Council

Minutes COUNCIL 27 November 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: Naser Abby (in part) Shehryar Ahmad-Wallana Kaushik Banerjee Labina Basit Adam Bennett Wayne Bridges Tony Burles Keith Burrows Roy Chamdal Farhad Choubedar Peter Curling Darran Davies Nick Denys Jas Dhot Ian Edwards Scott Farley Janet Gardner Elizabeth Garelick Narinder Garg Tony Gill Ekta Gohil Becky Haggar OBE Henry Higgins Mohammed Islam Rita Judge Kamal Preet Kaur Eddie Lavery Richard Lewis Heena Makwana Gursharan Mand Kelly Martin Stuart Mathers Douglas Mills Richard Mills Peter Money Susan O'Brien Jane Palmer Sital Punja John Riley Raju Sansarpuri Jagjit Singh Peter Smallwood OBE Colleen Sullivan Jan Sweeting Steve Tuckwell OFFICERS PRESENT: Tony Zaman, Steve Muldoon, Dan Kennedy, Sandra Taylor, Lloyd White, Daniel Toohey, Mark Braddock, Morgan Einon and Nikki O'Halloran 29. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Bhatt, Bianco, Lakhmana, Nelson and Nelson-West. 30. MINUTES (Agenda Item 2) RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 September 2025 be agreed as a correct record. 31. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (Agenda Item 3) Mr Dan Toohey declared a pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 6iii - Appointment of Statutory Officer as it was in relation to his appointment, and left the room during the consideration thereof. 32. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (Agenda Item 4) The Mayor advised that he had attended a number of events and had been presented, on behalf of the Borough, with the Pro Bono Poloniae award in the presence of the Duke of Kent. He had hosted Parlour visits where he had met a range of people including volunteers and health partners. The Halloween Quiz at Hayes Cricket Club had been a great success and Members were reminded that the next quiz would take place on 12 February 2026. The Christmas lights switch on would be taking place on 28 November 2025 and would include performances from the Hillingdon Music Service and a raffle to raise money for the Mayor’s charities. 33. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (Agenda Item 5) 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?” The Mayor asked the question on behalf of Tony Ellis. Councillor Edwards advised that the budget recommendation to Cabinet in December would be that consultation be undertaken thereon. The Council had been aware of the need to implement an improvement programme and had requested engagement with CIPFA to put a plan in place. Areas had been identified which needed to be strengthened and accountability had been built in. Progress had been reported to the Audit Committee in July and Council in September, with a further update expected next year. 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 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?” The Mayor asked the question on behalf of Patricia Wardle. Councillor Edwards advised that EFS funding of £40m would not be sufficient in the long term and would be in relation to 2024/25. It was likely that the actual figure needed would be available by late December and it would help if the fair funding settlement addressed Hillingdon’s underfunding. The EFS figure would be estimated and included in the Council’s budget which would be out for consultation in December / January. 5.3 QUESTION FROM SUE MIDGLEY OF HOWLETTS LANE, RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN: “The Council predicts it will have a £78M cumulative deficit in the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) 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?” The Mayor asked the question on behalf of Sue Midgley. Councillor O’Brien advised that the DSG in-year deficit had been driven by high needs placement demand and that the cumulative deficit of around £78.4m reflected the crisis that local authorities across the country had been concerned about for years. The Council had been taking action which had resulted in the deficit reducing year-on-year, slowing the cumulative deficit. A national restructure of SEND was needed and it was anticipated that Government action would be announced to deal with the deficit. 5.4 QUESTION FROM SALLY WEBB OF LAKESIDE CLOSE, RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT – COUNCILLOR BRIDGES (ANSWERED BY FORMER PORTFOLIO HOLDER, COUNCILLOR LAVERY): “In April 2025, the Leader of the Council, Councillor 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 vital 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 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?” The Mayor asked the question on behalf of Sally Webb. Councillor Lavery advised that the Council had been clear that safety was a priority. The risk assessment was underway and mitigation measures were being taken including health and safety training for Lido staff. The investment mentioned in the question would ensure that the site complied with British safety standards and maintenance was being undertaken on the railway to ensure it was safe and enjoyable for all residents. 5.5 QUESTION FROM DANIEL O’NEILL OF ASHBURTON ROAD, RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBER 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 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 Council's bank account?” The Mayor asked the question on behalf of Daniel O’Neill. Councillor Lavery advised that the £4m adjustment existed as a result of a technical change of eligibility of one receipt which had been a necessary investment. He believed that this issue appeared to have been raised to dramatise the situation for political effect. 5.6 QUESTION FROM DAVID EDINGTON OF HOYLAKE CRESCENT, ICKENHAM TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT – COUNCILLOR BRIDGES (ANSWERED BY FORMER PORTFOLIO HOLDER, 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 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?” The Mayor asked the question on behalf of David Edington. Councillor Lavery advised that the Chrysalis Fund had been operational for more than twenty years and included playground improvements. Insofar as the budget figures were concerned, the £3m stated in the capital release report in June had been an administrative error and should have stated £1m. 34. REPORT OF THE HEAD OF DEMOCRATIC SERVICES (Agenda Item 6) i) Urgent Implementation of Decisions Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Tuckwell seconded, the motion and it was: RESOLVED: That the urgent decisions taken since the last Council; meeting in September 2025, as detailed in the report, be noted. ii) Political Groups on the Council, the Calculation of Political Balance and Committee Memberships Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Tuckwell seconded, the motion and it was: RESOLVED: 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.  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. iii) Appointment Of Statutory Officer It was noted that, since the issue of the agenda, the recruitment process for the Director of Legal and Governance had concluded and Mr Daniel Toohey had been appointed to the role. Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Tuckwell seconded, the motion and it was: RESOLVED: That the new Director of Legal and Governance, Mr Daniel Toohey, when confirmed in post, be appointed to the statutory role of Monitoring Officer of the Council. iv) Appointment of Independent Person Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Tuckwell seconded, the motion and it was: RESOLVED: 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. v) Cabinet (additional item for information only) Councillor Edwards advised Council of the changes that he had made to Cabinet and thanked Councillor Goddard for his considerable service to the Council and residents during a very difficult time. Accordingly, Members noted that: 1. w.e.f. 19 November 2025, Councillor Lavery be responsible for the Finance and Transformation Cabinet portfolio; and 2. w.e.f. 21 November 2025, Councillor Bridges became the Cabinet Member for Community and Environment. 35. POLLING DISTRICT AND POLLING PLACES REVIEW (Agenda Item 7) Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Tuckwell seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business and it was: RESOLVED: That the changes to polling places, as set out in the report, be approved. 36. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2024/25 (Agenda Item 8) Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Tuckwell seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business. Those speaking in support of the motion noted that the report provided performance comparisons to other local authorities but did not provide enough value for money comparisons. However, the report would give residents confidence as well as identify areas for improvement. The report included information in relation to housing in the Borough, the condition of Hillingdon’s roads and local procurement and identified anti- social behaviour, NEET and dry recycling as areas for improvement. The Council provided exceptionally good value for money in delivering services and reflected the hard work that had been undertaken whilst continuing to meet rising challenges. Demand for temporary accommodation had been relentless but the Temporary Accommodation Strategy would see nightly accommodation costs being capped and new leases secured. Around 3,000 housing repairs had been undertaken, planning and development services remained strong and jobs were being created. The report provided a clear account, with evidence of progress and detailing how the administration continued to put residents first. On being put to the vote, it was: RESOLVED: That the Annual Performance Report 2024/25 be noted. 37. PROPOSED ARTICLE 4 DIRECTION (Agenda Item 9) Councillor Tuckwell moved, and Councillor Edwards seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business. Immediate action was needed in relation to the development of small dwellings into houses of multiple occupation (HMOs). Time had been taken to ensure that the Article 4 direction had been developed carefully and responsibly which would result in the tightest controls in London. HMOs made up approximately 9% of the private rented sector and, although there was a need for this type of home, they had higher levels of anti-social behaviour and lower standards than in other privately rented properties. The proposal would not ban HMOs in Hillingdon, and was not about punishing landlords or restricting housing supply, but would enable planning oversight and enforcement and focus on management standards to protect local communities. For far too long, residents had watched unlicensed HMOs appearing in their neighbourhoods with landlords profiting from cramped and chaotic accommodation. A boroughwide approach would be crucial as HMOs were present in every area of Hillingdon and the safety of all residents needed to be prioritised with swift and decisive action. To ensure that the Council maintained a solid legal position, unlike other local authorities that had rushed into taking action, Hillingdon had taken its time to collect evidence to support the Article 4 direction. It was noted that the Government intended to remove some planning powers from local authorities which worked within a legislative regime that needed improvement. Concern was expressed that this removal of powers might impact on the implementation of the Article 4 directive. The opposition noted that the Labour Group had raised a motion about 18 months previously to ask that action be taken to control the rise in the number of HMOs in the Borough. This motion had been lost. As a result of this inaction, it was queried how the administration would now deal with the oversaturation of HMOs in places like the Heathrow Villages which had been decimated over the last few years. On being put to the vote, it was: RESOLVED: That: 1. the making of 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 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 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 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. 38. MEMBERS' QUESTIONS (Agenda Item 10) 10.5 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR HIGGINS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & 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?” Councillor Tuckwell advised that, as a result of Heathrow being based in the Borough, 166 Chagossian households had sought the Council’s help and that there were 100 in temporary accommodation. With this support costing around £20k per household per year, this amounted to approximately £2m. Although the Council was providing support to these households for up to twelve months, the Government would only fund the first 10 days which put long term financial pressures on port authorities. Whilst Hillingdon remained committed to supporting the Chagossians, the financial burden should not fall to Hillingdon residents. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Higgins asked if there had been an update on expected arrivals and how they would be supported. Councillor Lavery advised that a further 32 families were expected the following week which would increase the financial pressure on the Council by around £600k. These pressures were significant and Hillingdon should not shoulder the cost of national policy decisions which put an unfair burden on local residents. 10.10 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MAND TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND 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.” Councillor Lavery advised that EFS had been sought as a result of spending pressures. National pressures such as inflation and increased demand for adult social care and children’s services had increased the Council’s costs. The comment made at the September meeting had been in relation to a capitalisation mechanism which had been used to lawfully manage costs. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Mand noted that the Chief Finance Officer had advised in a Select Committee meeting in November that shortfalls would be made up of EFS in future years. If this were true, he asked whether the Council would be able to rebuild its reserves. Councillor Lavery advised that the budget was currently being developed. 10.1 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR GARDNER TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT – COUNCILLOR BRIDGES (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?” Councillor Lavery advised that fireworks could only be sold to those aged 18+ from 33 licensed vendors in Hillingdon. These sales of small fireworks did not have to be recorded and the Metropolitan Police Service was responsible for addressing the illegal use of fireworks. There was no supplementary question. 10.7 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY 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?” Councillor Palmer advised that this purchase had been strategic. The number of people in the Borough aged 65+ continued to increase so the Council had been looking ahead. Over 97% of local care home beds were occupied at all times so around 250 residents had been placed outside of the Borough. Hillingdon had established its own care company and would be upgrading to full nursing care via CQC registration in due course, providing savings for the Council and benefitting residents. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Ahmad-Wallana asked if there were any plans for similar purchases in the future. Councillor Palmer advised that Cabinet had resolved to repurpose the Council’s ‘lobster pot’ car park as a 162 bed care home. This would increase the adult social care provision and reduce reliance on expensive care placements. 10.9 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR PUNJA TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: “The 2025/26 budget relies 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 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?” Councillor Edwards confirmed that the 2025/26 Council budget had been balanced when it had been set and that it had met the legal tests in February 2025. Pressures had emerged during the year including the support that had needed to be provided to the Chagossians. The Section 151 Officer was not currently minded to issue a Section 114 notice and discussions were underway with the Government in relation to EFS funding. It seemed that the questioner had misunderstood the law and local government finance as the Council continued to take a legal and professional approach to its finances. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Punja asked why Grant Thornton had been appointed to a new contract without going through an open tender process and whether the Council would stop extending the contract now that it had run out of money. Councillor Edwards advised that Grant Thornton was a very respectable business with experience and expertise. The company had been familiar with the Council’s systems, issues and people so had been ideally suited to be appointed to the contract and had been effective in delivering the improvement programme. 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?” Councillor Tuckwell advised that the Council had taken the lead on tackling the 100 empty MoD homes in Hillingdon, some of which had been empty for more than two years. About half of the homes would soon be occupied by serving personnel and work was underway with the MoD on the other half which would need to be brought up to standard. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Bennett asked who the remaining 50 homes would be allocated to once they were back in use. Councillor Tuckwell advised that these properties would be allocated to established Hillingdon families in line with the Council’s policy. 10.11 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR KAUR TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT – COUNCILLOR BRIDGES (ANSWERED BY FORMER PORTFOLIO HOLDER, 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.” Councillor Lavery advised that the out of hours service was not being scrapped but was being refocussed as it had not been providing value for money. It would be targeting persistent disruptive nuisance and officers would be employed when needed. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Kaur noted that a downgrade was as good as a closure and asked whether this would put vulnerable residents at risk. Councillor Lavery referred Councillor Kaur to his previous answer. 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 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?” Councillor O’Brien advised that the situation had been caused by the funding arrangements. The DfE had confirmed that Hillingdon’s approach had demonstrated strong governance and provided a high quality, financially efficient SEND service. By 2026/27, it was likely that the high needs deficit would exceed all of the Council’s useable reserves. The pressure had been driven by the high demand for Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) with no funds from central Government. The safety valve deficit had not arisen as a result of the misuse of funds but related to fundamental system wide issues and the Government had not set out how SEND would be addressed. Hillingdon continued to deliver what was required. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor D Mills asked why it had been suggested by the opposition that this was the fault of the administration when expert advisors had commended the Council’s approach. Councillor O’Brien advised that analysis had been distorted for a wider audience and that the opposition had thanked officers for their work during meetings and then criticised the Council. The number of EHCPs had never been so high (3,667) and officers continued to deal with this every day. 10.12 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MATHERS TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: “Can the Leader explain how a £13.9M 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?” Councillor Edwards advised that he was unable to answer this as neither he nor officers had been able to identify this movement in any two month period (although there had been a movement between M2 and M5). By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Mathers asked if the Leader would accept that this was about budgetary failure and submit his resignation. Councillor Edwards noted that successive governments had underfunded local government. Hillingdon did not overspend and had been underfunded yet still provided services in a cost effective way. It was hoped that the new funding settlement would help. 10.4 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BURROWS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES AND PROPERTY – COUNCILLOR BIANCO (ANSWERED BY COUNCILLOR LAVERY IN COUNCILLOR BIUANCO’S ABSENCE): “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?” Councillor Lavery advised that the development had been progressing well and that it was on track for completion in January 2026 and would be open to the public in February. The Centre would provide a modern inclusive facility which included a 25m eight lane pool, gym, sports hall, 5G pitch, party rooms and a Family Hub. There was no supplementary question. 10.8 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY 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?” Councillor Edwards advised that the financial challenge had been caused by Government underfunding. The funding needed to cover all of the Council’s costs including the costs incurred from being a port authority. Accounting adjustments had shown that the depletion in funds had been quicker than expected so the Council would not be able to cope without EFS. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Sweeting asked if the Leader would publish the spending controls that had been put in place since the S114 risk had emerged. Councillor Edwards advised that spending controls were the responsibility of the Chief Executive and Section 151 Officer. 10.6 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BURLES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT – COUNCILLOR BRIDGES (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?” Councillor Lavery advised that the removal of the locking gates in parks had given residents more flexibility and there had been no resultant increases in the number of complaints or Members’ Enquiries submitted on the issue. This increase in park access had been working well. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Burles asked if the Cabinet Member had been aware of the resident who lived by Fassnidge Park who had experienced an increase in anti social behaviour. Councillor Lavery advised that he had been contacted by one resident and that Councillor Bridges would address the matter if it proved to be an issue. 