues; limited scope of enforcement. Proposed scheme objectives Licensing is part of a broader, co-ordinated approach to help improve privately rented properties in Hillingdon. In general terms, we propose to use selective and additional licensing to continue to improve property conditions within the borough, tackle ASB and keep our residents safe. It is the Council’s intention to carry out inspections within the proposed designations with a view to enforcing against category 1 and category 2 hazards. Properties identified as ‘high risk’ will be prioritised for inspection by officers. We are committed to improving property conditions and management standards in the PRS, so that it contains good quality accommodation, helps us to achieve sustainable communities and continues to contribute positively to the local economy. The objectives of our proposed schemes are outlined below: NO OBJECTIVE OUTCOME 1 Improve property conditions in HMO properties Licensed HMO properties are inspected, monitored, and licence conditions robustly enforced and complied with • Poor housing conditions in HMOs are improved with category 1 & 2 hazards resolved (including issues such as damp and mould) London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 36 • HMO properties meet a minimum band E EPC rating (unless an exemption applies) • Improved health, safety and welfare of tenants in HMOs • The council will gain increased knowledge of the PRS in the borough. This will enable targeted enforcement and support for landlords. 2 Improve management standards in HMO properties Landlords actively manage their HMO properties or be enforced against • Absentee landlords, or landlords who are not ‘fit and proper’, employ an agent to actively manage their properties to ensure compliance • Prevention of overcrowding in HMOs through better management of property occupancy • Greater number of landlords become accredited improving the professionalism of landlords in the PRS • Engagement with landlords improved • Landlords are kept informed of latest legislation and good practice • Responsible landlords will become more involved in council licensing schemes and receive information and support • Irresponsible landlords will be forced to improve their properties or be enforced against. 3 Reduction in ASB and repeat ASB incidents in HMO properties Reduction of ASB incidents through better management of HMO properties • Reduction in ASB will improve neighbourhoods making these areas safer and more desirable places to live. 4 Promote initiatives and provide support to maintain a clean and safe environment Reduction in repeated waste related incidences (such as fly tipping) linked to HMOs • Improvements to the overall environment, creating better living places. 5 Increased awareness for tenants on the minimum standards to be expected in rented accommodation and of their rights and responsibilities when renting in the PRS Information for tenants on the local licensing scheme advertised and third-party support for tenants made available • Officers will support the most vulnerable tenants with their housing and wider needs e.g., benefits assessments, homelessness support London Borough of Hillingdon Evidence Pack for Consultation 2025 37 • Improved tenants’ support through work with third parties • Renters know their rights and responsibilities and have greater awareness of and access to council services that can support them • Tenants will see economic benefits such as reduced heating costs, bringing them out of fuel poverty. Licensing and wider council strategies Property licensing is an effective tool in improving conditions for private renters and forms an integral part of the council’s overarching housing strategy. In addition, licensing can support the delivery of several broader council priorities that recognise the impact of poor-quality housing and anti-social behaviour in residents’ lives. The proposed licensing designations are consistent with the overall aims of the following strategies, plans and policies. Hillingdon Council’s Strategy 2022–2026 sets out a clear vision of Putting our Residents first and outlines five key commitments to ensure the borough remains a safe, inclusive, green, and economically strong place to live and work. The Council’s priorities are to develop, sustain and facilitate: • Safe and Strong Communities: Hillingdon is committed to creating resilient communities where residents feel safe and supported. This includes access to good quality, affordable housing and services that protect residents from harm. • Thriving, Healthy Households: The Council supports children, young people, families, vulnerable adults, and older residents to live healthy, active, and independent lives. This includes access to high-quality health, care, leisure, and cultural services. • A Green and Sustainable Borough: Hillingdon aims to be a carbon-neutral borough, protecting its heritage and green spaces

Page 1 of 6 Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment Equality impact assessment tools (sharepoint.com) STEP A) Description of what is to be assessed and its relevance to equality What is being assessed? Please tick  Review of a service  Staff restructure  Decommissioning a service  Changing a policy  Tendering for a new service  A strategy or plan  An Article 4 Direction would remove permitted development rights allowing conversion of a single dwelling house into a small house in multiple occupation (HMO). Whilst HMOs are concentrated in some areas more than others, they are present in all areas of the borough. The Article 4 Direction is therefore proposed to apply boroughwide. The Article 4 Direction would not prevent the conversion of small dwelling houses into HMOs, it would only mean that such conversions would require planning permission Who is accountable? E.g. Head of Service or Corporate Director Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth Date assessment completed and approved by accountable person 16/11/2025 Names and job titles of people carrying out the assessment Julia Johnson Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth A.1) What are the main aims and intended benefits of what you are assessing? Page 2 of 6 Review of a policy to enable the council to better manage the impact of small houses of multiple occupation across the borough. A.2) Who are the service users or staff affected by what you are assessing? What is their equality profile? Residents are looking to access lower-cost housing within the borough. The data indicates the following equalities profile: Policies targeting HMOs could disproportionately affect groups more likely to live in shared accommodation (young people, migrant workers, low-income residents). Poor quality housing, which is more common with HMOs, can disproportionately impact more vulnerable residents, including the elderly, young people and pregnant women. ASB, which is more common where a property is an HMO, can have an impact on community cohesion. Concentrations of HMOs in more deprived wards may inadvertently exacerbate inequality without mitigating support. A.3) Who are the stakeholders in this assessment and what is their interest in it? Stakeholders Interest Residents Those accessing housing in the private rented sector Residents Living in proximity to potential HMOs Property owners/ Landlords Those who seek to convert their properties into small HMOs Public Bodies Consultations on future planning applications Enforcement activities Page 3 of 6 A.4) Which protected characteristics or community issues are relevant to the assessment?  