39. MOTIONS (Agenda Item 11) 11.4 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR EDWARDS Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Higgins seconded, the following motion: 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 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 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. Those speaking in support of the motion noted that Wes Streeting MP had said that the condition of Hillingdon Hospital had been the worst that he had ever seen but Mount Vernon Urgent Care Unit (MVUCU) had subsequently been closed. Planning permission for the new hospital had been based on the provision of hospital services in the community. Health partners were expecting (and the new hospital would rely on) investment into the neighbourhood centres and, to this end, Hillingdon had been identified as one of the first 43 areas to pilot the neighbourhood health service programme. However, this programme would focus on how services were delivered rather than how they were funded. There had been concern raised about the NHS changes and the commitment to the programme without having funding in place to support it. A cross party approach would show the unity of the Council in securing services for Hillingdon residents. Councillor Punja moved, and Councillor Sansarpuri seconded, 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 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. 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 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. 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 funding 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. Those speaking in favour of the amendment believed that the amendment told the truth and corrected history whereas the original motion only offered outrage. The Chief Executive of The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust had advised that the Mount Vernon (MV) model had not been clinically sustainable and that it had been treating a lot of patients from outside of the Borough. It was noted that the Pembroke Centre was already providing great services and Hillingdon had been chosen to take part in the first wave of the new health hubs. The closure of the MVUCU had caused some disruption but the Borough was finally getting investment in its NHS services. The amendment acknowledged residents’ concerns but recognised that the MV site was dilapidated. The Conservatives had promised Hillingdon a new hospital but nothing had happened even when Boris Johnson had been the MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and the Prime Minister. The current Labour MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip had positioned the Hillingdon Hospital rebuild at the front of the queue and the investment had been welcomed. Those speaking against the amendment noted that MV staff did an incredible job. The amendment looked to silence residents, made no mention of the 27k signature petition that had been drawn up (no Labour Councillors had signed this petition), did not reflect residents’ voice and missed the point of the original motion. Residents were not happy that services were being taken away and it was a shame that the amendment had not sought a middle ground. The Borough wanted reassurance from the Government about when it would receive investment and plans to properly develop the hubs. The amendment was put to the vote and lost. Those speaking in support of the original motion noted that when patients attended the MVUCU, they were being seen quickly and were not adding to the congestion at Hillingdon Hospital’s Emergency Department or Urgent Treatment Centre. MV had been rated as Excellent in its CQC inspection whereas Hillingdon Hospital had been rated as Requires Improvement. MV provided a local service for local people (including those on the borders of the Borough) and it was unclear why the Unit would be closed when this would put more pressure on Hillingdon Hospital. Residents had been advised that this was a reconfiguration but this was not the case and consultation on the changes had not been undertaken. Legislation had made provision for the Secretary of State to be able to call this decision in but no action had been taken. The Government had had every opportunity to deliver health hubs but had instead now left Hillingdon residents without services instead of giving local health partners the funds and freedoms to get on with delivering these services. MVUCU should have remained open until the hubs were up and running. Those speaking against the original motion noted that the closure would be difficult for some residents as something was being taken away from them. However, there were some residents in some areas of the Borough that didn’t have any health services at all. The MVUCU had been financially unstable, costing around £1m each year which had had an impact on the whole Trust. In addition, the buildings were tired and cramped and could not provide onsite acute care. The original motion was put to the vote and it was: RESOLVED: 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 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 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. 11.1 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR GARELICK (held over from Council meeting on 11 September 2025) Councillor Garelick moved, and Councillor Mathers seconded, the following motion: That this Council recognises that the presentation and cleanliness of our residential streets across 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 frontline services such as refuse collection, street cleansing, and weed removal. Therefore, this Council 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. Those speaking in support of the motion noted that residents were frustrated, angry and embarrassed about the condition and state of Hillingdon’s streets which needed to be cleaned up. This was not thought to be the street cleaning teams’ fault but had been a short-sighted move, driven by budget cuts to deliver efficiencies which had had a big impact on residents. The Council had started to charge residents for bulky waste and green waste collections (which had proved to be a false economy) and had stopped closing some parks at night to save money. Some residents in the south of the Borough did not see street sweepers and residents had seen a sharp decline in basic services alongside an increase in their Council Tax. Residents had been submitting complaints about the litter around bus stops and shops and deserved a commitment to help restore pride in their community. Action needed to be undertaken to work with local businesses to reduce packaging and with HMO landlords. Neglected streets sent a message that no one cared about the area which then attracted fly tipping and resulted in further neglect. There were no campaigns to address the condition of the Borough’s roads and the prohibition notices on lampposts were small and no fines were issued which meant that nothing changed. The number of fly tipping hotspots had been multiplying every week and, as there were only six enforcement officers for the whole Borough, it was suggested that mobile CCTV be utilised to help deal with this increase. Those speaking against the motion noted that it did not reflect the reality of services. Complaints had reduced by 17%, £1.5m had been raised through the green waste collection charges and seven new street sweepers had been put into operation. A new Love Clean Streets app would soon be rolled out and weed spraying had been completed across the Borough. Hillingdon had been rated as the seventh best performing local authority in London for recycling and additional action was being investigated to further improve efficiency. Everyone agreed that residents deserved clean streets. Members on the Council’s Residents’ Services Select Committee had been briefed on the scale of pressures and the lack of funds and, despite this, Hillingdon had delivered exceptionally well and had continued its weekly waste collections. It was noted that fly tipping had not increased following the introduction of the green waste charge. The motion was put to the vote and lost. 11.2 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR CURLING Councillor Curling moved, and Councillor Gardner seconded, the following motion: That this Council expresses its concern and disappointment that the Labour Government have u-turned on the 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 generally enhance our biodiversity, this Council calls on the Cabinet to consider ways in which we could either introduce our own local policy on swift bricks or at least encourage developers to include them on future new builds. Those speaking in support of the motion believed that it should not be a contentious matter. Some places that birds used to nest were no longer accessible and Steve Reed MP (the former Environment Secretary) had now withdrawn his support for ‘Swift bricks’ since becoming the Housing Secretary, despite each only costing around £30. It was hoped that a local arrangement could be agreed. A new flatted development would only need 4-10 Swift bricks and a house would need about two so this would not result in huge costs. Those speaking against the motion advised that they supported wildlife and, whilst the spirit of the motion was welcomed, any action taken needed to be practical and not add complexity. The Government decision had recognised that one size would not fit all and that it would be important not to hinder home building. The requirement for Swift bricks would increase the cost of affordable homes at a time when the number of affordable homes needed to increase. Biodiversity could be delivered through a range of initiatives that could really make a difference. The motion was put to the vote and lost. 11.3 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR PUNJA Councillor Punja moved, and Councillor Mathers seconded, the following motion: 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. Those speaking in support of the motion noted that the Administration had inherited £70m of useable reserves which had now gone. Various Cabinet Members had repeatedly stated that the Council had been in a stable financial position, that Section 114 (S114) was not happening, that every London Borough had been in the same financial position, that the budget had been robust and the reserves were adequate and that EFS was prudential stewardship. The evidence of this assurance that everything was fine had been recorded despite everything not being fine and the Administration’s response to institutional failure had been to set unreasonable budgets. Over £14m of accounting adjustments had been wiped out straight away and zero savings had been delivered. The SEND deficit, high cost acquisitions and scrapping Goss had contributed to the reduction in Hillingdon’s reserves but there were questions over where the money had gone and when the non-essential spend would end. An independent audit would identify what had happened and why as it appeared that the Council’s finances had failed by choice, not chance. It was reiterated that the motion sought a S114 report, not a request to issue a S114 notice and it was queried why the motion would be rejected if the Administration had nothing to hide. The Government had cut local government to the bone for a decade yet the Administration had been blaming everyone but themselves for the Council’s current financial situation. Those speaking against the motion noted that it would force officers to spend time doing things that they did not have time for and would not meet the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness. Members had received a large amount of paperwork in relation to the last budget, the Audit Committee had been scrutinising the action being taken and progress made and all Select Committees had been looking at the budgets within their remits. The Labour motion would enable the Government to raise more money off of Hillingdon residents. It was suggested that the motion smacked of political opportunism as a S114 would be disastrous for residents and staff and should be avoided at all costs. ____________________________________ At 10.30pm, Councillor R Mills moved, and Councillor Edwards seconded, that the meeting continue so that Agenda Item 11.3 (the final item on the agenda) could be concluded. The motion was carried. ____________________________________ Councillor R Mills moved Standing Order 13j, that the question be now put. The motion was seconded by Councillor Edwards and carried. ____________________________________ The motion was put to the vote and lost. The meeting, which commenced at 7.30 pm, closed at 10.38 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Lloyd White, Head of Democratic Services on democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk. Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public.

Council – 22 January 2026 5.1 QUESTION FROM AHMAD RAFIQUE OF ABBEY CLOSE, HAYES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT – COUNCILLOR BRIDGES: Given the ongoing and well-documented issues with persistent fly-tipping and delayed waste removal across several wards in Hillingdon, can the Cabinet member explain what specific actions are being taken to improve both enforcement and the timeliness of waste clearance? Residents are increasingly frustrated that reported fly -tips often remain in place for extended periods, attracting vermin, creating health hazards, attracting further dumping, and undermining confidence in the Council’s environmental management. 5.2 QUESTION FROM TERENCE MURRAY OF OTTERFIELD ROAD, WEST DRAYTON TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING AND GROWTH – COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL: Can the Council clarify the status of the planning application at the Morrisons site in Yiewsley? Local residents believed that a planning application was approved by the Council, but the current MP for the area has released a video criticising Council Officers and saying that the Council is delaying signing off legal conditions to enable progress. 5.3 QUESTION FROM DANIEL O’NEILL OF ASHBURTON ROAD, RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR F INANCE AND TRANSFORMATIO N - COUNCILLOR LAVERY: At the September 2025 Council meeting, the then Cabinet Member for Finance described Exceptional Financial Support as an "accounting adjustment", said that "there will not be a cash cost which falls upon local re sidents", and later explained in writing that it would be "amortised over a period of 20 years". However, at the Residents' Services Select Committee in January 2026 , the Corporate Director of Finance stated, "just to be clear, EFS … is not free money … i t needs to be repaid" and that it "comes at a cost to the Council over the coming years". Given that meeting those costs over the next 20 years will fall to be met from the Council's revenue budget and therefore affects the funding available for services, does the Cabinet Member accept that, in ordinary language, this represents a cash cost borne by residents through reduced spending power for services, and can he outline the expected annual cost to the Council's budget of repaying this support over that period? QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

Council – 22 January 2026 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF DEMOCRATIC SERVICES Reporting Officer: Head of Democratic Services i) URGENT IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS RECOMMENDATION: That the Urgency decisions detailed below be noted. Information 1. The Constitution allows a Cabinet or Cabinet Member decision to be implemented before the expiry of the 5 -day scrutiny call -in period, provided the decision is deemed urgent and agreement is given from the Chairman of the relevant Select Committee that the matter is urgent and to waive the sc rutiny call-in period. All such decisions are to be reported for information only to the next full Council meeting. 2. Since last reported to Council, the following decisions have been made using urgency procedures: Date of Decision Nature of Decision Reason for Urgency Decision-Maker 5/12/25 Finance Modernisation Programme Phase 2 Contract Award - Finance Capacity & Capability This work was critical to the Council establishing a robust medium term financial strategy and budget for next year as well as supporting the ongoing audit process and the work must continue without delay. Leader of the Council, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Finance & Transformation 28/11/25 Corporate Insurance Contract Extension Due to a statutory requirement for the Council as an Employer and fleet manager to have an Employer’s Liability and Motor policy in place. In addition to this statutory requirement, the Council also has other policies to cover associated business- related risks. Insurance policies allow the Council to transfer risk to an insurer providing financial stability in case a significant loss is incurred. Leader of the Council, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Finance and Transformation 28/11/25 Housing Revenue Account New General Needs Housing Stock To acquire additional properties that will be used as social housing, thereby increasing the supply of Cabinet Member for Finance & Transformation, Cabinet Member for Council – 22 January 2026 Date of Decision Nature of Decision Reason for Urgency Decision-Maker (Housing Buy- Back Scheme) – 2025/26 Release No. 4 affordable homes for residents in Hillingdon. Corporate Services & Property, Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth Background Papers: Decision Notices ii) PROGRAMME OF MEETINGS 2026/27 RECOMMENDATION: That the programme of meetings for 202 6/27 as set out in Appendix A, be approved and the Head of Democratic Services in consultation with the Chief Whip of the Majority Party be authorised to ma ke any amendments that may be required throughout the course of the year. Members are asked to note that during the year some meeting dates / times may change, or additional meetings may be called for the effective conduct of the Council’s business. Background Papers: None Council – 22 January 2026 Programme of Meetings - 2026/27- London Borough of Hillingdon 2026 2027 Start Time May June July Aug' Sept' Oct' Nov' Dec' Jan' Feb Mar' April May COUNCIL 7:30PM 14 (AGM) 9 17 19 21 25 (Budget) 13 (AGM) Whips Meeting 5PM 7 15 17 19 23 CABINET 7PM 28 25 23 24 29 26 17 28 18 25 29 27 Shareholder Committee (on rising of Cabinet) 7:15PM 29 25 Petition Hearings – Planning, Housing & Growth 6PM 8 2 11 3 14 Petition Hearings - Community & Environment 6PM 22 18 13 10 Hillingdon Planning Committee 7PM 4 14 3 6 5 15 4 9 8 11 Pensions Committee 5PM 19 11 10 9 Audit Committee 5:10PM 28 12 30 10 26 Health & Wellbeing Board 2:30PM 9 8 1 9 Licensing Committee 10AM 3 (training) 8 6 Licensing Sub-Committee – as required TBC Children, Families and Education Select Committee 7PM 16 16 22 12 14 11 11 13 Residents' Services Select Committee 7PM 10 7 9 11 19 18 18 21 Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee 7PM 17 29 16 24 20 17 17 15 Health and Social Care Select Committee 6:30PM 18 21 30 25 12 16 16 20 Corporate Parenting Panel 5:30PM 28 20 26 27 Standards Committee 7PM 24 2 9 2 Hillingdon SACRE 6PM 30 18 25 Induction and Member Development Days 1PM - 9PM 11 TBC Council – 22 January 2026 iii) AUDIT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT Introduction 1. In line with good governance, it is essential that the Audit Committee not only meets and considers the reports and information within its remit, but also ensures that the wider Council is aware of the breadth and extent of the work it does on its behalf. The Annual Report of the Audit Committee 2024/25 contains information to be presented to Council, so that it can be assured that the Committee is acting appropriately on its behalf by providing independent assurance over the governance, risk management and the system of internal control in operation at the Council. RECOMMENDATION: That the Annual Report of the Audit Committee 2024/25, as attached, be noted. Information 2. The Annual Report summarises, for the Council, the work of the Audit Committee during 2024/25 and how it has undertaken its responsibilities for reviewing the key areas within its remit. Specifically, these include:  Internal Audit  External Audit  Counter Fraud  Risk Management  Financial reporting process of the Statement of Accounts. 3. The Annual Report also provides an opportunity for Members to review the work of the Committee and comment on its contribution and performance. The terms of reference of the Committee are detailed in the Annual Report. 4. Alongside the Councillors on the Committee, it is chaired by an independent Co- opted Member, with substantial experience in the public and private sector working in the internal audit, risk management, business improvement and governance fields. 5. In compliance with the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015, the Audit Committee has reviewed the effectiveness of the systems of internal control by receiving regular reports from these areas above that contribute to the control framework. 6. The Annual report also concludes that the Audit Committee considers that it has continued to make an appropriate contribution to helping ensure that the key elements of the governance framework are given proper consideration and are appropriately challenged. It will continue to undertake this role and contribute to improvement initiatives by encouraging management to strengthen internal control, risk management and governance throughout the authority. FINANCIAL & LEGAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial or legal implications arising directly from this report. BACKGROUND PAPERS: Nil