in the box. Age  Sex Disability  Sexual Orientation Gender reassignment Socio-economic status  Marriage or civil partnership Carers Pregnancy or maternity Community Cohesion  Race/Ethnicity  Community Safety Religion or belief Human Rights STEP B) Consideration of information; data, research, consultation, engagement B.1) Consideration of information and data – what have you got and what is it telling you? Age – older and younger people – poor quality housing which is more common which HMOs disproportionately impacts older and younger residents who are more vulnerable to mould and damp. Disability – housing hazards such as damp and mould which are more commone in HMS disproportionately affect disabled people. Race – the wards with higher concentrations of private rented sector homes are areas which have higher proportions of minority ethnic residents. These wards also have higher levels of housing with serious hazards, ASB, fuel poverty and disrepair complaints implying disproportionate housing disadvantage by ethnicity. Socio-economic – there is a higher concentration of HMO housing in more deprived wards. Community Cohesion – HMOs are associated with higher levels of ASB which can cause issues for neighbouring residents. Page 4 of 6 Consultation B.2) Did you carry out any consultation or engagement as part of this assessment? Please tick  NO  YES  No consultation or engagement has been undertaken. However in accordance with Schedule 3 of the GPDO 2015 a consultation will be undertaken after the introduction of the Article 4 Direction. This consultation will allow representations to be made to the council on the introduction of the Article 4 Direction. Any representations made will be considered by officers before preparing the Cabinet report for the confirmation of the Article 4 Direction. B.3) Provide any other information to consider as part of the assessment Legal context The council has a public duty to pay due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations (Equality Act 2010) Financial context – standard text Since 2010, the council has driven a transformation programme across all services aimed at reducing costs and improving efficiency to ensure that in an environment of increased expenditure from population growth and inflationary uplifts we continue to deliver high quality services that put residents first. The council continues to prioritise the delivery of its rigorous savings programme maintaining high standards of resident services, however the latest projections indicate that further savings of £34m will be required during 2025-26 to bridge the budget gap as a result of reducing government funding and the increasing cost of service delivery. National policy context Paragraph 54 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) explains that Article 4 Directions should be used only where necessary to protect local amenity or the wellbeing of an area, and must be supported by robust evidence. Additionally, they should apply to the smallest geographical area needed to address the identified issue. The terms “local amenity” and “wellbeing” are not strictly defined and can vary depending on context. For example, visual amenity relates to the appearance of an area, while residential amenity concerns the living conditions of occupants. Page 5 of 6 C) Assessment What did you find in B1? Who is affected? Is there, or likely to be, an impact on certain groups? C.1) Describe any NEGATIVE impacts (actual or potential): Equality Group Impact on this group and actions you need to take Age Possible slight delays or increased complexity in creating new HMOs may reduce availability of lower-cost accommodation, which is more commonly used by young adults. The risk of this impact is considered low and not significant as it will still be possible for properties to be converted to small HMOs subject to planning permission. Disability A reduction in new HMOs (if conversion viability decreases) might reduce lower-cost options for disabled people on fixed or low incomes. The risk of this impact is considered low and not significant as it will still be possible for properties to be converted to small HMOs subject to planning permission. Race If planning processes unintentionally make small HMOs less viable in certain areas, this could limit access to affordable accommodation for groups who are statistically more likely to rent privately. The risk of this impact is considered low and not significant as it will still be possible for properties to be converted to small HMOs subject to planning permission. Socio-Economic Potential increase in conversion costs or delays may reduce supply of lower-cost housing, affecting low- income renters most. The risk of this impact is considered low and not significant, as it will still be possible for properties to be converted to small HMOs, subject to planning permission. Community Cohesion If poorly communicated, residents may incorrectly assume it “bans” HMOs. This risk is considered low and can be mitigating by supporting communications from the council. C.2) Describe any POSITIVE impacts Equality Group Impact on this group and actions you need to take Age Older residents may benefit from improved neighbourhood amenity, as the Article 4 Direction enables the council to manage concentrations of HMOs in areas where noise, ASB, and transient occupancy previously caused disruption. Page 6 of 6 Better planning oversight may improve housing safety for younger tenants, who are over-represented in small HMOs. Assessment during planning can improve space standards, reducing overcrowding which affects families with children Disability Planning control allows the council to require accessible design features. Race Many high-PRS/high-HMO wards with hazards, overcrowding and ASB also have higher proportions of minority ethnic residents; improving standards and managing concentrations could reduce exposure to unsafe living environments. Socio-Economic Increased council oversight through planning enables better quality control, reducing substandard and hidden HMOs, which heavily impact lower-income tenants. Community Cohesion Planning permission provides greater opportunity for neighbours to comment, increasing transparency and trust. D) Conclusions The introduction of an Article 4 Direction for small HMOs, which does not prevent HMOs but simply requires planning permission for new ones, is likely to have a broadly positive or neutral impact on equality, with some risks that need careful monitoring. By enabling the council to manage the location, quality and concentration of new HMOs, the measure can help improve housing standards and neighbourhood amenity in areas where high levels of hazards, disrepair, ASB and deprivation disproportionately affect older residents, disabled people, minority ethnic communities and low-income households. Better oversight can reduce the prevalence of unsafe or overcrowded conversions and support more stable, cohesive communities by preventing over-concentration of HMOs. However, there is a potential risk that requiring planning permission could marginally reduce the supply or slow the delivery of lower-cost shared housing, which may negatively affect younger people, low paid workers, students, and others for whom HMOs are an essential affordable option. With clear communication, consistent decision-making and safeguards to protect affordable provision, the Article 4 Direction is expected to support more equitable housing conditions while avoiding disproportionate impacts on protected groups. Signed and dated:……… ……………16/11/2025. Name and position: Julia Johnson, Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth

Council – 27 November 2025 10.1 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR GARDNER TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT – COUNCILLOR LAVERY: Over the past few months young people have been seen and heard in the streets and parks igniting large fireworks that are clearly meant for organised display events only. Can the Cabinet member please outline the process for licensing the sale of fireworks and, in particular , if there is a requirement for recording who purchases them? 10.2 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COU NCILLOR D.MILLS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: As all Councillors have now received the letter from the Department for Education’s Deputy Director regarding the Safety Valve Agreement, is it fair to conclude that the pressures facing this administration are the result of national funding arrangements and wider systemic issues within the SEND framework — challenges that ultimately require national, rather than solely local, solutions? 10.3 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BENNETT TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & GROWTH - COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL: Can the Cabinet member please provide an update on the condition of Ministry of Defence estates in Hillingdon, and the opportunities available for bringing empty military homes back into productive use? 10.4 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR BURROWS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES AND PROPERT Y – COUNCILLOR BIANCO: Can the Cabinet member please give an update on the progress of the development of the new Jubilee Platinum Leisure Centre and confirm when it is expected to be completed? 10.5 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR HIGGINS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & GROWTH - COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL: Can the Cabinet member please provide an u pdate on the Chagossians’ arrival into Hillingdon and outline how the Council is managing the support required? 10.6 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR BURLES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT – COUNCILLOR LAVERY: Does the Cabinet member believe that the new policy of not locking the gates of parks at night has been of any benefit to residents living in the local area if so what are they? QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS Council – 27 November 2025 10.7 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR AHMAD-WALLANA TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE - COUNCILLOR PALMER: Could the Cabinet member explain the benefits to the Council and residents of the recent purchase of The Burroughs Care Home? 10.8 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR SWEETING TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: The November budget report confirms the Council cannot remain a going concern without Exceptional Financial Support. When did the Leader first know that the Council was effectively insolvent and why was this not immediately disclosed to Members or residents? 10.9 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR PUNJA TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: The 2025/26 budget re lies on delivering £38.8m of in -year savings to remain balanced, yet by Month 6 up to £20.2m is either at risk, undeliverable, or still at an early stage. The Strategic Risk Register presented to the November Audit Committee states plainly that “ a key driver in this forecast overspend is that the savings programme is not on track… and mitigations will not be sufficient to offset this.” Does the Le ader of the Council still maintain that Hillingdon has a balanced and lawful budget when the savings essential to its in -year legality are already failing under this administration? 10.10 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR MAND TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND TRANSFORMATION - COUNCILLOR GODDARD: At September's Full Council, the Cabinet Member dismissed Exceptional Financial Support as merely an “accounting adjustment” and claimed residents would not shoulder the burden. Yet the last so -called accounti ng adjustments — totalling £14.1 million since 2014 — led directly to cuts in services, the sale of community assets, and still this administration cannot balance its books. Does the Cabinet Member agree that this latest “accounting adjustment”, in the form of Exceptional Financial Support, will also be paid by the residents of Hillingdon — especially as every past adjustment has resulted in higher costs, fewer services, and deeper financial crisis for this borough? Yes or No. Council – 27 November 2025 10.11 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR KAUR TO THE CABINET MEMBE R FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT – COUNCILLOR LAVERY: Could the Cabinet Member explain why the out-of-hours nuisance service has been effectively closed? Given that:  No resident consultation was carried out prior to this decision;  the data used to justify the withdrawal is acknowledged in the report as incomplete - specifically stating that “it is not possible to obtain complete and accurate reports of the data held on the GOSS system relating to the team’s activities”; and  the report also confirms that “noise complaints cannot be investigated remotely using noise recording equipment, noise apps or diary sheets alone. 10.12 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR MATHERS TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: Can the Leader explain how a £13.9 M adverse movement in just two months can possibly be presented as evidence that he and his Cabinet Member for Finance have any control over the Council’s financial position?