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE 2024/25 HILLINGDON COUNCIL AUDIT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2024/25 2. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 In line with best practice guidance, the Audit Committee is required to submit an annual report to Council outlining the Committee’s activities over the previous year. This report summarises the work of the Audit Committee during 2024/25 and how it has undertaken its responsibilities for reviewing the key areas within its remit. Specifically, these include: • Internal Audit • External Audit • Counter Fraud • Risk Management • Financial reporting process of the Statement of Accounts. 1.2 In compliance with the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015, the Audit Committee has reviewed the effectiveness of the systems of internal control , by receiving regular reports from these areas above that contribute to the control framework. This report provides an opportunity for Council Members to review the work of the Audit Committee and comment on its contribution and performance. 2. Key Activities of the Audit Committee 2.1 The Terms of Reference (ToR) of the Committee are attached at Appendix A. 2.2 During the 2024/25 municipal year, the Audit Committee met on four occasions: 30 April 2024, 28 August 2024, 20 November 2024 and 11 February 2025. 2.3 Membership and attendance of the Audit Committee comprised as follows: Member name Member appointment Meeting Attendance Mr John Chesshire (Chair) Appointed November 2017 - present Attended April 24, November 24 and February 25 Cllr Nick Denys (Vice-Chair) Appointed May 2022 - present Attended all four meetings Cllr Tony Burles Appointed May 2022 - present Attended all four meetings Cllr Henry Higgins Appointed May 2023 - present Attended August 24, November 24 and February 25 Cllr June Nelson Appointed May 2023 - present Attended April 24, August 24 and February 25. Cllr Reeta Chamdal Appointed May 2022 - May 2024 Attended April 24 Cllr Philip Corthorne Appointed May 2024 - May 2025 Attended August 24, November 24 and February 25 Reserve members Cllr Kishan Bhatt Reserve Member Attended in April 2024 Cllr Richard Lewis Reserve Member Cllr Scott Farley Reserve Member 2.4 The Audit Committee received two dedicated training sessions during 2024/25. This is a little less than in previous years given membership stability during this period. The first on the 6 November covered the role of the Audit Committee and a deep dive into the Annual Accounts process. The second session on the 18 March covered the HILLINGDON COUNCIL AUDIT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2024/25 3. Committee’s role in relation to Corporate Governance, Risk Management, Internal Audit and Counter Fraud. 2.5 The role delegated by the Council to the Audit Committee is to provide independent assurance over the governance, risk management and the system of internal control in operation at the Council. The Audit Committee has fulfilled this role by undertaking the following key activities: a) Oversight of Internal Audit • The Audit Committee oversaw the activity of the Council’s Internal Audit service to assist it in its role of monitoring the internal control, risk management and governance arrangements of the Council's operations. • During 2024/25, the Audit Committee reviewed the 2023/24 Annual Internal Audit Report and Head of Internal Audit Opinion Statement, the 2024/25 Annual Internal Audit Plan, and quarterly progress reports and operational plans. • The Audit Committee met privately with the Head of Internal Audit in line with best practice. • The Audit Committee sought assurances from the Head of Internal Audit over plan delivery, coverage, and overall performance in respect of key performance indicator results. • The Audit Committee sought explanations from the Head of Internal Audit about the recommendations emanating from ‘Limited’ or ‘No’ assurance audits and monitored the ongoing implementation of actions through the follow up process. • Finally, the Audit Committee also monitored the initial actions taken by the Internal Audit service to prepare for the Global Internal Audit Standards applicable from the 1 April 2025. The Audit Committee is satisfied that Internal Audit is effective and adds value to the Council through the professional planning and delivery of its risk-based, independent and objective assurance and advisory services. b) Oversight of External Audit • The Audit Committee has reviewed the activity of the Council’s External Auditors (Ernst & Young) to assist it in its role of monitoring the internal control and financial governance arrangements of the Council's operations. The Audit Committee has received and considered the external audit plan, progress updates and reviewed External Audit performance. • The Audit Committee met privately with Ernst & Young in line with best practice. • During 2024/25 the Audit Committee reviewed the 2022/23 Statement of Accounts, Audit Completion Report, and Value for Money report. This had been delayed from the prior year due to the ongoing national delays, which are consistent with many other local authorities. The Audit committee also received the 2022 /23 Pension Fund Audit Results Report and the 2023/24 Audit Plan. • In February 2025 the Audit Committee received the 2023/24 Statement of Accounts and d raft Audit Results report and draft Pension Fund Audit Results Report. These were finalised following the meeting and presented to the May 2025 meeting. The Audit Committee is satisfied with the Council’s External Audit arrangements during 2024/25 and the clarity, depth and approach taken by External Audit. HILLINGDON COUNCIL AUDIT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2024/25 4. c) Prevention and Detection of Fraud and Corruption • The Council operates a zero-tolerance policy towards all fraud and corruption. The Counter Fraud Team (CFT) conducts proactive and reactive counter fraud activity to highlight fraud, loss and error. This minimises the Council’s exposure to fraud and maximises its preventative savings. • The Audit Committee has received quarterly progress reports from the CFT, a detailed 2024/25 Annual Plan and Annual Report for 202 3/24. The team has responsibility for the oversight of the effectiveness of the Council’s policies and procedures to prevent and detect fraud and corruption. • The Audit Committee sought assurances from the Head of Counter Fraud over the focus and prioritisation of counter fraud activity, together with the team’s overall performance in respect of key performance indicator results. • In 2024/25, the CFT had achieved several successful outcomes, including a total of c£10.9m in loss prevention savings across Council services. These savings included the recovery of 1 12 council properties due to tenancy fraud , an 8% increase on the previous year’s outcomes. The Audit Committee is satisfied with the effectiveness of the Council’s counter fraud arrangements during 2024/25 and are pleased to see the excellent results delivered once again by the Counter Fraud Team during this period. d) Risk Management • The Audit Committee monitored the implementation of the new Risk Management system and processes throughout 202 4/25, as part of the Committee's role to independently assess the Council's risk management arrangements. • They received quarterly risk management reports, including the risk management KPIs, Corporate Risk Register, and Strategic Risk Report. Following concerns raised in February in relation to the high number of risks overdue for review, action was taken by Officers to improve performance by the year end. • The Audit Committee also explored how effectively management felt particular risks were being managed as part of its deliberations and whether some of these risks were appropriately prioritised and assessed. • In February 2025 the Audit Committee also received a dditional assurance on Transformation, Digital and Technology risk management from the Chief Operating Officer. This presentation focused on the risk management arrangements within the Corporate Services Directorate, as well as a deep-dive into the actions being taken to mitigate the biggest risks within the Directorate. The Audit Committee is satisfied that the Risk Management arrangements enable it to provide sufficient challenge to officers around the ir identification and management of the Council’s key risks. The Audit Committee recognise the ongoing evolution of risk management during this period and anticipate further embedding in the year ahead. e) Approval of Financial Accounts • Throughout 2024/25, the Audit Committee was provided with audit progress reports on the Council’s annual statement of accounts for 202 2/23 and 2023/24. This included considering whether appropriate accounting policies have been followed in relation to the accounts. HILLINGDON COUNCIL AUDIT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2024/25 5. • Weaknesses identified by External Audit in relation to financial reporting, data quality and financial sustainability were highlighted by the Audit Committee and further assurance requested from officers to ensure appropriate actions were taken to address these. • The Audit Committee also reviewed the Council’s Annual Governance Statement as part of the draft and final accounts for 2022/23 and 2023/24. The Audit Committee is concerned to see the increasing challenges and issues experienced with the production, reporting and ultimate approval of the financial accounts, together with the increase in finance-related risk during this period. It has expressed concerns to management and sought assurances that sufficient, appropriate work is being planned and undertaken to improve control, better manage financial risk and enhance the associated processes. 3. Conclusion 3.1. The Audit Committee considers that it has continued to make a n appropriate contribution to helping ensure that the key elements of the governance framework are given proper consideration and are appropriately challenged. It will continue to undertake this role and contribute to improvement initiatives by encouraging management to strengthen internal control, risk management and governance throughout the authority. HILLINGDON COUNCIL AUDIT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2024/25 6. APPENDIX A: AUDIT COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE The Constitution defines the Terms of Reference for the Audit Committee as: The Audit Committee’s role is to: • Review and monitor the Council’s audit, governance, risk management framework and the associated control environment as an independent assurance mechanism; • Review and monitor the Council’s financial and non-financial performance to the extent that it affects the Council’s exposure to risk and/or weakens the control environment; • Oversee the financial reporting process of the Statement of Accounts. Decisions in respect of strategy, policy and service delivery or improvement are reserved to the Cabinet or delegated to Officers. Internal Audit 1) Review and approve (but not direct) the Internal Audit Strategy to ensure that it meets the Council's overall strategic direction. 2) Review, approve and monitor (but not direct) Internal Audit’s planned programmes of work, paying particular attention to whether there is sufficient and appropriate coverage. 3) Through quarterly Internal Audit summary reports of work done, monitor progress against the Internal Audit Plan and assess whether adequate skills and resources are available to provide an effective Internal Audit function. Monitor the main Internal Audit recommendations and consider whether management responses to the recommendations raised are appropriate with due regard to risk, materiality and coverage. 4) Make recommendations to the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance on any changes to the Council’s Internal Audit Strategy and plans. 5) Review the Annual Report and Opinion Statement and the level of assurance this provides over the Council’s corporate governance arrangements, risk management framework and system of internal controls. 6) Consider reports dealing with the activity, management and performance of internal audit services. 7) Following a request to the Corporate Director of Finance and, subject to the approval of the Leader of the Council or Cabinet Member for Finance, to request work from Internal Audit. External Audit 8) Receive and consider the External Auditor’s annual letter, relevant reports and the report to those charged with governance. 9) Monitor management action in response to issues raised by External Audit. 10) Receive and consider specific reports as agreed with the External Auditor. 11) Comment on the scope and depth of External Audit work and ensure that it gives value for money, making any recommendations to the Corporate Director of Finance. HILLINGDON COUNCIL AUDIT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2024/25 7. 12) Be consulted by the Corporate Director of Finance over the appointment of the Council’s External Auditor. 13) Following a request to the Corporate Director of Finance and, subject to the approval of the Leader of the Council or Cabinet Member for Finance, to commission work from External Audit. 14) Monitor arrangements for ensuring effective liaison between Internal Audit and External Audit, in consultation with the Corporate Director of Finance. Governance Framework 15) Maintain an overview of the Council’s Constitution in respect of contract procedure rules and financial regulations and where necessary, bring proposals to the Leader of the Council or the Cabinet for their development. 16) Review any issue referred to it by the Chief Executive, Corporate or Executive Director, any Council body or external assurance providers including inspection agencies. 17) Monitor and review (but not direct) the authority’s risk management arrangements, including regularly reviewing the corporate risk register and seeking assurances that appropriate action is being taken on managing risk. 18) Review and monitor Council strategy and policies on anti -fraud and anti -corruption including the ‘Raising Concerns at Work’ policy making any recommendations on changes to the Leader of the Council and relevant Corporate / Executive Director. 19) Oversee the production of the authority’s Annual Governance Statement and recommend its adoption. 20) Review the Council’s arrangements for corporate governance and make recommendations to the Corporate Director of Finance on suggested actions to improve alignment with best practice. 21) Where requested by the Leader of the Council, Cabinet Member for Finance or Corporate Director of Finance, provide recommendations on the Council’s compliance with its own and other published standards and controls. Accounts 22) Review and approve the annual statement of accounts. Specifically, to consider whether appropriate accounting policies have been followed and whether there are concerns arising from financial statements or from the external auditor that need to be brought to the attention of the Council. 23) Consider the external auditor’s report to those charged with governance on issues arising from the external audit of the accounts. Review and reporting 24) Undertake an annual independent review of the Audit Committee’s effectiveness and submit an annual report to Council on the activity of the Audit Committee.

Council – 22 January 2026 STATEMENT OF LICENSING POLICY 2026-2031 Reporting Officer: Head of Democratic Services Summary 1. At the meeting on 23 December 2025, Cabinet resolved to recommend to Council the adoption of a revised Statement of Licensing Policy: London Borough of Hillingdon - Agenda for CABINET on Tuesday, 23rd December, 2025, 7.00 pm 2. The revised version has been subject to statutory consultation and includes minor updates based on changes in guidance and to reflect updated working practices. The document will provide local businesses and residents with an up-to-date and fit-for- purpose policy on Licensing matters in the Borough. 3. This report, therefore, seeks Council’s agreement to adopt the revised Policy, as one of the Council’s policy framework documents. RECOMMENDATION: That the revised Statement of Licensing Policy be adopted as a policy framework document. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 4. During 2025, a review of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy was undertaken, as required every 5 years under legislation. Cabinet on 18 September 2025 agreed to consult on a revised version. The formal consultation period commenced on 22 September 202 5 and ended on 3 November 2025 and included responsible authorities, other stakeholders, the Licensing Committee and Residents’ Services Select Committee. 5. Since January 2021, there have been only minor changes to legislation and guidance and as such there are a few changes proposed to this policy. This has been incorporated into the revised policy. In summary, the changes relate to:  Amendments to relevant dates, team names and original typographical errors and statistics.  New paragraphs and sections added, such as Environmental Best Practice, Agent of Change Principle, Counter Terrorism, Spiking, ‘Ask For Angela’ and Pavement Licensing.  Further details and clarity being prov ided in existing sections relating to Integration with other Strategies, Representations, Planning, Remote and Internet Sales and Protection of Children from Harm.  Amendments and updates to legislation, technical standards and examples of measures detailed in Appendices. 6. The Licensing Authority received 10 submissions during the consultation. These included 3 from Responsible Authorities: Home Office – Immigration, Food Health & Safety and the Anti-Social-Behaviour Team. 7. The revised Policy continues to provide the Council with a local licensing framework that is up -to-date and effective in ensuring a safe and regulated environment for Council– 22 January 2025 service users of licenced establishments. It also ensures that there are methods for robust enforcement and review of problem licenced premises. 8. The Cabinet report and Policy, setting out the rationale for the document’s adoption, is attached including the comments from the Licensing Committee and Residents’ Services Select Committee. Financial Implications 9. Any costs associated with the proposed adoption of the Statement of Licensing Policy will be funded from licence fees and therefore contained within existing revenue budgets. There have been no legislative changes to the set licensing fees for licence applications. The fees remain statutory and have not been amended since the Licensing Act was brought into force in November 2005. Legal Implications 10. Legal Services confirm that the main points from the relevant legal framework are already included in the body of the report. Section 5 of the Licensing Act 2003 requires the Council to determine its policy with respect to the exercise of its licensing functions and publish a statement of that policy every 5 years. 11. Section 5 also outlines the requirement to co nsult before determining its policy for a 5-year period, listing mandatory consultees. In addition to these statutory requirements, the consultation must fulfil established public law principles on consultation, namely fairness and adequacy. The Cabinet report outlines the level of consultation that was carried out. The consultation responses were also included within the Cabinet report. Under the established public law principles, the decision maker, when deciding whether to approve the recommendation to adopt the updated Statement of Licensing Policy, must ensure that conscientious consideration has been given to the consultation responses. Within th e Cabinet report, the comments received in the consultation have been addressed and the action, or lack th ereof, in light of them has been explained. 12. The Council must also be mindful of its public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. To this end, an equalities impact assessment has been carried out and is included with the Cabinet report. Also, there is reference within the final Statement of Policy itself to the public sector equality duty. Notwithstanding, the public sector equality duty is an ongoing duty, and the Council should continue to review compliance an d act accordingly, which may, if circumstances necessitate it, entail an early review of the Statement of Licensing Policy. 13. If the Council proceeds to adopt the Statement of Licensing Policy, it must adhere to it and apply it in a consistent manner. Background Papers: Final version Statement of Licensing Policy 2026-2031;

Statement of Licensing Policy The Licensing Act 2003 Effective – January 2026 to January 2031 Contents 1. Introduction and Background Page 2 2. Policy Statement Page 2 3. Consultation Page 3 4. General principles & role of the Licensing Authority Page 4 5. Integration of Strategies Page 4 6. Partnership Working and Initiatives Page 7 7. Environmental Best Practices Page Page 8 8. Equality Duty Page 8 Policy Page 1 9. Immigration Act Page 9 10. Modern Day Slavery Page 10 11. Counter-Terrorism Page 10 12. Licensing Objectives – Prevention of Crime & Disorder Page 10 13. Licensing Objectives – Public Safety Page 13 14. Licensing Objectives – Prevention of Public Nuisance Page 14 15. Licensing Objectives – Protection of Children from Harm Page 16 16. Public Health & Licensing Page 18 17. Licensing Committee Page 18 18. Authorisations and Applications Page 19 19. Representations Page 21 20. The Role of Ward Councillors Page 24 21. Decision Making and Licensing Hearings Page 25 22. Licence Conditions Page 26 23. Enforcement Page 27 24. Reviews Page 28 25. Cumulative Effect Page 29 26. Mobile, Remote and Internet Sales Page 30 27. Licensing Hours Page 31 28. Exemptions Page 32 Appendix A – Table of Delegations Page 33 Appendix B – Prevention of Crime & Disorder Page 34 Appendix C – Public Safety Page 38 Appendix D – Prevention of Public Nuisance Page 40 Appendix E – Protection of Children from Harm Page 43 Appendix F – List of Responsible Authorities Page 44 Appendix G – Current Mandatory Conditions Page 46 Appendix H – Map of London Borough of Hillingdon Page 50 Annex A – Ward Councillor Representations Page 51 Policy Page 2 1. Introduction & Background 1.1. Hillingdon is the second largest of London’s 33 Boroughs. More than half of Hillingdon's 42 square miles is made up of countryside, including canals, rivers, parks and woodland. It shares its borders with Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hounslow, Ealing, and Harrow. In addition to Heathrow Airport, Hillingdon is also home to the RAF airport at RAF Northolt. 1.2. As of 2025, the London Borough of Hillingdon has an approximate population of 304,800 residents. The Borough is made up of a total of 21 Wards which is shown in Appendix H of this Policy. 1.3. The London Borough of Hillingdon is the Licensing Authority under the Licensing Act 2003 and is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the provisions relating to: • Alcohol sales/supplies • Regulated Entertainment • Late Night Refreshment 1.4. The London Borough of Hillingdon currently has approximately 900 premises authorisations in force and 5200 personal licences held by individuals. 2. Policy Statement 2.1. The Licensing Authority exercises a range of responsibilities , including helping to develop a thriving food, drink and entertainment economy whilst safeguarding the local community against issues which may arise from licensed premises. 2.2. The London Borough of Hillingdon is required by Section 5 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) to determine and publish a statement of licensing policy at least once every five years. The Licensing Policy will provide the Licensing Authority with the fundamental principles in respect of carrying out its licensing functions. 2.3. The Policy is also intended to inform applicants, residents and other stakeholders about the way in which the Licensing Authority will make decisions and the operating standards expected from licensed premises in accordance with the licensing objectives. 2.4. In determining its policy, the Council will take into account the Secretary of State's Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (last updated on 27 th February 2025). Policy Page 3 2.5. In respect of all licensing functions and determination of any licensing policy, the Council has a duty to promote the four licensing objectives: • The prevention of crime and disorder; • The protection of children from harm; • The prevention of public nuisance; and • Public safety. Each objective is of equal importance. 2.6. Determining and publishing a statement of its policy is a licensing function and so the Licensing Authority must have regard to the Guidance issued under Section 182 of the 2003 Act. The Licensing Authority may depart from this policy if the individual circumstances of any case merit such a decision in the interests of the promotion of the licensing objectives. However, if this is done then the Licensing Authority shall give full reasons for departing from its policy. 3. Consultation 3.1. In reviewing the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Council sought observations and comments from the following persons, organisations and groups and their comments have been incorporated into this policy where relevant: • Chief Officer of Police for Hillingdon • London Fire Brigade • Chief Planning Officer • Hillingdon Safeguarding Children Board • Health and Safety Executive and Hillingdon’s Health and Safety Enforcement Team • Public Health • Trading Standards • Enforcing Authority for Public Nuisance (Environmental Protection Team) • Bodies representing holders of current authorisations • Resident's Associations • Ward Members • Hillingdon’s Anti-Social Behaviour Investigations Team • Transport for London (TfL) • The London boroughs of Hounslow, Harrow, Ealing • The borough councils of South Bucks, Three Rivers, Spelthorne, Slough • Hillingdon Arts Council • Individuals who have requested a copy of the draft policy • Home Office - Immigration Policy Page 4 4. General Principles and the Role of the Licensing Authority 4.1. The role of the Licensing Authority is to ensure control of the licensable activities at licensed premises, qualifying clubs, temporary events and the conduct of the personnel involved with the licensable activities as required under the 2003 Act. 4.2. Conditions attached to the Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates granted by the Licensing Authority will relate to the licensing objectives and matters over which the Premises Licence Holder or Club Management Committees have direct control. 4.3. The focus will be on the licensed premises and the activities in the vicinity of those premises. Those activities , on licensed premises , that have a direct impact on members of the public living, working or engaged in normal activities in the area , fall within the scope of the licensing regime. 4.4 Anti-social behaviour of patrons in and around a licensed premises and disturbance or nuisance which can be proved to be emanating from particular premises will be a consideration for the Licensing Authority in its enforcement and decision-making role. 5. Integration of Strategies 5.1. Many people and organisations are involved with, or affected by, the ways in which licensed premises are operated. Most are involved, directly or indirectly, in the promotion of the licensing objectives, particularly those relating to the prevention of cri me and disorder and public nuisance. Amongst the various stakeholders there will be a wide range of strategies that relate to, or are influenced by, the exercise of the Council’s licensing function. 5.2. The Licensing Authority recognises that this P olicy does not operate in isolation. The Licensing Authority will seek to integrate its approach with a range of local strategies and initiatives that support the promotion of the licensing objectives and the wider public interest. These include, but are not limited to: • Uxbridge Town Centre Vision and other town centre plans – detailing a long-term plan for more opportunities for local residents and businesses to ensure that local town centres continue to thrive. • Public Spaces Protection Order 2025, May 2025 (PSPO) – addressing anti-social behaviour in designated areas. • Public Health Strategies – reducing alcohol -related harm and promoting community wellbeing. Policy Page 5 • Community Safety and Policing Strategies – tackling crime, disorder, and safeguarding concerns. • Local Planning and Regeneration Frameworks – ensuring consistency between licensing and land use planning. • Youth and Vulnerability Strategies – protecting children and vulnerable adults from harm. The Licensing Authority will work collaboratively with responsible authorities, local partnerships, and community stakeholders to ensure that licensing decisions contribute positively to these wider aims. 5.3. The Licensing Authority recognises the need to avoid, so far as possible, duplication with other regulatory regimes. Some regulations, however, do not cover the unique circumstances of some licensable activities . The Licensing Authority will consider attaching conditions to Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates where: these are appropriate, reasonable and proportionate for the promot ion of the licensing objectives; these are not already provided for in any other legislation; these are not contained within the applicant’s operating schedule; and if there are relevant representations 5.4. The Licensing Committee will be prepared to accept reports from other relevant departments of the Council regarding the state of the borough. These reports may include contributions from those responsible for the promotion of tourism, cultural development, planning, transport, reduction of crime or anti-social behaviour, community safety, social, and health and community development. This should enable the various agencies or departments with their own strategies, aims and objectives to keep the Licensing Committee aware of the wider picture in pursuance of the licensing objectives. 5.5. Planning and public nuisance legislation carry the highest risk of duplication within the Licensing regime. While licence conditions should not duplicate other statutory provisions, licensing authorities and licensees should be mindful of requirements and responsibilities placed on them by other legislation. Relevant legislation may include the following: • The Gambling Act 2005 • The Environmental Protection Act 1990 • The Noise Act 1996 • The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environmental Act 2005 • The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 • The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 • The Equality Act 2010 • The Immigration Act 2016 • Regulators’ Code under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 Policy Page 6 Planning 5.6. The licensing function is and should remain distinct from the Planning process. It will be for the planning process to determine land/building use decisions and the marketplace to determine need for particular types of premises/activities. Licensing decisions will be made with regard to the furtherance of the Licensing Objectives with regard to the particular use sought. However, it is strongly recommended that applicants ensure that: • The proposed licensable activities do not contravene planning legislation; and • The hours sought are within the limits authorised by any planning permission. 5.7. Whilst licensing and planning functions are distinct and operate under separate legislative frameworks, licensing committees are not bound by decisions made by planning committees, and vice versa. Nevertheless, in accordance with Government guidance and best practice, the Licensing Authority will seek to engage in constructive dialogue with planning counterparts. This collaborative approach aims to promote consistency in decision -making, particularly in relation to the design of licensed premises and operating hours. 5.8. The Licensing Authority recognises the ‘Agent of Change’ principle. This principle places the responsibility for mitigating the impact of new development on the party introducing the change. For instance, if a residential development is proposed near an existing licensed premises (such as a late- night entertainment premises), it is the responsibility of the developer — not the venue — to ensure that appropriate noise mitigation measures are in place. The Licensing Authority will work closely with the Council’s Planning, Environmental Protection and Anti -Social Behaviour Teams to ensure a joined-up approach to managing noise and other potential conflicts between new developments and existing licensed premises. Applicants for new developments near licensed premises are encouraged to engage early with both planning and licensing authorities to address potential impacts. The Licensing Authority recognises that this principle helps protect the cultural and economic value of established venues while ensuring that new developments are appropriately designed to coexist with their surroundings. Enforcing Authority for Public Nuisance 5.9. The Environmental Protection Unit is charged with enforcing regulations relating to Public Nuisance and is also a responsible authority for Public Nuisance matters under the 2003 Act. Policy Page 7 5.10. It is accepted that the Licensing Authority will often work hand in hand with the Environmental Protection Unit where nuisance related issues occur at licensed premises. Whilst the Licensing Authority has a duty to uphold the prevention of public nuisance, it should be recognised that this duty will not replace the Licensing Authority’s responsibilities under other legislation. 6. Partnership Working and Initiatives 6.1. The Licensing Authority encourages work between the Licensing Authority, relevant authorities such as Police, Environmental Health, and Trading Standards, and the licence holder themselves in order to solve licensing problems and to promote the licensing objectives. 6.2. Groups representing licence holders are encouraged to participate in their local crime and disorder reduction partnerships, such as Pubwatch schemes. 6.3. The Licensing Authority has a duty to work with all partners in order to deliver the promotion of the licensing objectives. Business Improvement Districts 6.4. The Licensing Authority support and encourage further developments for Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) where partnership arrangements and joint responsibility are formed with local businesses and stakeholders. BIDs can play an important and positive role in discussing and tackling local issues and they have the ability to put forward appropriate schemes that are of benefit to the community. More information on BIDs can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/business-improvement- districts-guidance-and-best-practice Best Bar None 6.5. The Licensing Authority recognise the value of the Best Bar None Scheme in improving standards in the Evening and Nighttime Economy. For example, they reduce alcohol related crime and disorder, build positive relationships between the licensed trade, police and local authorities and responsible owners are recognised and able to share good practice with others. Furthermore, they promote the town or city as a safe and vibrant city to go at night and show a willingness to address alcohol related crime and anti-social behaviour through the promotion of good practice and education. More information on Best Bar None can be found at: https://bbnuk.com Policy Page 8 Purple Flag 6.6. The Licensing Authority acknowledge that that Purple Flag status, an accreditation recognising a well managed night time economy, can bring real benefits which include: • A raised profile and an improved public image for the location • A wider patronage, increased expenditure • Lower crime and anti-social behaviour • A more successful mixed use economy in the longer term More information on Purple Flag can be found at: https://www.atcm.org/purple-flag 7. Environmental Best Practice 7.1. The Licensing Authority recognises the importance of promoting environmental sustainability and encourages licence holders and applicants to adopt environmentally responsible practices. These may include but are not limited to: • Reducing single-use plastics, especially in drinkware and packaging • Managing waste responsibly such as implementing recycling and waste separation schemes • Minimising energy and water consumption • Sourcing products locally and sustainably • Carrying out food waste reduction measures 8. Equality Duty 8.1. The Licensing Authority have a public sector equality duty in relation to the following protected characteristics: • Age • Disability • Sex • G ender reassignment • S exual orientation • Pregnancy and maternity • Race • R eligion or belief 8.2. Under Section 149 of the Equality Act 201 0 a Public Authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:- Policy Page 9 (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited under the 2010 Act (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it 8.3. The Licensing Authority has considered the Equality and Diversity issues that may arise from the Policy . The Licensing Authority considers that this policy does not raise any concerns with regards to equality and diversity. 9. Immigration Act 9.1. Following the implementation of the Immigration Act 2016, the Licensing Authority will ensure that the “Entitlement to Work” test is checked and scrutinised for Personal Licence Holders and individual Premises Licence Holders where the Premises Licence permits the sale of alcohol or late night refreshment. 9.2. Where an individual holding a Premises Licence within the Borough ceases to be entitled to work in the United Kingdom on or after 6 th April 2017, the Premises Licence lapses immediately and will lapse completely unless transferred or an Interim Authority is lodged within 28 days of when the individual’s right to work ended. 9.3. A Personal Licence issued by the Licensing Authority will lapse when an individual is no longer entitled to work in the United Kingdom on or after 6 th April 2017. 9.4. The Licensing Authority will work closely with the Home Office Immigration Enforcement (HIOE) as a Responsible Authority. The Licensing Authority will advise the HIOE where applicants have committed immigration offences and furthermore provide the HIOE assistance when entering and carrying out their enforcement duties at licensed premises within the Borough. 9.5. From 1 st July 2021, EEA citizens and their family members are required to demonstrate lawful immigration status in the UK in order to prove their right to work. An EEA passport or national identity card alone is no longer sufficient as these documents confirm nati onality but not immigration status. The Licensing Authority shall ensure that applicants provide appropriate evidence of their right to work in the UK, in line with Home Office requirements applicable to all foreign nationals. The Licensing Authority shall treat all applicants in the same way during the application process and shall not discriminate against anyone. The Licensing Authority shall ensure that the process will be carried out in a fair, transparent and consistent way. Policy Page 10 10. Modern Day Slavery 10.1. The Licensing Authority acknowledges the implementation of the Modern Day Slavery Act 2015 and will therefore fully take on their responsibilities and statutory duties under the 2015 Act 10.2. This Licensing Authority recognises the role it can play in proactively preventing modern slavery, which includes consideration of:- • Identification and referral of victims during inspections and visits • Reporting and referring for investigation via the National Crime Agency’s national referral mechanism any of its licence holders or managers of premises as a cause for concern • Assisting partners with community safety services and disruption activities. 11. Counter-Terrorism 11.1. Applicants for premises licences are encouraged to consider: • Undertaking a terrorism threat risk assessment to ensure that any security related concerns are identified and, appropriate reasonable and proportionate steps are taken to reduce any risks from a terrorist attack, and • Undertaking an ACT security plan, including completion of a preparedness plan, information sharing and training. 11.2. More relevant information and advice regarding counter -terrorism measures can be found on the Protect UK Website: www.protectuk.police.uk 12. Licensing Objectives - The Prevention of Crime and Disorder 12.1. Licensed premises, especially those offering late night/early morning entertainment, alcohol and refreshment, can be a source of crime and disorder. The Licensing Authority will expect operating schedules to satisfactorily address these issues from the des ign of the premises through to the daily operation of the business. Applicants are recommended to seek advice from the Police Licensing Officer and Licensing Authority Officers prior to making any application as early advice can alleviate representations being made once an application is submitted. Full contact details for both are contained within the Responsible Authorities contact in Appendix F. 12.2. Applicants should, where appropriate, take account of local planning and transport policies, and tourism, cultural and crime prevention strategies, when preparing their operating plans and schedules. Policy Page 11 12.3. Where a number of premises may be in close proximity it may be difficult to attribute the disorder to patrons of particular premises, however there is a duty on Premises Licence Holders or Club Management Committees to act responsibly to ensure their own customers do not contribute to crime and disorder whilst in their premises and in the vicinity of their premises. 12.4. When addressing crime and disorder, the applicant should identify any particular issues that are likely to affect adversely the promotion of the crime and disorder objective. They should then include in the operating schedule how they will deal with those matters. 12.5. Operating schedules should then show how they will address the issues identified. Further guidance on these measures is contained in Appendix B. 12.6. Applications referred to the Licensing Sub- Committee where relevant representations have been received will be determined on the individual merit of each case. The Licensing Sub- Committee has the power to impose specific conditions when considered appropriate in respect of the Crime and Disorder objective. 12.7. The Council’s Licensing Officers will work closely with the Metropolitan Police Service to ensure licence conditions are met , matters relating to crime and disorder are resolved, and that licensed premises are being operated according to the requirements of the 2003 Act. 12.8. Following the grant of a premises licence, the Metropolitan Police Service, Elected Members and/or interested parties such as local residents and Ward Councillors can apply to the Licensing Author ity for a review of the licence if they consider that the Prevention of Crime and Disorder objective has not been met and is relevant. 12.9. When making decisions about an application the Licensing Sub- Committee will have regard to the Borough’s Crime Prevention Strategy and any conditions attached to licences or certificates will so far as possible reflect local crime prevention strategies 12.10. High risk or poorly managed premises will be subject to a higher frequency of inspections than low risk and well managed premises. Some of these inspections will be unannounced and conducted whilst the premises are in use for the purpose of the licence. 12.11. In the interest of public order and the prevention of terrorism, the Licensing Authority would expect that for significant events, a comprehensive risk assessment is undertaken by premises licence holders to ensure that crime and disorder and public safety matters are identified and addressed. Accordingly, for premises that wish to stage promotions, or events ( see examples set out in Appendix B), the Licensing Authority recommends those applicants address the Risk Assessment and debrief processes in their operating schedule. Policy Page 12 12.12. The Licensing Authority strongly encourages applicants to carry out a detailed and thorough risk assessment when carrying out promotions or events. Where the risk assessment identifies significant risks for an event or promotion then the Licensing Authorit y would normally expect the applicant to consult with the Police and the Licensing Authority. 12.13. Personal Licence applicants will have to meet specific standards with regard to their suitability. There are a number of obligations on Personal Licence Holders , including those who are named as Designated Premises Supervisors, the breach of which could mean appearing before the Magistrates Court. 12.14. Spiking — whether through the addition of drugs or alcohol to a person's drink or through other means — is a serious criminal offence and poses significant risks to public safety. The Licensing Authority expect relevant licensed premises such as late- night venues to take proactive steps to prevent and respond to incidents of spiking. These may include: • Staff training to identify signs of spiking and respond appropriately • Clear signage informing patrons about the risks of spiking and encouraging vigilance • Availability of drink covers or testing kits, where appropriate • Robust incident reporting procedures, including liaison with police and local safeguarding teams • Safe spaces or welfare areas for individuals who may be vulnerable or affected Where appropriate and proportionate the Licensing Authority may consider imposing specific conditions to ensure the licensing objectives are being fully promoted. 12.15. The Licensing Authority supports initiatives such as “Ask For Angela” and similar schemes as part of its commitment to promoting the licensing objectives. “Ask for Angela” is a nationally recognised safeguarding initiative that enables individuals who feel unsafe, vulnerable, or threatened in licensed premises to discreetly seek help. By approaching staff and asking for “Angela,” trained personnel are alerted to provide assistance. This support may include: escorting the individual to a safe space, contacting venue security or emergency services, reuniting them with friends or family and/or arranging safe transport home. The Licensing Authority shall encourage relevant licences premises to: • Display “Ask For Angela” posters prominently • Ensure staff receive Welfare and Vulnerability Engagement (WAVE) training Policy Page 13 • Include the scheme in their operating schedules • Maintain clear procedures for recording and responding to safeguarding concerns • The Licensing Authority may consider the adoption of the “Ask for Angela” scheme as a condition of licence where appropriate and proportionate, particularly for venues operating late at night. 13. Licensing Objectives - Public Safety 13.1. The 2003 Act covers a range of premises and activities, including cinemas, concert halls, theatres, nightclubs, public houses, cafes/restaurants and fast food outlets/takeaways. Each of these types of premises present a mixture of risks to public safety, with many common to most premises and others unique to specific operations. It is essential that premises are constructed or adapted and operated so as to acknowledge and safeguard occupants against these risks. 13.2. The Licensing Authority will expect operating schedules to satisfactorily address these issues and applicants are advised to seek advice from the Borough’s Licensing Officers and the London Fire Brigade ( contact details can be found in A ppendix F) before preparing their plans and schedules. Where an applicant identifies an issue relating to public safety (including fire safety) that is not covered by existing legislation, the applicant should identify in their operating schedule the steps that they will take to ensure public safety. Where representations are received and upheld at a hearing, the Licensing Authority will consider attaching conditions to licences and permissions to promote safety. 13.3. Appendix C provides a list of examples of measures to promote Public Safety. 13.4. If relevant representations are received from a Responsible Authority, Elected Members or interested parties the application will be determined by a Licensing Sub-Committee. 