Council – 27 November 2025 MOTIONS 11.1 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR GARELICK (held over from Council meeting on 11 September 2025) That this Council recognises that the presentation and cleanliness of our residential streets across the whole borough have been in sharp decline this yea r, clearly indicating that the Council’s financial troubles are having a significant impact on our frontline services such as refuse collection, street cleansing, and weed removal. Therefore, this Council calls on the administration to take action to impr ove these frontline services, in order to keep our streets clean and restore a sense of pride in our communities. 11.2 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR CURLING That th is Council expresses its concern and disappointment that the Labour Government have u -turned on t he issue of mandating developers to install ‘Swift bricks’ in all new developments. This Council also notes the campaigns by organisations such as the RSPB and other rare bird organisations for the inclusion of swift bricks in all new developments. As a responsible council and one that believes that we should do all that we can to protect wildlife, rare birds, and gener ally enhance our biodiversity, this Council calls on the Cabinet to consider ways in which we could either introduce our own local policy o n swift bricks or at least encourage developers to include them on future new builds. 11.3 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR PUNJA That this Council notes the findings of the October/November 2025 Budget Monitoring Report, which confirm the comprehensive financial failure of this Conservative administration, specifically:  Hillingdon is now dependent on Exceptional Financial Support from the Labour Government simply to remain a going concern.  The Administration has failed to deliver its £34m in-year savings, resulting in a £36m overspend at Month 6 and rising.  Reserves have collapsed from +£70m to –£34.5m, a total deterioration of £104.5m under this administration.  The Council’s financial position is now unsafe and unsustainable, with no general fund unearmarked rese rves left, depleted general reserves, mismanaged operational overspend, future asset sales with the only option being anticipated Labour government support.  Repeated failures — from the FMP and GRIP programme to green waste subscription — have further dest abilised the Council’s finances, placing the burden of Conservative mismanagement squarely on Hillingdon residents. Council – 27 November 2025 That this Council also acknowledges that any lawful budget must be: 1. that the budget should be balanced or sustainable in-year 2. that the bud get should be supported by adequate reserves to manage financial risk This Administration’s budget meets neither test nor can any longer credibly be defended as lawful. Therefore, this Council believes the situation is critical and requests the relevant Statutory Officers to urgently consider: 1. Issuing a Section 114 Report, under the Local Government Finance Act 1988, recognising that the Council has an unlawful, unbalanced budget that fails the 2 binary tests and cannot meet its expenditure commitments. 2. At the same time, issuing a Section 5 Report under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, confirming the full legal implications and consequences and advising on direct, indirect and consequential implications for the Council and Councillors on the fai lures of governance that have led to this position. 3. Requesting a Report in the Public Int erest (RIPI), commissioned under the Local Audit and Accountability Act. To be undertaken by the Council’s external auditor (EY) with independent oversight from CIPFA, ensuring full objectivity and compliance with the statutory Best Value duty (Section 3, Local Government Act 1999). The RIPI – to be reported publicly to Full Council in January 2026 - must provide an unqualified, independent account of:  The collapse of r eserves from +£70m to –£34.5m, a deterioration of £104.5m under this administration.  The Month 6 overspend, failure to deliver savings, and decisions leading to the Council’s effective insolvency.  An examination of the past 15 years of “delivered” savings against budgeted savings, including whether the administration’s repeated claims of balanced budgets were in fact undelivered savings and overspends covered up by the year-on-year depletion of reserves.  The governance, oversight and leadership failures tha t enabled this financial collapse. 4. Establishing an Emergency Financial Recovery Team, wor king directly under the control of central government, external inspectors and statutory officers to halt further financial deterioration and stabilise the authority. 5. Producing a Wednesbury Compliance Report . The Monitoring Officer to provide written legal advice to Full Council setting out the personal legal risks to the Administration and all Members who voted for the February 2025 Budget, should their decisions be fo und to violate the Wednesbury principles of reasonableness, given the escalating negative reserves - including the additional £13.9m deterioration in the last two months alone under this Administration. Council – 27 November 2025 11.4 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR EDWARDS That this Coun cil expresses its deep disappointment at the closure of the Mount Vernon Urgent Care Unit, a service relied upon by thousands of residents. More than 27,000 people signed a petition opposing the decision, yet their views were dismissed, and many believe no meaningful public consultation was undertaken. A recent survey again showed strong public support to retain the Mount Vernon Urgent Care Unit. The closure has taken place before adequate alternative provis ion has been secured placing a further burden on the Accident & Emergency Unit at Hillingdon Hospital. The rebuilding of the Hospital has been delayed by the Government and the promised health hubs remain years away with no funding having yet been allocated for their construction in Hillingdon. This Council therefore calls on the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Health seeking urgent clarity on when funding will be made available to Hillingdon to develop the promised health hubs to provide urg ent and diagnostic health services to Hillingdon residents and, if necessary, to reopen the Mount Vernon Urgent Care Unit until long-term solutions are in place.