13.5. Applications referred to the Licensing Sub-Committee will be determined on the individual merit of each case. The Licensing Sub-Committee have the power to impose specific conditions when considered necessary in respect of the Public Safety objective. 13.6. Following the grant of a premises licence, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Elected Members and/or the Enforcing Authority within the meaning given by section 18 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and/or interested parties such as local residents and businesses can apply to the Licensing Authori ty for a review of the licence if they consider that the Public Safety objective has not been met. 13.7. The Licensing Authority's Licensing Officers will conduct inspections of licensed premises to ensure that the approved safety standards are being maintained and that licence conditions are being complied with. Policy Page 14 13.8. High risk or poorly managed premises will therefore be subject to a higher frequency of inspections than low risk and well managed premises. Some of these inspections will be unannounced and conducted whilst the premises are in use for the purpose of the licence. 13.9. The Council’s Licensing Officers, Fire Safety Officers and Health & Safety Officers will work closely together to resolve matters relating to public safety in licensed premises. 14. Licensing Objectives - The Prevention of Public Nuisance 14.1. Licensing Sub- Committees will be mindful that licensed premises, especially those operating late at night and in the early hours of the morning, can cause a range of nuisances impacting on people living, working or sleeping in the vicinity of the premises. When addressi ng public nuisance, the applicant should identify any particular issues that are likely to affect adversely the promotion of the licensing objective to prevent public nuisance. They should then include in the operating schedule how they will deal with those matters. The concerns mainly relate to noise nuisance from within the premises or from the use of any outside areas, light pollution, smoke and noxious smells. This may also include patrons outside a premises and the dispersal of customers. Due regard will be given to the impact these may have and the Licensing Authority will expect operating schedules to satisfactorily address these issues. 14.2. Appendix D provides a list of examples of relevant issues relating to public nuisance and considerations to be made to prevent such nuisance occurring. 14.3. Applicants should give particular consideration to measures to reduce the occurrence of public nuisance associated with accommodating smokers outside the premises following the introduction of smoke free areas in enclosed or substantially enclosed places. 14.4. In relation to smoking outside licensed premises, it is expected that: • Suitable receptacles for customers will be provided and maintained to dispose of cigarette litter in areas used, or likely to be used, for smoking • Licensees will take all reasonable steps to discourage smoking on the public highway close to residential premises, particularly after 10pm. This could include measures such as a ban on customers taking drinks outside on to the public highway, the use of door supervisors, or imposing a time after which re- admissions to the premises will not be permitted • Garden areas are to be cleared at a reasonable time where not doing so could cause nuisance to neighbouring residents. • Appropriate signage is to be displayed prominently at the premises Policy Page 15 14.5. Where an application includes provision of a smoking shelter then the Licensing Authority strongly advises that the applicant includes measures in their operating schedule to fully addres s any potential disturbance to neighbouring residential premises. The shelter shall be fully compliant with Smoke Free legislation. 14.6. If relevant representations are received from a Responsible Authority, Elected Members or interested parties, the application will be determined by a Licensing Sub-Committee. 14.7. Applications referred to the Licensing Sub-Committee will be determined on the individual merit of each case. The Licensing Sub-Committee have the power to impose specific conditions when considered necessary in respect of the Prevention of Public Nuisance objective. 14.8. Following the grant of a premises licence, the Council’s Environmental Protection Unit, Elected Members and/or interested parties such as local residents and businesses can apply to the Licensing Authority for review of the licence if they consider that the Prevention of Public Nuisance objective has not been met. 14.9. The Licensing Authority's Licensing Officers will conduct inspections of licensed premises to ensure that the conditions relating to the prevention of public nuisance are being complied with. 14.10. High risk or poorly managed premises will therefore be subject to a higher frequency of inspections than low risk and well managed premises. Some of these inspections will be unannounced and conducted whilst the premises are in use for the purpose of the licence. 14.11. The Council's Licensing Officers and Environmental Protection Officers will work closely with the Council's Anti-Social Behaviour Investigations Team, requesting monitoring visits of specific premises and receiving feedback regarding the witnessing of statutory noise and public nuisance or the breach of licence conditions. 15. Licensing Objectives - The Protection of Children from Harm 15.1. The Licensing Authority is committed to ensuring that licensed premises operate in a manner that safeguards children from harm. This includes physical, psychological, and moral harm, and extends to concerns such as underage drinking, exposure to adult cont ent, and child sexual exploitation. 15.2. The Licensing Authority believes that it is completely unacceptable to sell alcohol to children. Applicants should demonstrate how they will promote this objective in their operating schedules. Measures may Policy Page 16 include: Challenge 25 or similar age verification policies, staff training on safeguarding and identifying vulnerable children, restrictions on access to certain areas or times and clear signage and supervision arrangements. Other considerations can be found in Appendix E of this Policy. 15.3. The Licensing Authority strongly encourages participation in safeguarding initiatives such as: ‘Ask for Angela’, WAVE (Welfare and Vulnerability Engagement) training and reporting and recording concerns to the police or Safeguarding Teams. 15.4. The range of ‘licensed premises’ under the 2003 Act is very broad. It includes pubs, cinemas, theatres, restaurants, off licences etc. 15.5. Under the 2003 Act, unaccompanied children under the age of 16 are not allowed on premises such as public houses which are used exclusively or primarily for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises. 15.6. This restriction does not apply to premises such as restaurants and bowling alleys etc. where the supply of alcohol is not the principal use of the premises. However, unaccompanied children under the age of sixteen are not permitted in such premises betw een the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. Admission of children will always be at the discretion of those managing the premises unless specifically prohibited by way of licence conditions. 15.7. Where applicants are proposing adult entertainment, they must make it clear in their operating schedule about the details of the activity or event and times so that it can be determined when it is not appropriate for children to enter the premises. Applicant should consider the proximity of their premises to schools and youth clubs and ensure that any advertising is not displayed at a time where children are likely to by close by.. Applicants are advised to contact the Safeguarding Children and Quality Assurance t eam or the Licensing Team directly to seek advice prior to submitting their application. 15.8. It is recognised that the Mandatory Conditions attached to premises licences where alcohol is sold/supplied must have in place an age verification scheme. The Licensing Authority would normally expect this scheme to include a challenge for photo identification to all persons who appear to be under the age of 25 years, i.e. 'Challenge 25'. 15.9. If relevant representations are received from a Responsible Authority, Elected Members or interested parties the application will be determined by a Licensing Sub-Committee. 15.10. Applications referred to the Licensing Sub-Committee will be determined on the individual merit of each case. The Licensing Sub-Committee have the power to impose specific conditions when considered necessary in respect of the Protection of Children from Harm objective. Policy Page 17 15.11. Following the grant of a premises licence, the Council’s Safeguarding Children and Quality Assurance t eam, Elected Members and/or interested parties such as local residents and businesses can apply to the Licensing Authori ty for a review of the licence if they consider that the Protection of Children from Harm objective has not been met. 15.12. The Licensing Authority's Licensing Officers will conduct inspections of licensed premises to ensure that the conditions relating to the protection of children from harm are being complied with. 15.13. High risk or poorly managed premises will therefore be subject to a higher frequency of inspections than low risk and well managed premises. Some of these inspections will be unannounced and conducted whilst the premises are in use for the purpose of the licence. 15.14. The Licensing Authority will expect that each operator dealing in the sale and supply of alcohol implements a proof of age policy in line with the Mandatory Licence conditions. The Licensing Authority expects premises licence holders to ensure that their staff are adequately trained and in every case where there is any doubt as to whether the customer is aged eighteen or over operate on a ‘No ID, No sale’ basis. 15.15. It is expected that all refusals of alcohol shall be recorded by the operator in a Refusal or Incident Log. This Log shoul d be made available for inspection to a Police Officer or authorised officer from the Local Authority when requested. 15.16. Trading Standards Officers and Police Officers will carry out test purchases of alcohol using young volunteers. Where sales are made, enforcement action will be taken against all responsible persons. 15.17. The Licensing Authority shall maintain close contact with the police, trading standards and Youth Justice Teams concerning any unlawful sales at premises and reports of consumption of alcohol by minors. Children’s access to cinemas 15.18. The Licensing Authority accepts that the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is the recognised authority in categorising films. It therefore accepts the BBFC classifications with respect of children’s films. The Licensing Authority will expect applicants to include in their operating schedules arrangements for restricting children from viewing age-restricted films classified according to BBFC recommendations. Children and Regulated Entertainment 15.19. There are many kinds of regulated entertainment which are specifically arranged for children, such as plays, concerts, and film shows, some of Policy Page 18 which may be school based. When it is proposed to present an entertainment specifically for children, then additional safety measures may need to be considered. The Council’s Licensing Officers and the Safeguarding Children and Quality Assurance t eam are able to offer advice and guidance in respect of such presentations and organisers of such events are encouraged to seek such advice. 16. Public Health & Licensing 16.1. The Director of Public Health in Hillingdon is a responsible authority under the 2003 Act and may make representations in respect of premise licence applications and club premise certificates and may also apply to review premise licences and certificates. 16.2. Public Health may hold useful information which may be used by them to make representations in their own right or to support representations by other r esponsible authorities. Thes e representations can potentially be made on the grounds of all four licensing objectives. 16.3. A range of public health issues may relate directly to one or more of the Licensing Objectives; for example, violent assaults, cases of alcohol poisoning at licensed premises, or issues with loud noise emanating from premises. 16.4. Public Health may record data where intoxication of patrons at specific premises has led to accidents and injuries from violence, including those resulting in attendances at emergency departments and the use of ambulance services. Some of these incidents will be reported to the police, but many will not. This information can be relevant to the public safety, public nuisance and crime and disorder objectives. 16.5. The Licensing Authority recognises the potential for Public Health to participate in the licensing process in relation to the protection of children from harm. This objective concerns the physical safety of children and also their moral and psychological wellbeing. Public Health may present evidence relating to under 18s alcohol -related emergency department attendance, hospital admissions and underage sales of alcohol linked to a specific premises and their practices. 16.6. The Licensing Authority will work with the Director of Public Health and their staff in order to identify and utilise relevant public health data within the licensing process. In addition, the Licensing Authority will support the NHS and alcohol charities to raise awareness of the dangers of excess consumption of alcohol. 17. Licensing Committee 17.1. A Licensing Committee consisting of at least ten, but not more than fifteen Councillors, has been appointed. The Licensing Committee will Policy Page 19 be kept informed by way of reports from officers on a wide range of matters which may impact on their role. 17.2. The 2003 Act dictates that uncontested applications shall be granted and that such applications should be dealt with by specific officers who have been so delegated by the Licensing Authority. 17.3. Whenever relevant representations have been received from Responsible Authorities, Elected Members and/or Interested Parties in respect of an application, that application will be referred to a Licensing Sub-Committee for determination. 17.4. Although the Licensing Authority welcomes views from all members of the community, Government guidance states that the Council as the Licensing Authority should be aware that the views of vocal minorities should not be allowed to predominate over the general interests of the community that the Licensing Committee represents. 18. Authorisations and Applications 18.1. There are a number of authorisations relating to: • Sale/Supply of alcohol • Regulated entertainment • Late Night Refreshment These are: Premises Licences 18.2. Any person aged eighteen years or over who is carrying on, or who proposes to carry on, a business that involves the use of premises for licensable activities may apply for a premises licence either on a permanent basis or for a time- limited period. ‘A person’ in this context includes a business or partnership. 18.3. A premises licence lasts indefinitely and may be transferred or varied at any time. 18.4. The premises licence application form and operating schedule should be completed clearly and concisely to reflect the exact nature of the business and how the four licensing objectives will be addressed. All sections of the application form must be completed. Guidance as to what type of information should be included in the operating schedule is given in the Appendices to this Policy. 18.5. Applications which are incomplete or illegible will be returned to the applicant with an explanation for the return. Reasons may include incomplete or missing forms, incomplete Operating Schedule, the absence of the fee, and/or absence of required plans or insufficient Policy Page 20 information detailed on the plans (as required under Section 23 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates) Regulations 2005), or f or personal licences , also the absence of certificates or photographs. 18.6. Applicants are advised to seek advice from the Council’s Licensing Officers and the Responsible Authorities concerning the licensing requirements for premises and/or licensable activities being applied for prior to completing their operating schedule. Large or unusual events need particular consideration and applicants are advised to consult the Council’s Licensing Officers for guidance and to submit applications as far in advance as possible. When required, the Council’s Licensing Officers will provide all applicants with advice and guidance in respect of completing their application forms and, in particular, how they should address each one of the four licensing objectives in their operating schedules. 18.7. Notwithstanding 1 8.6 above, it is the applicant’s responsibility to complete the application to a satisfactory standard and they should seek professional legal advice as necessary. 18.8. From 31 st March 2025, the Licensing Authority will generally treat applications to add “off sales” to “on sales” premises licences as a minor variation application , in particular where the licence holder took advantage of the Business & Planning Act 2020 provision and there has been no adverse impact on the licensing objectives. The Licensing Authority recognises the importance of outdoor hospitality in supporting local businesses and enhancing the vibrancy of public spaces. Pavement licences governed by the permanent regime introduced under the Business & Planning Act 2020 are separate from premises licence under the 2003 Act but may interact where alcohol is served outdoors. Licence holders must ensure that the use of outdoor space does not undermine the licensing objectives. The Licensing Authority shall ensure that there is co- ordination and consistency between pavement and premises licensing where applicable. Members Clubs 18.9. Some activities carried out by clubs need to be licensed under the 2003 Act but generally members clubs are treated differently to proprietary clubs and commercial premises. A club is an organisation where members have joined together for a particular reason, i.e. social, sporting or political, and have combined to buy alcohol in bulk as members of the organisation for supply to members. In order to apply for a Club Premises Certificate, the club needs to be a ‘Qualifying Club’. 18.10. Where there is doubt about the eligibility for a club premises certificate, the Licensing Authority will seek assurances and evidence from applicants that they are a qualifying club for the purposes of the 2003 Policy Page 21 Act. Such evidence may include membership records, minutes of committee meetings, etc. Temporary Event Notices 18.11. Anyone may give the Licensing Authority a Temporary Event Notice (TEN). This procedure allows people to hold an event involving licensable activities without having to apply for a Premises Licence or Club Premises Certificate. 18.12. The 2003 Act provides a system for the temporary carrying on of any licensable activity outside of the terms of a premises licence or club premises certificate. Under this system no authorisation as such is required from the licensing authority. Instead, a person wishing to hold an event at which such activities are proposed to be carried on (the “premises user”) gives notice to the Licensing Authority of the event. Personal Licences 18.13. To sell alcohol in licensed premises at least one person needs to hold a ‘Personal Licence’ which has been granted by the Licensing Authority where they live. This requirement does not apply to ‘qualifying clubs’. 18.14. In some premises there may be more than one person holding a ‘Personal Licence’ and it is important that one person is named as being in control, this person is called the ‘Designated Premises Supervisor’. The Designated Premises Supervisor is the key person who will usually be responsible for the day-to-day management of the premises. 18.15. There is one exemption from the need for a personal licence holder and ‘Designated Premise Supervisor’ in line with the mandatory requirements of the 2003 Act, sections 19(2) and 19(3). That is in the case where a community premises (church, community halls, and village halls , etc.) has applied for and been granted an application to disapply these mandatory conditions. 18.16. In determining applications for personal licences, the Licensing Authority will have regard to the guidelines issued by the Secretary of State under section 182 of the 2003 Act and any secondary legislation. The promotion of the four licensing objectives applies to the consideration of applications for personal licences equally as it does to applications for premises licences. 19. Representations 19.1. This policy will not seek to exclude any rights enshrined in the 2003 Act or any other legislation for applicants or those making representations against applications. Each application and representation will be treated on its merits taking into account the legislation, the Guidance issued under section 182 of the 2003 Act and this policy. Policy Page 22 19.2. Representations can be made to the Council, as Licensing Authority, by a ‘Responsible Authority’ or by ‘Interested Parties’ , which include individuals such as residents or bodies such as a residents association, trade associations and other businesses operating. Representations can be made concerning:- • Applications for new premises licences or club premises certificates • Applications to vary premises licences or club premises certificates • Personal licence applications on criminal grounds (only by the Police) 19.3. Responsible Authorities are the public authorities specifically designated under the 2003 Act to be consulted on all licence applications and are also entitled to make representations. A full list of Responsible Authorities is at Appendix F. 19.4. The Licensing Authority expect other responsible authorities, where they have concerns, to raise representations that fall within their remit . For instance, where there are concerns of crime and disorder, then the police should submit a representation. 19.5. The Licensing Authority is not generally expected to act as a responsible authority on behalf of other parties such as residents . However, there may be times where the Licensing Authority may feel it is appropriate to do so. For instance, this may be where the relevant responsible authority have failed to take action and the Licensing Authority is aware of relevant grounds to make a representation. 19.6. Where the Licensing Authority does act as a responsible authority and wishes to submit a representation, they may do so by assessing the application, visiting the premises if they feel it is appropriate to do so and looking at the potential impact the application will have on the Licensing objectives. In addition, the Licensing Authority shall check the history of the premises, assess the level of confidence it has with management and the compliance with conditions of the licence. 19.7. Each responsible authority has equal standing and may act independently without waiting for representations from any other responsible authority. 