Council – 27 November 2025 Order of Business 1 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL 27 NOVEMBER 2025 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 11 September 2025. 3. Declarations of Interest - To note any declarations of interest in any matter before the Council. 4. Mayor’s Announcements - To receive the Mayoral Announcements. Council – 27 November 2025 Order of Business 2 ORDER BUSINESS 5. Public Question Time - To consider questions submitted by Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 1 0. Public question time is limited to 30 minutes. 5.1 QUESTION FROM TONY ELLIS OF KEWFERRY ROAD, NORTHWOOD TO THE LEADER OF THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: The council's Audit Committee papers confirm that leaders were formally warned of "key governance weaknesses" by CIPFA and auditors in February and March 2025. This was at the exact same time the administration was approving the 2025/26 budget. Given the administration was formally warned of "key governance weaknesses" before the bud get was set, I do not understand how it could have been legitimately claimed to have been robust. What accountability has there been for the leadership's failure to act on these warnings, which preceded the £36m financial collapse? 5.2 QUESTION FROM PATRICIA WARDLE OF WYE CLOSE ROAD, RUISLIP TO THE LEADER OF THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: At the HARA meeting on 17 November, the Leader stated the E FS bailout application was for "the region of 40 million". This figure seems too low to be su fficient to cover both this year’s overspend and to replenish the reserves, especially as each month in the last three the overspend has increased. Can the Leader provide a more accurate estimate of the kind of figure that the Council has been requesting from the government, given that the £40M figure doesn’t seem anywhere near sufficient? Council – 27 November 2025 Order of Business 3 ORDER BUSINESS Public Question Time (continued) 5.3 QUESTION FROM SUE MIDGLEY OF HOWLETTS LANE, RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBER F OR CHILDREN, FAMILIE S & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: The Council predicts it will have a £78 M cumulative deficit in the Dedicated Schools Grant by the end of the year. The statutory override government protection for this deficit expires in March 2028. What is the Council's plan to handle the £78.4 M schools deficit when the government override ends, other than hoping for a second bailout? 5.4 QUESTION FROM SALLY WEBB OF L AKESIDE CLOSE, RUISL IP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONME NT – COUNCILLOR BRIDGES (to be answered by former portfolio holder, Councillor Lavery): In April 2025, the Leader of the Council, C ouncillor Ian Edwards, personally assured the Ruislip Residents' Association that a new, robust risk assessment for Ruislip Lido was a priority and would be 'picked up very quickly' to address the 'obvious risks' of overcrowding. On June 29th, those risks were realised when emergency services struggled to access the site. Yet, as of November, this vit al risk assessment has still not been commissioned, and Council officers have confirmed they are still awaiting responses from external specialists. Given the Council's failure to deliver this urgent safety review, how does it justify prioritising new, non -essential spending at the Lido, such as the £19,200 approved in October to refurbish the pi rate ship and the £76,949 approved in September for 'infrastructure improvements', which includes 'new picnic tables' - all of which will only attract more visitor s to a site the Council has not yet made safe? 5.5 QUESTION FROM DANIEL O’NEILL OF ASHBURTON ROAD, RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBE R FOR FINANCE AND TRANSFORMATION – COUNCILLOR LAVERY: The Month 6 Budget Monitoring Report identifies a £4 million "adverse impact" on the budget caused by a review of the asset sales programme. Can the Cabinet Member c onfirm if this £4 million deficit exists because the Administration had already spent or committed the money before the assets were actually sold and why was such a large sum spent "at risk" before the funds were actually secured in the Council's bank account? 5.6 QUESTION FROM DAVID EDINGTON OF HOYLAKE CRESCENT, ICKENHAM TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR C OMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT – COUNCILLOR BRIDGES (to be answered by former portfolio holder, Councillor Lavery): The Chrysalis Fund criteria, presented to the Resi dents’ Services Select Committee in March 2025, explicitly state the fund cannot fund events, activities or furniture and equipment. Council – 27 November 2025 Order of Business 4 ORDER BUSINESS Public Question Time (continued Can the Cabinet Member explain why he subsequently approved £19,200 for 'Playground equip ment refurbishment' and £76,949 for a project that includes 'new picnic tables' - in direct contradiction of the programme's published rules - and further explain when and by whom the decision was taken to increase his portfolio's Chrysalis budget from the £1 million stated in his June Capital Release report to the £3 million stated in his September report, given the Council’s current severe financial constraints? Council – 27 November 2025 Order of Business 5 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 2025, as detailed in the report. ii) POLITICAL GROUPS ON THE COUNCIL , THE CALCULATION OF POLITICAL BALANCE AND COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS To note changes in the political balance of the Council and to approve subsequent changes to Committee memberships. RECOMMENDATION: That the alteration of the overall pol itical balance of the Council, following the changes in Group membership detailed in the repo rt, be noted and the following changes to membership of Council Committees etc. be approved:  Councillor Gohil to replace Councillor Singh on the Hillingdon Planning Committee,  Councillor Basit to replace Councillor Nelson on the Health & Social Care Select Committee,  Councillor Farley to replace Councillor Garg on the Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee  Councillor Singh to replace Councillor Farl ey on the Residents’ Services Select Committee.  Councillor Smallwood to replace Councillor Su llivan on the Pensions Committee.  