19.8. In cases where the Licensing A uthority is also acting as responsible authority, the Licensin g Authority will ensure a separation of responsibilities within the authority to ensure procedural fairness and eliminate conflicts of interest. For example, the Licensing A uthority will distinguish between the licensing case officer and the officer nominated to act as the responsible authority by allocating clear and distinct functions. 19.9. The 2003 Act 2003 also permits Elected Members to make representations on their own behalf as well as on behalf of their Policy Page 23 constituents. Members of the public who are making representations may also request that their Ward Councillor speaks on their behalf at public hearings to determine applications. 19.10. Representations about an application must be made in writing to the Council’s Licensing Team within the statutory time limits . The representation must be relevant to the application and not vexatious or frivolous. 19.11. Written representations include letters and emails. Representations received after the end of the public consultation period cannot legally be accepted and will not be considered by the Licensing Authority. 19.12. Representations must contain: (a) The name, full address & post code, of the person making them; (b) The reasons for their representation; (c) Which of the four Licensing Objectives the representation relates to, i.e. crime and disorder; public nuisance; public safety; and/or protection of children from harm. Representations which do not meet this requirement may be rejected as being irrelevant or frivolous or vexatious. 19.13. For borderline cases, the Licensing Authority shall give the benefit of doubt to the person making the representation. 19.14. Representations based on ‘Need’ for licensed premises concerns the commercial demand for another pub, restaurant, off licence or hotel. This is not a matter for the L icensing Authority in discharging its licensing functions. ‘Need’ is a matter for planning committees and for the market. Representations made on the basis of need are likely to be rejected. 19.15. All valid representations will form part of a committee report that will become a public document. It will be given to the applicant, their agent, responsible authorities, other persons making representations and any other party requesting a copy as well as the Licensing Sub-committee 10 working days prior to the hearing. Anonymous representations will not be accepted. 19.16. Petitions may be submitted as (or as part of) a representation but may not be as informative as individual correspondence and as such may be given less weight when considered by a Licensing Sub-Committee. 19.17. Petitions will only be accepted if on each sheet it clearly shows: • The name and address of the application site, • Reasons for the representation, and • Which of the four Licensing Objectives are relevant. Policy Page 24 19.18. Each petitioner must give their name and full addres s including post code. 19.19. Failure to comply with any of the above requirements could lead to the petition being rejected as a representation. 19.20. The Licensing Authority follows the guidance of the Secretary of State concerning the judgments of representation as being irrelevant, vexatious and frivolous. A representation would be ‘irrelevant’ if it does not relate to the application or to the promotion of the licensing objectives in the context of the application. 19.21. In considering whether or not a representation is ‘vexatious or frivolous’ the Licensing Authority must determine whether any ordinary and reasonable person would consider the matter to be vexatious or frivolous. Vexation may arise where, for example, there is a dispute between rival businesses. Frivolous representations would be categorised by a lack of seriousness. 19.22. Where a representation is found to be irrelevant, vexatious or frivolous, the person making it will be informed and that representation will be disregarded. 20. The Role of the Ward Councillor 20.1. Ward Councillors play an important role in the local community. They can make representations in writing and speak at the hearing on behalf of an interested party such as a local resident or local business if specifically requested to do so. They can also make representations as an interested party in their own right (see Annex A with regard to Councillors making representations). 20.2. Ward Councillors may apply for a review of a licence if problems are brought to their attention which justify intervention and relate to the licensing objectives. 20.3. Ward Councillors are informed of all new applications and any application to vary a licence in their ward. Individual Councillors may publicise an application locally in addition to the statutory publication and advertising carried out by the applicant. 20.4. Local residents and businesses may wish to contact their local ward Councillors in respect of a licence application. Details on how to contact Ward Councillors may be obtained from the Council’s website. 20.5. Ward Councillors may attend hearings of L icensing Sub-Committees considering applications and speak on behalf of local residents and businesses, but only if: • They have made a personal representation; Policy Page 25 • They have made a representation on behalf of local residents or businesses as ‘community advocates’; or • They have been nominated by (an objector) who cannot attend the hearing or prefers to be represented at the hearing. Note: Where a Ward Councillor makes representations upon an application within their ward in writing to the Head of Administrative, Technical and Business Services within the appropriate statutory period of consultation for the application, and this repres entation has been forwarded to the Licensing Authority, that application shall then be scheduled to be heard by the Licensing Sub- Committee for determination. The Ward Councillor must include in their representations the reasons why they wish the applicati on to be determined by the Sub-Committee and how the application adversely affects the licensing objectives [policy clarification added by full Council on 7 September 2017]. 20.6. If a Councillor as a Member of the Licensing Sub-Committee has been involved in campaigning about a particular application, they should declare any such interest and not take part in any L icensing Sub- Committee hearing considering that application. This does not apply to a Ward Councillor attending a hearing in their capacity following representations, as an interested party or an advocate in support or against a particular application. 21. Decision Making and Licensing Hearings 21.1. Applications for premises licences, club premises certificates, interim authorities, provisional statements, variation of designated premises supervisors and personal licences that do not attract representations will be granted under delegated authority and any conditions, apart from mandatory conditions, will reflect and be consistent with the applicant’s operating schedule. 21.2. The Licensing Authority and other Responsible Authorities, where appropriate, may choose to mediate with the applicant and other parties with a view to alleviate concerns from the application and discuss potential conditions or further measures so that agreement may be reached and there is no longer a need to go to a formal hearing. 21.3. The Licensing Authority will form Sub- Committees consisting of three elected

Council – 22 January 2026 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME Reporting Officer: Head of Democratic Services SUMMARY 1. Cabinet on 15 January 2026 are being asked to consider for recommendation to Council, a revised Local Development Scheme (LDS) here: London Borough of Hillingdon - Agenda for CABINET on Thursday, 15th January, 2026, 7.00 pm The proposed scheme is attached as an appendix. RECOMMENDATIONS: That, subject to the approval of Cabinet on 15 January 2026: a) the revised Local Development Scheme be adopted with effect from 22 January 2026. b) authority be delegated to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth to make minor and technical updates within the Local Development Scheme, if necessary. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 2. The LDS is a project plan to produce the Local Plan and other planning policy documents. It sets out the documents that the Council intends to produce and the timescale for their production. To be considered legally compliant in accordance with the Plannin g and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Council's Local Plan documents should be in general conformity with the LDS. This means that they should be listed in the LDS and prepared in accordance with the timescales set out in the document. 3. The current Local Development Scheme was adopted by Full Council on Thursday 27 February 2025. Under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) the Council is required to publish an up-to-date LDS setting out the timetable to produce Local Plan documents. 4. The revised LDS includes a new Local Plan Programme. The delivery of a sound plan in accordance with the current programme is considered undeliverable due to changes to the planning policy context which are beyond the council’s con trol. Consequently, this report proposes a revised programme that shifts the main stages of production and consultation for the Local Plan into 2026 and beyond. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 5. There are no direct financial implications from the Cabinet recommendations. However, it is anticipated that all costs incurred from adopting the Local Development Scheme will be covered through secured government grant funding, remaining earmarked reserves and the current consultants’ budget. The grants received carry no pu blished repayment conditions, and the MHCLG has confirmed that this funding is intended to support the timely progression of Local Plans and Green Belt reviews. Council – 22 January 2026 6. Corporate Finance have also reviewed the Cabinet report and concur with the Financial Implications set within it, noting that there are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendations within it. 7. Furthermore, it is noted any future impacts arriving from adopting the Local Development Scheme will be met from government grant funding, existing approved budgets and the remaining balance of the Local Plan earmarked reserve, with this being monitored through the regular monthly monitoring cycle and as part of the wider MTFS. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 8. Section 15 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA 2004) (as amended) sets out every Local Planning Authority (LPA) must prepare and maintain a Local Development Scheme (LDS). 9. The LDS plays a vital role in informing the lo cal community and stakeholders about the status of an LPA’s planning policy documents; therefore, LPAs must make available to the public the up -to-date version of the LDS, and the Planning Practice Guidance advocates for publication of the LDS on the LPA’s website. 10. In preparing and adopting the LDS, it is no longer necessary to submit this document to the Secretary of State or Mayor of London, and in order to effect the LDS, LPAs must ‘resolve’ that the LDS is to have effect from a specific date. BACKGROUND PAPERS: Nil

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

Council – 22 January 2026 COUNCIL TAX BASE AND BUSINESS RATES FORECAST 2026/27 Reporting Officer: Corporate Director of Finance SUMMARY This report sets out the proposed Council Taxbase and Business Rates Forecast for 2026/27 in accordance with the legislation for approval by the Council. The Council is required to calculate both its Council Taxb ase as at 30 November 20 25 as well as the Business Rates forecast for the forthcoming year by 31 January 2026. The taxbase for 2026/27 is estimated to be 107,349 Band D Equivalent Properties – an increase of 1,927 on the 105,422 agreed in January 2025 for the year 2025/26 RECOMMENDATIONS: That: a) Having due regard to the Review of Working Age Council Tax Reduction Scheme [CTRS] for 2026/27 at Appendix 2 and the Equalities Impact Assessment at Appendix 2a, the following amendment to the Council’s local Council Tax Reduction Scheme to reform the scheme with effect from 1 April 2026 be approved: i. Apply the standard £10.00 non -dependant deduction across all schemes including the vulnerable scheme (unless the non -dependant is a student when no deduction is taken); ii. Reduce the maximum award from 80% to 75% across the vulnerable scheme as part of our phasing in of aligning the vulnerable scheme with the standard scheme; and iii. Increase the non-dependant deduction from £10.00 to £12.00 per week; b) the introduction a Council Tax Premium at an additional 100% on properties designated as second homes from 1st April 2026 be approved; c) the Council Tax Taxbase for 2026/27 be approved as 107, 349 Band D equivalent properties, calculated in accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Taxbase) (England) Regulations 2012; and d) authority be delegated to the Corporate Director of Finance to submit the 2026/27 NNDR1 return by 31st January 2026 to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government [MHCLG] and the Greater London Authority [GLA]. Reasons for recommendations 1. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 and Local Government Finance Act 2012 replaced the Council Tax Benefit scheme with a locally determined Council Tax Reduction Scheme. The Council has discretion to vary the level of support offered to working -age claimants. Changes to the scheme were made in 2 025/26 and the February 2025 Budget and Council Tax report (approved by Council on 27 th February 2025) proposed further changes to the scheme in 2026/27. Recommendation a) sets out those changes to the existing 2025/26 CTRS scheme. 2. The Levelling -up and Re generation Act 2023 allowed for a Second Home s Premium (additional charge) on second homes of up to 100% with effect from April 2024 – subject to 12 months’ notice of a council’s intention to implement such a premium. The February Council – 22 January 2026 2025 Budget Setting and C ouncil Tax included a proposal to implement an additional 100% premium on properties designated as second homes from the start of 2026/27 and accordingly an advert notifying residents of this future intention was placed in local media in March 2025. Recommendation b) allows those proposals to be implemented. 3. The Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Taxbase) (England) Regulations 2012 require Billing Authorities to calculate the Council Tax Taxbase for the forthcoming year and to notify preceptors and levying bodies of that determination by 31 st January each year. The regulations prescribe that the appropriate figure must be calculated using the Valuation List and Council Tax records as at 30 November. Recommendation c) allows for this statutory requirement to be met. 4. As the Billing Authority, the Council is also required to determine the estimated yield for the Business Rate yield for the forthcoming year (and any surplus/deficit on current year budgets. This is actioned by completion of the Ministry o f Housing, Communities and Local Government’s [ MHCLG] NNDR1 return and has to be certified by the Corporate Director of Finance and submitted by 31 st January to both MHCLG and the GLA (who respectively retain 33% and 37% of the net Business Rate yield). Recommendation d), as in previous years seeks approval for delegated authority to approve and submit these calculations. Alternative options considered / risk management 5. The Council has discretion to amend the changes proposed to the CTRS and implementation of the Second Homes Premium. Any such changes would however have the potential to adversely impact the budget assumptions set out in the Draft 2026/27 Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy [ MTFS] approved in December 2025 and published for stakeholder consultation. 6. The Council has statutory and regulatory responsibilities to approve the calculations of the Council Tax Taxbase and Business Rate estimates by 31st January. Supporting Information Executive Summary 7. This report sets out calculations for the 2026/27 budget with regard to the Council Tax Taxbase and incorporates proposed changes to the local Council Tax Reduction Scheme [CTRS] and the introduction of a 100% Premium for Second Homes – both of th ese changes were planned when the 2025/26 Budget and Medium -Term Financial Strategy [MTFS] were approved in February 2025. 8. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 and Local Government Finance Act 2012 replaced the Council Tax Benefit scheme with a locally determined CTRS which is effectively now a type of Council Tax discount. The Council has discretion to determine its own scheme for working-age claimants. This report seeks approval to amend the scheme, the changes outlined in the February Budget and Council Tax Setting report in February 2025. 9. The proposed changes to the CTRS have been included as proposals in the 2026/27 Budget and MTFS report considered and approved by Cabinet in December 2025. 10. Powers to charge a Second Homes Premium were introduced by government in 2024, but with a required 12 -month notice period of intent to levy this premium were only Council – 22 January 2026 available to councils from 2025/26. The Council included the intention to levy this charge in its 2025/26 Budget Setting and MTFS report and having publicised its intention in local media intends this 100% premium for April 2026. 11. The Council is required to determine its 2026/27 Taxbase by 31 st January and to notify the Greater London Authority [GLA] as a major preceptor by that date. The calculation of the Taxbase incorporates the impact of the CTRS and proposed changes to both it and the Second Homes Premium outlined above. 12. The taxbase, expressed as an equivalent number of Band D properties, has been calculated to rise by 1,927 from 105,422 in 2025/26 to 107,349 in 2026/27 – a rise of 1.8%. The impact of this increase will increase the income for the Council by £ 2.818m (1,927 Band D Properties x the Council’s own local element of the 2025/26 Band D charge £1,462.00). 13. The Council is also required to estimate its 2026/27 Business Rate yield (as well as a forecast of the 2025/26 outturn position) and notify the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government [MHCLG] and the GLA of those calculations by 31st January. 14. Hillingdon has seen the highest increase in d raft property rateable values as a result of the Valuation Office Agency’s [VOA] revaluation exercise, which is due to come into force in April 2026. In particular, the Heathrow Airport valuation has risen by 353% (from £210m to £951m). Officers are modelling the potential implications that appeals against the new valuations may have on the final calculations and how these interact with the government’s localised business rate system Safety Net and Levy arrangements. 15. Modelling to determine the business ra tes forecast is made more complex this year by not only the revaluation itself, but also the introduction of new Multiplier classes (Retail, Hospitality and Leisure [RHL] properties); new Transitional Relief arrangements; as well as a new Multiplier for L arge Properties (those with a new rateable value in excess of £500,000). A final version of the Draft Valuation List is expected imminently and will be used in completing the final NNDR1 return by 31st January. Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme 16. Prior to April 2013, support for Council Tax was provided through the national Council Tax Benefits scheme. Since that date, local authorities in England have been responsible for administering their own Council Tax Reduction Schemes. This followed the UK Government decision to abolish Council Tax Benefit and an announcement in the 2010 Spending Review to localise Council Tax Support and to reduce expenditure on this benefit by 10% - local authorities being provided with 90% of the remaining expense through Revenue Support Grant [ RSG]. That funding has been eroded by the general reduction in RSG funding through the years of austerity and takes no account of changes in demand levels. 17. The Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2012 state councils must make reductions for certain classes of pensioners. No other groups are required to receive reductions under the Regulations. Since April 2013 local authorities have been required to publish and implement a scheme setting out Council Tax Support in their area. 18. The Council operates its own CTRS and made changes to the scheme (approved in the January 2025 Council Tax Taxbase report) to apply for 2025/26 and also in the February Council – 22 January 2026 2025/26 Budget and Council Tax Setting Report of the same year approved 2026/27 budget changes predicated on further changes to the scheme. 19. This report details those further changes to the scheme to be introduced from April 2026 as below: I. Apply the standard £10.00 non -dependant deduction across all schemes including the vulnerable scheme (unless the non -dependant is a student when no deduction is taken); II. Reduce the maximum award from 80% to 75% across the vulnerable scheme as part of our phasing in and aligning the vulnerable scheme with the standard scheme; and III. Increase the non-dependant deduction from £10.00 to £12.00 per week. 20. Consultation on the proposed changes has taken place and in total 26 responses for each of the proposed changes were received. Of those and in total, 57 (73%) either disagreed or strongly disagreed, with the remainder supporting or expressing no opinion. 21. Officers have undertaken an equalities impact assessment which is attached as Appendix 1 providing detailed analysis of those responses. Second Homes Premium 22. The Levelling -up and Regeneration Act 2023 became law on 26 October 2023. The legislation allows for a Second Home s Premium (additional charge) on dwellings occupied periodically (commonly referred to as “second homes”) of up to 100%. The ability to charge a Second Homes Premium technically came into effect on 1 April 2024, although there is a legislative requirement to delay implementation for 12 months before the premium can be implemented. Central government have advised that this delay is to “give property owners a chance t o respond, for example by selling or letting their properties”. 23. Guidance from MHCLG was issued in November 2024 regarding exclusions to properties to be exempt from any Second Homes Premium and include:  Dwelling which is or would be someone’s sole or main residence if they were not residing in job-related armed forces accommodation  Annexes forming part of, or being treated as part of, the main dwelling  Dwellings being actively marketed for sale (12 months limit)  Dwellings being actively marketed for let (12 months limit)  Unoccupied dwellings which fell within exempt Class F and where probate has recently been granted (12 months from grant of probate/letters of administration)  Job-related dwellings  Occupied caravan pitches and boat moorings  Seasonal homes where year-round, permanent occupation is prohibited, specified for use as holiday accommodation or planning condition preventing occupancy for more than 28 days continuously  Empty dwellings requiring or undergoing major repairs or structural alterations ( 12 months limit) 24. Council in approving the 2025/26 Budget and MTFS in February 2025 approved the charging of a 100% Second Homes Premium to commence in the financial year 2026/27. Notices were placed in local media in March 2025 notifying residents of this future change in accordance with the regulations. Council – 22 January 2026 25. Consultation on the proposed changes has taken place and in total 12 responses were received. Of those responses, 4 strongly disagreed with the remainder either agreeing or not offering an opinion. 