Councillor Punja to replace Councillor Farley as a Labour Group named substitute on the Audit Committee. NB#1: following the publication of the agenda for the Council meeting, the Conservative Group have notified the following additional change:  Councillor Dhot to replace Councillor Bridges as a member of the Residents’ Services Select Committee. NB#2 – following the appointment o f Councillor Bridges to the Cabinet, the Residents’ Services Select Committee will be asked t o appoint a new Chair at the end of the Council meeting. Council – 27 November 2025 Order of Business 6 ORDER BUSINESS Report of Head of Democratic Services (continued) iii) APPOINTMENT OF STATUTORY OFFICER To consider the appointment of a Monitoring Officer for the Council. NB: Since the issue of the agenda , the recruitment process for the Director of Legal and Governance has concluded and Mr Daniel Toohey has been appointed to the role (subject to the Cabinet object ion period). Mr Toohey has been with the authority as the interim Head of Legal Services and Deputy Monitoring Officer, since February 2025 and is a highly qualified and experienced local government solicitor and Monitoring Officer, with extensive knowledge of the current governance and legal issues affecting local authorities. Mr Toohey is also e xperienced in dealing with elected Member issues and in liaising with external partner organisations and governmental departments at all levels. RECOMMENDATION: That the new Director of Legal and Governance , when confirmed in post, be appointed to the sta tutory role of Monitoring Officer of the Council. iv) APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT PERSON To consider the appointment of a second Independent Person for the authority. RECOMMENDATIONS: That: a) Mr Roger Cook be appointed as the Council’s second Independent Person until July 2030 and b) Mr Graeme Armour’s appointment as Independent Person be extended to July 2030. To be moved by Councillor Edwards and seconded by Councillor Bianco. Other speakers: None v) CABINET (additional item for information only) Members are asked to note the following: 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 19 November 2025, Councillor Lavery will be responsible for the Finance and Transformation portfolio and , w.e.f 21 November 2025, Councillor Bridges will become the Cabinet member for Community and Environment. 3. The Head of Democratic Services has an existing delegation to make any necessary textual changes to the Constitution and appointments to Outside Bodies etc. to reflect these changes. Council – 27 November 2025 Order of Business 7 ORDER BUSINESS 7. Polling District and Polling Places Review RECOMMENDATION: That the changes to polling places, as set out in the report, be approved. To be moved by Councillor Edwards and seconded by Councillor Bianco. Other speakers: None 8. Annual Performance Report 2024-2025 RECOMMENDATION: That the Annual Performance Repor t 2024/25 , attached at Appendix A, be noted. To be moved by Councillor Edwards and seconded by Councillor Bianco. Other speakers: Councillors Bridges, Lavery and Tuckwell Council – 27 November 2025 Order of Business 8 ORDER BUSINESS 9. Proposed Article 4 Direction RECOMMENDATIONS: That: 1. the making of an immedia te direction under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) to remove the permitted developm ent right for the change of use of building and any land within its curtilage from a use falling within Class C3 (Dwellinghouse) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (Amended) Order to a use falling within Class C4 (House in Multiple Occupation) of that Order being development comprised within class L(b) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 t o the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (“GPDO”) within the area identified in Appendix 1, be approved. 2. the cancellation of the existing Article 4 Direction for Houses in Multiple Occupation, Brune l and Uxbridge South wards once the new Article 4 direction is confirmed, be approved. 3. it be noted notice given for the Article 4 Direction will be made as soon as practical following approval, and that Full Council will receive a further report at the e nd of the representation period to consider whether, in light of any representations received, the new direction should be confirmed. 4. authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer and the Head of Legal Services to authorise the relevant notices to enact the proposed Immediate Article 4 Direction. To be moved by Councillor Tuckwell and seconded by Councillor Edwards. Other speakers: Councillors Ahmad-Wallana, Bridges and Davies Council – 27 November 2025 Order of Business 9 ORDER BUSINESS 10. Members’ Questions - To consider Questions submitted by Members i n accordance with Council Procedure Rule 1 1. Members’ question time is limited to 45 minutes. 10.5 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR HIGGINS TO THE CABINET MEMB ER FOR PLANNING, HOU SING & GROWTH - COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL: Can the Cabinet member please provide an update on the Chagossians’ arrival into Hillingdon and outline how the Council is managing the support required? 10.10 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR MAND TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE A ND TRANSFORMATION - COUNCILLOR LAVERY: At September's Full Council, the Cabinet Member dismissed Exceptional Financial Support as merely an “accounting adjustment” and claimed residents would not shoulder the burden. Yet the last so-called accounting adjustments — totalling £14.1 million since 2014 — led directly to cuts in services, the sale of community assets, and still this administration cannot balance its books. Does the Cabinet Member agree that this latest “accounting adjustment”, in the form of Exceptional Financial Support, will also be paid by the residents of Hillingdon — especially as every past adjustment has resulted in higher costs, fewer services, and deeper financial crisis for this borough? Yes or No. 10.1 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR GARDNER TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR C OMMUNITY & ENVIRONME NT – COUNCILLOR BRIDGES (to be answered by former portfolio holder, Councillor Lavery): Over the past few months young people have been seen and heard in the streets and parks igniting large fireworks that are clearly meant for organised display events only . Can the Cabinet member please outline the process for licensing the sale of fireworks and, in particular , if there is a requirement for recording who purchases them? 10.7 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR AHMAD -WALLANA TO THE CABINET MEMBER F OR HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE - COUNCILLOR PALMER: Could the Cabinet member explain the benefits to the Council and residents of the recent purchase of The Burroughs Care Home? 10.9 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR PUNJA TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: The 2025/26 budget relies on delivering £38.8 M of in -year savings to remain balanced, yet by Month 6 up to £20.2m is either at risk, Council – 27 November 2025 Order of Business 10 ORDER BUSINESS Member Questions (continued) undeliverable, or still at an early stage. The Strategic Risk Register presented to the No vember Audit Committee states plainly that “ a key driver in this forecast overspend is that the savings programme is not on track… and mitigations will not be sufficient to offset this.” Does the Leader of the Council still maintain that Hillingdon has a balanced and lawful budget when the savings essential to its in -year legality are already failing under this administration? 