26. Officers have undertaken an equalities impact assessment which is attached as Appendix 2 providing details of those responses. The Council Tax Taxbase 2026/27 27. It is a statutory requirement that local authorities determine their council tax base by 31 January for the following financial year. The tax base calculation is specified in the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) (England) Regulations 2012 and ensures the calculation takes account of Local Council Tax Support schemes (LCTS). These regulations specify the formulae for calculating taxbase. 28. The purpose of this calculation is to set the Council’s taxbase and not the council tax itself. The council tax will be set at a full meeting of the Council in February. 29. The council tax base is defined as the number of Band D equivalent properties in a local authority’s area. This report sets the Council’s taxbase including changes to the LCTS scheme and Second Homes Premium discussed earlier in this report. 30. The authority is required to calculate for t he whole of its area the “relevant amounts” (defined in paragraph 4 of the Regulations and summarised below) for each valuation band. The total of the “relevant amounts” for each band is then multiplied by the estimated collection rate. The product of applying the estimated collection rate to the total relevant amount is then adjusted by an estimate of the payment in lieu to be paid by the secretary of State for Defence for dwellings occupied by Armed Forces (assumed not to be subject to any bad debt provision). The result of this calculation is the authority’s tax base for the whole of its area. Summary of Statutory Calculation ((H – Q + E + J) – Z) x (F / G) Where: H is the number of chargeable dwellings for the band on the relevant day less the number of exempt dwellings on that day; Q is a factor to take account of the discounts to which the amount of council tax payable was subject on the relevant day; E is a factor to take account of premiums, if any, to which the council tax payable, was subject on the relevant day; J is the amount of any adjustment in respect of changes in the number of chargeable dwelling or premiums calculated by the authority; Z is the total amount that the authority estimates will be applied as a result of the introduction of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme expressed as an equivalent number of chargeable dwellings in that band; F * is the number appropriate to that band which is used in determining the Band D equivalent; and G is the number applicable to Band D i.e. 9. Council – 22 January 2026 * Band A = 6, Band B = 7, Band C = 8, Band D = 9, Band E = 11, Band F = 13, Band G = 15 and Band H = 18. 31. The full and statutory calculation is set out in Appen dix 3 but is summarised in the table below: Table 1- Summary of 2026 / 27 Taxbase Calculation: 32 The net increase of 1,927 Band D equivalent properties summarised in the table above would result in increased income to the Council of £2.818m (based on Hillingdon’s own share of the 2025/26 Band D charge - £1,462.00). 33 The GLA are a Major Preceptor with regard to Council Tax. The total Band D charge for 2025/26 is £1,952.38 – comprising £1,462.00 for Hillingdon (74.9%) and £490.38 for the GLA (25.1%). As for the Council itself the above increase in Taxbase will deliver additional income to the GLA. Business Rates 34 Business Rates (otherwise referred to as Nation al Non-Domestic Rates [ NNDR]) are collected under a national scheme which sets both the rateabl e value of a property (determined by the Valuation Office Agency [VOA]) and the Multiplier (the rate poundage applied against the rateable value to determine the business rate charge). Councils who are Billing Authorities administer the billing and collection of income under these national parameters. 35 Prior to 2017, business rate income was pooled by central government and redistributed back to local authorities as part of the Local Government Finance Settlement. However, since 2017 local councils have re tained a share of business rates which they keep. Currently Hillingdon retains 30% of net business rate yield (the GLA 37%) and MHCLG 33%) but is subject to a Tariff which effectively means Hillingdon only effectively retains around 12% locally. 36 The Valuation Office have undertaken a triennial revaluation of business rate properties to be applied for the next three years from 2026/27. Everything else being equal, this revaluation is intended to be fiscally neutral – overall rises in total rateable value being Council – 22 January 2026 offset by a proportionate change in the national NNDR multipliers. Whilst overall neutral, increases across regions and at the local level mean that regional shifts do occur – with the East Midlands seeing a rise of 16% compared to London seeing a rise of 22% - the national average being 19%. The position for Hillingdon is particularly acute with an average rise across the Borough of 102% - this is almost exclusively driven by the new valuation for Heathrow Airport which sees its valuation rise from £210m to £951m, a rise of 353% and will mean that the airport alone will account for 55% of the gross rateable value across Hillingdon. 37 In addition to the changes in rateable value, government has introduced two new classes of business property – Retail, Hospitality and Leisure [RHL] premises and larger business properties (with a rateable value in excess of £500,000) which will both have their own new Multipliers. In addition, a new Transitional Relief scheme is being introduced with regard to phasing increases caused by the revaluation over future years. 38 Billing Authorities are required to prepare and submit annual estimates of future year expected business rate budgeted income , discounts, exemptions, provisions and expected future changes (as well as an updated expected in -year outturn position) by 31st January each year to both MHCLG and precepting bodies (in our case the GLA). 39 The calculations required to complete the above estimates are largely driven by the direct copying of data from the revenues system. Those systems are however still being updated and tested by software suppliers and the final Valuation List from the VOA is being loaded. 40 The complexity around completing this year’s estimates largely revolves around identifying a suitable appeals provision for potential challenges by business rate payers against their draft valuations. We are consulting with others (including the GLA) over a quantum that should be estimated for appeals. 41 Work is incomplete at this stage on that assessment and members are asked to delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Finance to authorise and submit the relevant returns when that work is completed by 31st January. Financial Implications 42 This is a Corporate Finance report, and corporate financial implications are noted throughout. Legal Implications 43 The Local Government Finance Act 1992 mandates that councils must set a balanced budget. This involves ensuring that projected expenditures do not exceed projected revenues. The 1992 Act sets out what the Council has to base its budget calculations on and requires it to set its budget with regard to the advice of its Chief Financial Officer (the Section 151 Officer). 44 Sections 25 to 28 of the Local Government Act 2003 impose duties on the council in relation to how it sets and monitors its budget. These pro visions require the council to make prudent allowance for the risk and uncertainties in its budget MTFS and regularly monitor its finances during the year. Council – 22 January 2026 45 Section 25 also requires the council’s Section 151 Officer to make a report to full Council when it is considering its budget and Council tax. The report must deal with the robustness of the estimates and the adequacy of the reserves allowed for in the budget proposals, so that members will have authoritative advice available to them when they make their decisions. 46 This report deals with the preparation of a draft budget and the consultation that must follow on the same. Cabinet is then scheduled to meet on 19 February 2026 to settle the draft budget that it wishes to present to Council on 26 February 2026 for adoption. Background papers: Report to Cabinet (23rd December 2025) Draft Budget 2026/27 and MTFS – For Consultation

Council – 22 January 2026 Appendix 1 Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment 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  Hillingdon Council’s Working Age Council Tax Reduction Scheme changed to a banding scheme in April 2020. Since then, it has been updated in 2023 and 2025 with various changes such as the weekly non-dependent deduction and the minimum weekly award amount. The banding scheme has helped to simplify the assessment of Council Tax Reduction and allows for minimal income changes that do not necessarily change the award of Council Tax Reduction. This creates less uncertainty over what the Council Taxpayer must pay, and fewer bills with amended instalment amounts. There are 3 proposals to change the banding scheme from 01/04/2026 which are intended in a balanced and proportionate way to help reduce the overall cost of the scheme as the continued increase in demand has put immense pressure on an already limited budget. The proposals are: 1. Apply the standard £10.00 non-dependant deduction across all schemes including the vulnerable scheme (unless the non -dependant is a student when no deduction is taken) 2. Reduce the maximum award from 80% to 75% across the vulnerable scheme as part of our phasing in of aligning the 2 schemes. 3. Increase the non-dependant deduction from £10 to £12 per week. Those eligible under the ‘vulnerable scheme’ are in receipt of a disability benefit such as Personal Independence Payment (PIP), Disability Living Allowance (DLA) or registered blind. This assessment considers the proposed changes to the Council Tax Reduction scheme from an equality and human rights impact perspective. Council – 22 January 2026 Who is accountable? E.g. Head of Service or Corporate Director Steve Muldoon, Corporate Director of Finance Date assessment completed and approved by accountable person 06/01/26 Names and job titles of people carrying out the assessment Tiffany Boreham, Head of Revenues and Benefits Vicky Trott, Inclusion and Wellbeing Manager A.1) What are the main aims and intended benefits of what you are assessing? Proposed reforms of the scheme are intended to meet two policy objectives, in the context of competing demands on finite funding available to support local services: 1. Aligning the vulnerable scheme with the standard scheme, and; 2. Reducing the overall cost of the scheme. A.2) Who are the service users or staff affected by what you are assessing? What is their equality profile? Those of working age currently in receipt of Council Tax Reduction could be impacted by any changes to the scheme. Our current caseload is 15,976 which includes 10,947 working age households. Our pensioner caseload is protected and will not be affected by any of these changes. Working age caseload equalities data Sex Male 3548 32% Female 7399 68% Total 10947 100% 68% of the claimants within the working age scheme are female. Council – 22 January 2026 Ethnicity Not completed/Any other 7027 64.2% White British 2300 21% European other 233 2.1% Asian and White 27 0.2% Black African and White 1 0.01% Black Caribbean 51 0.5% Black Caribbean and White 13 0.1% Black African 238 2.2% Black other 124 1.1% Irish 85 0.8% Indian 89 0.8% Pakistani 71 0.6% Bangladeshi 30 0.3% Chinese 8 0.07% Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi 31 0.3% Asian or Asian British: Indian 107 1% Asian or Asian British: Pakistani 93 0.9% Asian or British: Any other Background 127 1.2% Black-Black British: African 222 2% Black-Black British: Caribbean 67 0.6% Travellers 3 0.02% Total 10947 100% We do not have ethnicity data for over half of the working age caseload as this information has not been completed on the form or the customer has selected ‘any other group’ which is not an ethnicity. This is something we are looking to improve, as based on current data we are unable to properly determine whether the proposed changes will have an impact on a particular ethnicity or not. Disability Disabled 6476 59% Not disabled 4471 41% Total 10947 100% Over half of the customers within our working age scheme are disabled. We do not hold information regarding other protected characteristics. Council – 22 January 2026 A.3) Who are the stakeholders in this assessment and what is their interest in it? Stakeholders Interest Hillingdon residents To ensure the council has a robust, transparent and fair Council Tax Reduction scheme. That the Council Tax Reduction scheme delivers value for money. To ensure that residents who need financial support have access to the scheme. Corporate Director of Finance To ensure the council has a robust, transparent and fair Council Tax Reduction scheme. That the Council Tax Reduction scheme delivers value for money. To ensure that residents who need financial support have access to the scheme. Cabinet Member for Finance and Transformation To ensure the council has a robust, transparent and fair Council Tax Reduction scheme. That the Council Tax Reduction scheme delivers value for money. To ensure that residents who need financial support have access to the scheme. Council Cabinet and Leader of the Council To ensure the council has a robust, transparent and fair Council Tax Reduction scheme. That the Council Tax Reduction scheme delivers value for money. To ensure that residents who need financial support have access to the scheme. Voluntary and Third Sector partners To ensure the council has a robust, transparent and fair Council Tax Reduction scheme. That the Council Tax Reduction scheme delivers value for money. To ensure that residents who need financial support have access to the scheme. Council – 22 January 2026 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? The data presented in this assessment is of the claimant rather than of the household. We acknowledge that the changes may have an impact on the household, but it is not possible to determine what those impacts may be. We understand that women are more likely to claim benefits and more likely to be in a single parent household. This may potentially have an impact on their income and socio-economic status. We acknowledge that in the absence of 64% of data for ethnicity, it is not possible to determine any disproportionate impacts of the proposals based on those grounds. The impact of each of the proposals has been assessed using the data which is available. Proposal 1 - Apply the standard £10.00 non-dependant deduction across all schemes including the vulnerable scheme (unless the non-dependant is a student when no deduction is taken) This proposal would have a negative impact on the households where someone has a disability and a non-dependant living in the property where no deduction is currently being taken. A deduction would be applied to 2080 non dependants living in households considered vulnerable under the CTR scheme. This proposal may Council – 22 January 2026 therefore have a disproportionately negative impact on this group. Proposal 2 - Reduce the maximum award from 80% to 75% across the vulnerable scheme as part of our phasing in of aligning the 2 schemes. This proposal would have a negative impact on the 6476 households where someone has a disability which equates to 59% of our caseload. Of those claimants who have a disability: Male 2166 33% Female 4310 67% Total 6476 100% The percentage of females with a disability is in line with the proportion of females in the scheme. This proposal may therefore have a disproportionately negative impact on women with a disability. Proposal 3 - Increase the non-dependant deduction from £10 to £12 per week This proposal would have an impact on the vulnerable households where no deduction is currently being taken and the households where a deduction is currently being taken at £10.00 per week. Of those 1398 claimants: Male 431 31% Female 967 69% Total 1398 100% This proposal may therefore have a disproportionately negative impact on female claimants specifically those with a disability. Consultation B.2) Did you carry out any consultation or engagement as part of this assessment? Please tick  NO  YES  The Council Tax Reduction consultation went live on 21/10/25 for 6 weeks and closed at midnight on 01/12/25. During the 6 weeks we received 26 responses to our proposals. To promote the consultation, we contacted CAB so that they could discuss the Council – 22 January 2026 consultation with their customers. We also put a banner on the Revenues and Benefits webpages with a link to the consultation and used social media to increase awareness. The Capita contact centre advertised the consultation through their initial greeting on the phone line and the customer advisors promoted it when speaking to residents. The GLA were also sent details of the consultation. Details of respondents Out of the 26 responses 18 were from females, 4 were from males and 4 preferred not to state their sex. Sex Male 4 Female 18 Prefer not to say 4 The majority of responses were from people over 45 years of age Age range 25-34 5 35-44 0 45-54 6 55-64 6 65+ 2 Prefer not to say 7 Most of the responses were from within Hillingdon with only 1 being left blank Postcode HA4 7 UB10 7 UB3 1 UB4 2 UB7 3 UB8 4 UB9 1 Blank 1 Out of the 26 responses 11 confirmed they had a disability. Disability Yes/No Yes 11 No 12 Prefer not to say 3 Council – 22 January 2026 The majority of respondents were from a white group or background Ethnicity group or background Mixed or multiple ethnic group or background 2 Prefer not to say 8 White group or background 16 Only 9 customers that responded to the consultation confirmed they were in receipt of Council Tax Reduction. CTR Yes/No Yes 9 No 17 The majority of responses were from customers who did not have a non-dependant living with them Non-dependant Yes/No Yes 6 No 19 Blank 1 Responses to each Proposal The 3 proposals that we consulted on were to 1. Apply the standard £10.00 non-dependant deduction across all schemes including the vulnerable scheme (unless the non -dependant is a student when no deduction is taken) 2. Reduce the maximum award from 80% to 75% across the vulnerable scheme as part of our phasing in of aligning the 2 schemes. 3. Increase the non-dependant deduction from £10 to £12 per week. Table 1 - Breakdown of responses Response Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know Total Apply the standard £10.00 non dep deduction to the vulnerable group 3 3 3 5 10 2 26 Align the vulnerable group 5 3 2 3 11 2 26 Increase the 3 4 1 7 9 2 26 Council – 22 January 2026 non dep deduction to £12.00 Total 11 10 6 15 30 6 78 Percentage 14% 13% 8% 19% 38% 8% 100% As you can see from the table the response to all proposals was mostly negative with strongly disagree and disagree being the combined highest score. Table 2 - Breakdown of responses from the 9 residents in receipt of Council Tax Reduction Response Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know Total Apply the standard £10.00 non dep deduction to the vulnerable group 1 0 2 0 5 1 9 Align the vulnerable group 1 0 0 1 6 1 9 Increase the non dep deduction to £10.00 0 0 1 2 5 1 Total 2 0 3 3 16 3 27 Percentage 8% 0 11% 11% 59% 11% 100% As in Table 1 the overall response to the proposals is still negative with strongly disagree being the highest score amongst the Council Tax Reduction customers. As we only had 26 people respond to the consultation and out of those only 9 are in receipt of Council Tax Reduction the findings cannot be viewed as a clear representation of the views of the people that could be affected by these proposals. The GLA sent an email on 01/12/25 in response to our consultation. The GLA understand th at the final scheme design is a local decision for Hillingdon but considers any changes to the scheme should be based on a comprehensive analysis of household capability to pay increased obligations. They advise that changes to the scheme should be designe d to safeguard against non -collection, minimise household debt and ensure optimal revenue generation. They recommend that we consider the impact on various socio - economic populations and that this could assist us with identifying household most vulnerable to increases in household debt. The GLA welcomes the fact we have published a detailed consultation documentation which outlines how the changes being proposed could affect working age CTR customers. They have advised that we should also make a judgement as to the forecast collection rates from those claimants and council tax payers affected Council – 22 January 2026 by any changes to our scheme. 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 The Council Tax Reduction Scheme is costing more than expected due to the increase in households falling within the vulnerable band. As the pension age scheme is governed nationally, we are unable to make any amendments to this part of the scheme. 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 People with a disability Proposals 1 and 2 directly affects people who share this characteristic as the proposals aim to align the support given to disabled households with that of households where there are no disabled residents. Implementing proposal 3 at this time will also potentially affect the ability of this group to pay their council tax which may have an impact on debt recovery. We will monitor the effect of this change and any impact it has on this group. Section 13a will be considered for those that are struggling financially because of this proposal. Women with a disability Proposals 1 and 2 directly affects people who share these characteristics as the proposals aim to align the support given to disabled households with that of Council – 22 January 2026 households where there are no disabled residents and women make up 68% of this cohort. Implementing proposal 3 at this time will also potentially affect the ability of this group to pay their council tax which may have an impact on debt recovery. We will monitor the effect of this change and any impact it has on these households. Section 13a will be considered for those that are struggling financially because of this proposal. C.2) Describe any POSITIVE impacts Equality Group Impact on this group and actions you need to take N/A There are no clear positive impacts D) Conclusions Whilst the proposed changes to the scheme may have a potentially detrimental impact on various groups based on disability and sex, the changes are intended to align the scheme and to reduce the overall cost. Information regarding the changes will be published on our website and support will be available and provided to all service users when the new Council Tax Reduction is calculated. Signed and dated: 06/01/26 Name and position: Tiffany Boreham, Head of Revenues and Benefits