10.3 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCI LLOR BENNETT TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR P LANNING, HOUSING & G ROWTH - COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL: Can th e Cabinet member please provide an update on the condition of Ministry of Defence estates in Hillingdon, and the opportunities available for bringing empty military homes back into productive use? 10.11 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR KAUR TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR C OMMUNITY & ENVIRONME NT – COUNCILLOR BRIDGES (to be answered by former portfolio holder, Councillor Lavery): Could the Cabinet Member explain why t he out-of-hours nuisance service has been effectively closed? Given that:  No resident consultation was carried out prior to this decision;  the data used to justify the withdrawal is acknowledged in the report as incomplete - specifically stating that “it is not possible to obtain complete and accurate reports of the data held on the GOSS system relating to the team’s activities”; and  the report also confirms that “noise complaints cannot be investigated remotely using noise recording equipment, noise apps o r diary sheets alone. 10.2 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR D.MILLS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: As all Councillors have now received the letter from the Department for Education’s Deputy Director regarding the Safety Valve Agreement, is it fair to conclude that the pressures facing this administra tion are the result of national funding arrangements and wider systemic issues within the SEND framework — challenges that ultimately require national, rather than solely local, solutions? 10.12 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR MATHERS TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: Can the Leader explain how a £13.9 M adverse movement in just two months can possibly be presented as evidence that he and his Cabinet Member for Finance have any control over the Council’s financial position? Council – 27 November 2025 Order of Business 11 ORDER BUSINESS Member Questions (continued) 10.4 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR BURROWS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR C ORPORATE SERVICES AND PROPERTY – COUNCILLOR BIANCO: Can the Cabinet m ember please give an update on the progress of the development of the new Jubilee Platinum Leisu re Centre and confirm when it is expected to be completed? 10.8 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR SWEETIN G TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: The November budget report confirms the Council cannot remain a going concern without Exceptional Financial Support. When did the Leader first know that the Council was effectively insolvent and why was this not immediately disclosed to Members or residents? 10.6 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR BURLES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR C OMMUNITY & ENVIRONME NT – COUNCILLOR BRIDGES (to be answered by former portfolio holder, Councillor Lavery): Does the Cabinet member believe that the new policy of not locking the gates of parks at night has been of any benefit to residents living in the local area if so, what are they? 11. Motions - To consider Motions submitted by Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12. 11.4 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR EDWARDS That this Council expresses its deep disappointment at the closure of the Mount Vernon Urgent Care Unit, a service relied upon by thousands of residents. More than 27,000 people signed a petition opposing the decision, yet their views were dismissed, and many believe no meaningful public consultation was undertaken. A recent survey again showed strong public support to retain the Mount Vernon Urgent Care Unit. The closure has taken place before adequate alternative provision has been secured placing a further burd en on the Accident & Emergency Unit at Hillingdon Hospital. The rebuilding of the Hospital has b een delayed by the Government and the promised health hubs remain years away with no funding having yet been allocated for their construction in Hillingdon. This Council therefore calls on the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Health seeking u rgent clarity on when funding will be made available to Hillingdon to develop the promised health hubs to provide urgent and diagnostic health services to Hilli ngdon residents and, if necessary, to reopen the Mount Vernon Urgent Care Unit until long -term solutions are in place. To be seconded by Councillor Higgins Council – 27 November 2025 Order of Business 12 ORDER BUSINESS Motions (continued) Other speakers: Council lors Curling, Denys, Gohil, Punja, Riley and Smallwood NB: Councillor Punja to move and Councillor Sansarpuri to second the following amendment (additional words in bold italics and deleted words crossed through): That this Council notes residents’ concerns about expresses its deep disappointment at the clo sure of the Mount Vernon Urgent Care Unit, a service relied upon by thousands of residents. More than 27,000 people signed a petition opposing the decision, yet their views were dismissed, and many believe no meaningful public consultation was undertaken. A recent survey again showed strong public support to retain the Mount Vernon Urgent Care Unit. but also recognises the significant investment now being made in local NHS services. This includes the Labour Government’s £1.39 billion funding for the rebuild ing of Hillingdon Hospital, already in its first phase, and the inclusion of Hillingdon in the f irst wave of 43 areas to receive three new health hubs. The closure has taken place before adequate alternative provision has been secured placing a further burden on the Accident & Emergency Unit at Hillingdon Hospital. The rebuilding of the Hospital has been delayed by the Government and the promised health hubs remain years away with no funding having yet been allocated for their construction in Hillingdon. This Council thanks the Government for prioritising the healthcare of Hillingdon residents —investment that the previous Conservative Government, including under former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, promised but failed to deliver. This Council therefore calls on the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Health seeking urgent clarity on when f unding will be made available to Hillingdon to develop the promised health hubs to provide urgent and diagnostic health services to Hillingdon residents and, if necessary, to reopen the Mount Vernon Urgent Care Unit until long -term solutions are in place. This Council calls on the NHS Northwest London Integrated Care Board to ensure residents continue to have accessible and appropriate urgent and diagnostic care during this period of transition. The amended motion then to read: That this Council notes re sidents’ concerns about the closure of the Mount Vernon Urgent Care Unit but also recognises the significant investment now being made in local NHS services. Th is includes the Labour Government’s £1.39 billion funding for the rebuilding of Hillingdon Hospital, already in its first phase, and the inclusion of Hillingdon in the first wave of 43 areas to receive three new health hubs. Council – 27 November 2025 Order of Business 13 ORDER BUSINESS Motions (continued) This Council thanks the Government for prioritising the healthcare of Hillingdon residents - investment t hat the previous Conservative Government, including under former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, promised but failed to deliver. This Council calls on the NHS Northwest London Integrated Care Board to ensure residents continue to have accessible and appropr iate urgent and diagnostic care during this period of transition. 11.1 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR GARELICK (held over from Council meeting on 11 September 2025) That this Council recognises that the presentation and cleanliness of our residential streets acr oss the whole borough have been in sharp decline this year, clearly indicating that the Council’s financial troubles are having a significant impact on our fron tline services such as refuse collection, street cleansing, and weed removal. Therefore, this C ouncil calls on the administration to take action to improve these frontline services , in order to keep our streets clean and restore a sense of pride in our communities. To be seconded by Councillor Mathers Other speakers: Council lors Bridges, Curling, Gohil, Lavery, Punja and Sweeting. 11.2 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR CURLING That th is Council expresses its concern and disappointment that the Labour Government h ave u-turned on the issue of mandating developers to install ‘Swift bricks ’ in all new developme nts. This Council also notes the campaigns by organisations such as the RSPB and other rare bird organisations for the inclusion of swift bricks in all new developments. As a responsible council and one that believes that we should do all that we can to p rotect wildlife, rare birds, and generally enhance our biodiversity, this Council c alls on the Cabinet to consider ways in which we could either introduce our o wn local policy on swift bricks or at least encourage developers to include them on future new builds. To be seconded by Councillor Gardner Other speakers: Councillors Tuckwell. Council – 27 November 2025 Order of Business 14 ORDER BUSINESS Motions (continued) 11.3 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR PUNJA That this Council notes the findings of the October/November 2025 Budget Monitoring Report, which confirm t he comprehensive financial failure of this Conservative administration, specifically:  Hillingdon is now dependent on Exceptional Financial Support from the Labour Government simply to remain a going concern.  The Administration has failed to deliver its £34 m in -year savings, resulting in a £36m overspend at Month 6 and rising.  Reserves have collapsed from +£70m to –£34.5m, a total deterioration of £104.5m under this administration.  The Council’s financial position is now unsafe and unsustainable, with no general fund unearmarked reserves left, depleted general  reserves, mismanaged operational overspend, future asset sales with the only option being anticipated Labour government support.  Repeated failures - from the FMP and GRIP programme to green waste subscription - have further destabilised the Council’s finances, placing the burden of Conservative mismanagement squarely on Hillingdon residents. That this Council also acknowledges that any lawful budget must be: 1. that the budget should be balanced or sustainable in-year 2. that the budget should be supported by adequate reserves to manage financial risk This Administration’s budget meets neither test nor can any longer credibly be defended as lawful. Therefore, this Council believes the situation is critical and requests the relevant Statutory Officers to urgently consider: 1. Issuing a Section 114 Report , u nder the Local Government Finance Act 1988, recognising that the Council has an unlawful, unbalanced budget that fails the 2 binary tests and cannot meet its expenditure commitments 2. At the same time, issuing a Section 5 Report under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, confirming the full legal implications an d consequences and advising on direct, indirect and consequential implications for the Council a nd Councillors on the failures of governance that have led to this position. 3. Requesting a Report in the Public Interest (RIPI), commissioned under the Local Audit and Accountability Act. To be undertaken by the Council’s external auditor (EY) with independ ent oversight from CIPFA, ensuring full objectivity and compliance with the statutory Best Value duty (Section 3, Local Government Act 1999). The RIPI – to be reported publicly to Full Council in January 2026 - must provide an unqualified, independent account of:  The collapse of reserves from +£70m to –£34.5m, a deterioration of £104.5m under this administration.  The Month 6 overspend, failure to deliver savings, and decisions leading to the Council’s effective insolvency.  An examination of the past 15 years of “delivered” savings against Council – 27 November 2025 Order of Business 15 ORDER BUSINESS Motions (continued)  budgeted savings, including whether the administration’s repeated claims of balanced budgets were in fact undelivered savings and overspends covered up by the year-on-year depletion of reserves.  The go vernance, oversight and leadership failures that enabled this financial collapse. 4. Establishing an Emergency Financial Recovery Team, working directly under the control of central government, external inspectors and statutory officers to halt further financ ial deterioration and stabilise the authority. 5. Producing a Wednesbury Compliance Report. The Monitoring Officer to provide written legal advice to Full Council setting out the personal legal risks to the Administration and all Members who voted for the February 2025 Budget, should their decisions be found to violate the Wednesbury principles of reasonableness, given the escalating negative reserves - including the additional £13.9m deterioration in the last two months alone under this Administration. To be seconded by Councillor Mathers Other speakers: Council lors Curling, Denys, Edwards, Kaur, Lavery and Mand. END OF COUNCIL MEETING At the conclusion of th e Council meeting , members of the Residents’ Services Select Committee are asked to remain behin d to elect a Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee. (The membership is comprised of Councillors: Davies, Dhot, Garelick, Gohil, Kaur, Smallwood and Singh. The proposed Chair is Councillor Smallwood , and the proposed Vice -Chair is Councillor Gohil.)