Council – 22 January 2026 Appendix 2 Report on the proposed introduction of the Second Home Premium Introduction The Council has the option to introduce a Council Tax premium on second homes of 100%, effectively doubling the Council Tax charge on these residential properties. This is in line with the powers granted under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This change is to help tackle the nationwide housing crisis ensuring empty homes are being used to help people in need. The extra contributions will be used to help fund local services in addressing this issue. More information can be found about Second Homes and Council Tax Premiums on the Gov.uk website: How Council Tax works: Second homes and empty properties - GOV.UK A second home is another property which is owned or rented, such as a holiday home. These properties are furnished and do not have anyone living in them as their main home. Hillingdon currently charge Council Tax at the standard rate on a second home with no premium being applied. Proposal The council is proposing to introduce a second home premium of 100% from 01 April 2026. This will double the amount of Council Tax that is payable on a second home. There are certain exceptions when the premium will not be applied. These are listed below  the second home is an annex which forms part of the same property, and is being used as part of the main residence  your main or second home is provided by your employer, and you need to live there for your job  the second home has planning restrictions or other conditions about what it’s used for and who can live there, which means you cannot use it as a permanent residence In addition, you may not have to pay the premium for up to 12 months if:  you recently received a grant of probate (or letters of administration) for the second home  the second home is being marketed for sale or to rent Council – 22 January 2026 Please note where an exception applies the standard rate of council tax will still be payable on the property, unless the criteria is met for a discount or exemption. Neighbouring Local Authorities started to charge a second home premium from 01 April 2025. Consultation The Second Home Premium consultation went live on 21/10/25 for 6 weeks and closed at midnight on 01/12/25. During the 6 weeks we received 12 responses to our proposal. To promote the consultation, we put a banner on the Revenues webpages with a link to the consultation and used social media to increase awareness. The Capita contact centre advisors also promoted the consultation when speaking to residents.   Details of respondents  Out of the 12 responses 4 were from females, 6 were from males and 2 preferred not to state their sex.   Sex    Male  6 Female  4 Prefer not to say  2   Most responses were from people over 45 years of age  Age range    18-24 1 25-34  2  35-44  0  45-54  4  55-64  3 65+  1 Prefer not to say  1     Most of the responses were from within Hillingdon with only 2 being left blank  Postcode    UB10  3 UB4  2  UB7  1  UB8  4  Blank  2    Council – 22 January 2026 Out of the 12 responses no one confirmed they had a disability.   Disability Yes/No    Y es  0  No  11  Prefer not to say  1   Most respondents were from a white group or background  Ethnicity group or background    Asian or Asian British 2  Prefer not to say  3  White group or background  7   Only 3 customers that responded to the consultation confirmed they owned a second home.   Second Home Yes/No    Y es  3 No  9   Table 1 – Breakdown of responses Response Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Blank Total To what extent do you agree with the proposal to introduce a second home premium? 6 1 0 0 4 1 12 Percentage 50% 8% 0 0 34% 8% 100% As you can see from the table the response to the proposal was mostly positive with strongly agree and agree being the combined highest score.   Table 2 - Breakdown of responses from the 3 residents who own a second property Response Strongl y agree Agree Neither agree or disagre e Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know Total To what extent do you agree with the proposal to introduce a second 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 Council – 22 January 2026 home premium? Percentag e 0 0 0 0 100% 0 100 % In contrast to Table 1 the overall response to the proposal from the residents who own a second home is negative with strongly disagree being the only response from this group. However, as we only had 12 people respond to the consultation and out of those only 3 own a second home the findings cannot be viewed as a clear representation of the views of the people that could be affected by this proposal. In addition to the consultation responses, we also had the following email from a concerned resident In the event of unusual circumstances where a property owner owns another property on the same land title deed and uses the second house with their family as an extension of that house there should be a discount or no payment. We live at 76 -78 Snowden Avenue and in 2019 built a two bedroom chalet bungalow which the council insisted was given a separate number even though it is on the same title deed. This is on land registry as 76 -78 Snowden Avenue Hillingdon UB10 0SE. 78 Snowden Avenue lies in what was previously our back garde n at 76 Snowden Avenue. We believe that where two properties are on one title deed there should be a discount or no payment as we are all using the same services as a family within the two properties. For example when we put the rubbish out it is one rubbish collection, if we call the police it is for the same estate on the land title. As long as the property is not left completely vacant then either no council tax should apply or there should be a discount. We certainly do not believe double council tax on what may be perceived as a second home is ethical. Financial impact All owners of properties identified as possible second homes were contacted late summer as part of a review to update our records and get a better idea of the impact of introducing a second home premium. Initial responses suggest that the majority of second homes will be covered under one of the exceptions listed above and therefore no premium will be charged. It is anticipated that the premium would be applied to approximately 5 0 properties meaning the financial impact is estimated at an increase in revenue of £73,100 based on Band D properties (50 x £1462) if all of the premium is collected. Council – 22 January 2026 Equalities and Human Rights Impact Assessment We have been unable to carry out an Equalities and Human Rights Assessment as we do not need equality data for Council Tax collection purposes. However, w e will monitor the success of the second home premium if it is introduced and as a result of this, we may consider collecting this data if it is deemed necessary in the future. Recommendation As the second home premium is intended to either generate additional income for the Local Authority or encourage owners of empty properties to make them available for sale or rent which will in turn help the current housing crisis it is my recommendation that we introduce this from 01/04/2026. In addition, the overall reaction from the limited responses to the consultation was positive. Please note there is some additional housekeeping that will need to be undertaken monthly to ensure accurate records are kept for the correct calculation of this premium. Information regarding the premium will be published on our website and further guidance and support will be made available to those who need it. Signed and dated: 29/12/25 Name and position: Tiffany Boreham, Head of Revenues and Benefits

CALCULATION OF 'H' (The number of chargeable dwellings on valuation list ) Band A Band B Band C Band D Band E Band F Band G Band H Total Number of properties in the valuation list as at 08.12.251,277 6,575 28,650 47,497 18,812 10,043 5,340 492 118,686 Exempt Properties (66) (262) (557) (864) (441) (311) (457) (5) (2,963) Properties re Disabled Persons relief - Drop a Band (7) (60) (213) (134) (96) (42) (21) (573) Properties re Disabled Persons relief - Drop a Band 7 60 213 134 96 42 21 573 Value of 'H' 1,218 6,366 28,246 46,554 18,333 9,678 4,862 466 115,723 CALCULATION OF 'Q' (the value of discounts allowed) Equivalent number of properties entitled to single occupancy discount/ Disregard (i.e. actual number x 25%) (121) (875) (2,840) (2,395) (914) (465) (179) (8) (7,795) Equivalent number of properties entitled to 50% discount as all residents diregarded (i.e. actual number x 50%) (1) (13) (19) (14) (9) (8) (12) (3) (78) Empty Property Discount 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Value of 'Q' (121) (888) (2,859) (2,408) (923) (473) (191) (11) (7,873) CALCULATION of 'E' (Any premiums payable on empty properties) LTE 100% 3 9 37 30 8 11 4 2 104 LTE 200% 1 4 11 8 3 2 3 4 36 LTE 300% 1 3 12 10 2 5 1 0 34 Value of 'E' 8 26 95 76 20 30 13 10 278 CALCULATION OF 'J' (Expected adjustments to number of properties on valuation list) New properties added to valuation list since 08.12.250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Properties completed but not yet shown on valuation list 203 127 160 71 15 18 21 2 617 Properties known to be on valuation list but to be taken out of list as demolished (10) (4) (8) (22) (9) 0 (5) (3) (61) Assumed increase in no of properties over year 4 21 91 150 60 32 17 2 376 Estimated in year changes to discounts (2) (6) (19) (16) (6) (3) (1) (0) (52) Estimate change in Empty Property Premium 4 8 31 25 7 10 5 3 94 Estimate New 2nd home Premium 2 4 16 13 4 5 2 2 47 Estimated in year changes to exemptions (1) (2) (4) (8) (3) (2) (4) (0) (24) Value of J 202 148 267 214 67 60 35 5 997 Value of (H+Q+E+J) 1,306 5,652 25,749 44,436 17,496 9,295 4,719 471 109,125 Value of (H+Q+E+J) 1,306 5,652 25,749 44,436 17,496 9,295 4,719 471 109,125 CALCULATION of 'Z' (Band adjustment due to Council Tax Reduction (CTR) Scheme) Equivalent Band reduction based upon estimated monetary values of Council Tax Support Grant (183) (1,170) (3,707) (3,934) (777) (187) (44) (4) (10,006) Estimated change due to policy change 14 89 275 298 59 14 3 0 753 Estimated in year changes 6 37 115 124 25 6 1 0 314 Value of 'Z' (163) (1,044) (3,317) (3,512) (693) (167) (39) (4) (8,939) Value of H+Q+E+J-Z 1,143 4,608 22,432 40,924 16,803 9,128 4,680 467 100,186 Convert to band D equivalent properties (F/G) where G = 9 and F = number shown in column. 6 7 8 9 11 13 15 18 Band D Equivalent properties by Band 762 3,584 19,940 40,924 20,537 13,185 7,800 934 107,666 Value of ((H+Q+E+J)-Z)*(F/G) Collection rate allowance 2026/27 99.0% 1.0% (1,077) Ministry of Defence properties 760 760 Estimated Collectable Band D Properties 107,349 COUNCIL TAX BASE 2026/27 107,349

Council – 22 January 2026 10.1 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR CURLING TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & GROWTH - COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL: In Hayes Town Ward, we have a number of large developments of mixed tenure, like, High Point Village and the Old Vinyl Factory, amongst others, where High and ever-increasing service charges can be crippling for leaseholders. Does the Cabinet Member agree with me that the Labour Government's delays in implementing the Leasehold and Freehold reform act 2024, is causing considerable pain for residents of Hillingdon, who have to suffer excessive service charges by their landlords, especially in the on-going cost of living crisis? 10.2 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR BANERJEE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & GROWTH - COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL: Can the Cabinet member please provide a summary of how the Council has undertaken gritting of roads within the Borough during the recent cold weather? 10.3 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR MATHERS TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: The Council’s Chief Finance Officer confirmed at the Corporate Infrastructure and Finance Select Committee on 6 January 2026 that accepting Exceptional Financial Support will cost residents around £10 million every year. Why has the Leader of the Council failed to make this clear in the budget consultation, and does he accept that residents have been denied full and honest disclosure about the true cost and long -term consequences of this Exceptional Financial Support bid? 10.4 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR DAVIES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT - COUNCILLOR BRIDGES: Could the Cabinet member please set out any measures being introduced to assist residents with the disposal of larger household items that do not fall within the scope of standard waste collection services? 10.5 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR BURROWS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT - COUNCILLOR BRIDGES: Could the Cabinet member please provide an update on the cu rrent status and future plans for the borough’s archives and museum? 10.6 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR MARTIN TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & GROWTH - COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL: Can the Cabinet Member please update Council on the recent article in the Evening Standard that Hillingdon Council are focusing on prioritising Hillingdon residents for QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS Council – 22 January 2026 housing, ahead of prioritising asylum seekers, which is a choice being made by other London Boroughs. 10.7 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR BENNETT TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT - COUNCILLOR BRIDGES: Could the Cabinet member please advise on the progress being made in rolling out food waste collection services to residents living in flats and apartments? 10.8 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR AHMAD-WALLANA TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY AND EN VIRONMENT - COUNCILLOR BRIDGES: With the opening of the new Platinum Jubilee Leisure Centre imminent, could the Cabinet member please outline any plans to promote its use and, in doing so, support local residents in leading healthy lifestyles? 10.9 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR SWEETING TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: In his ‘Happy New Year ’ message in the January edition of Hillingdon People, the Leader of the C ouncil claimed that £40 million is being with held from Hillingdon Council, implying that the Labour Government is deliberately denying him funding. It has long been clear that this is a three -year settlement, and it is up to this Council to operate within its financial capacity. Yet Conservative decisions - chronic overspending, missed savings targets, and exhausted reserves have left the Council in its current precarious position. Why has the Leader of this Council failed to acknowledge that Hillingdon has gained substantially from the Labour Government's Fair Funding Settlement, as set out in the Cabinet Report of 23 rd December 2025, and has instead chosen to mislead residents about where the blame lies. 10.10 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR DHOT TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT - COUNCILLOR BRIDGES: Can the Cabinet member please share an update on the new pothole technology repair machine that has been invested in by the Council, and how it has been used to date? 10.11 QUESTION S UBMITTED BY COUNCILL OR BURLES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES A ND PROPERTY – COUNCILLOR BIANCO: Could the Cabinet member please inform this Council of the total amount of unpaid debt on commercial leases of Council owned assets, and explain w hat robust measures are in place to ensure that these debts are not only pursued but actually collected, so that public assets are not left generating losses due to ineffective debt recovery ? Council – 22 January 2026 10.12 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR PUNJA TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy —CIPFA—has now been asked by MHCLG to assess the in-principle decision to pursue Exceptional Financial Support. That is somewhat ironic, given that Councillor Edwards previously chose to award a single-tender contract to Grant Thornton, instead of CIPFA, to deliver this Council’s Financial Modernisation Programme which has now cost around £1.7million and failed to deliver on time and to budget. At the July Cabinet meeting, the Leader went further, proudly stating that this Conservative administration had uncovered £14.1million of accounting errors dating back to 2014 and therefore did not require independent scrutiny. Does the Leader of Council now accept the need for independent scrutiny from CIPFA, or was the reason that CIPFA were not appointed in the first place because he has something to fear from it? 10.13 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR GARELICK TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND TRANSFORMATION - COUNCILLOR LAVERY: The Cabinet Member for Finance and Transformation has publicly admitted - via a post on the Ruislip Facebook page - that the proposed parking charges for Ruislip Lido were wrong in the 2026/27 draft budget currently out for public consultation. Given that this draft budget was delivered late and already contains acknowledged errors, can the Cabinet Member for Finance and Transformation tell this Council what confidence residents should have in the accuracy of the remainder of the budget, and what other mistakes they now expect to emerge before it is finalised? 10.14 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR KAUR TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND TRANSFORMATION - COUNCILLOR LAVERY: As the 25/26 budget was based on using Capital Transformation to achieve a target of £34million in-year savings, can the Cabinet member please tell this Council what percentage of the £34 million saving target was achieved by Capital Transformation and what was achieved by the Managed Vacancy Factor? 10.15 QUESTION SUBM ITTED BY COUNCILLOR MAND TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS: The Council’s borrowing has exploded from £349 million at 31 March 2024 to £518million by 31 March 2025. The December 2025 budget report (paragraph 11.12) confirms that a further £ 267million of borrowing is required to fund the General Fund Capital Programme, on top of the anticipated £150 million of Exceptional Financial Support borrowing simply to pay for day -to-day spending until March 2027. Taken together, this administration i s driving the Council towards £1 billion of debt yet still cannot produce a legally balanced budget. The Leader has been forced to Council – 22 January 2026 go cap in hand to the Labour Government for Exceptional Financial Support, not for investment or regeneration, but purely to s top the Chief Finance Officer issuing a Section 114 bankruptcy notice. When Thurrock Council collapsed into effective bankruptcy, its debt had only just breached £1 billion. Given the strikingly similar debt levels, reliance on borrowing to fund revenue spending, and the need for emergency Government support, will the Leader of the Council explain what concrete action he as Leader of this Council is taking to prevent a Section 114 notice?

Council – 22 January 2026 MOTIONS 11.1 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR GARDNER That this Council recognises that a well -resourced and well -managed CCTV system can play an important role as one of the key factors in tackling crime and many forms of antisocial behaviour. This Council notes that Hillingdon now has about 3000 CCTV cameras, surely making it one of the best -provided Boroughs in London and that there have been numerous examples of excellent work by the staff of the Control Room in catching criminals as a result of close working with the local police. However, this Council regrets that for an extended period there have been only a few members of staff to monitor such a large number of cameras and that this is making it impossible to provide effective monitoring. The situation i s becoming increasingly unacceptable with frequent instances of only one member of staff on duty and occasions when residents have tried calling there is nobody present at all and therefore one has to assume that the CCTV room isn’t covered 24/7 , so, presumably, also calls from the police go unanswered. This Council therefore calls on the Cabinet to review , as a matter of urgency , the level of funding needed to ensure the proper functioning of this service which is vital for the safety and security of the local community. Surely a well-staffed CCTV room will comply with Hillingdon’s strategic objective of providing safe & strong communities and also being a digitally enabled modern council. 11.2 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR MATHERS That this Council welcomes an d expresses its gratitude to the Labour Government for stepping in to provide fairer local government funding, including an increase of £126.7 million for Hillingdon - addressing years of underfunding under the previous Conservative government - and enabling the Council to meet its statutory responsibilities, invest in transformative services, and focus on positive outcomes for residents rather than firefighting budget shortfalls. That th is Council recognises that this increased funding provides Hillingdon Council with the opportunity to deliver long -term, outcomes -focused improvements for residents, including:  Greater stability and resilience for frontline services  Enhanced capacity to protect vulnerable children and adults  Investment in community safety, public health, and preventative services  Reduced financial risk and stronger long-term sustainability for the Council This Council notes that in the last settlement under the last Conservative government, core funding power was cut by 7% in real terms, leaving councils like Hillingdon under significant financial pressure. Council – 22 January 2026 This Council therefore resolves to:  publicly thank the Labour Government for its fair funding settlement and  call on the Conservative -led local administration to use this funding responsibly, focus on outcomes for residents rather than blaming them. 11.3 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL That this Council unequivocally condemns the proposed changes to national and London-wide planning legislation, which represent a direct threat to Green Belt land, Metropolitan Open Land, and the long -term sustainability and character of communities across the London Borough of Hillingdon. These proposals amount to a centralising power grab that prioritises developer interests over residents, weakens loc al democratic control, and undermines decades of hard-won protections for open space and community infrastructure. Council expresses grave concern at the following:  The unprecedented threat to Metropolitan Open Land, opening the door to wholly inappropriate development on some of the borough’s most cherished and irreplaceable open spaces, in direct contradiction to their intended purpose and historic protections.  The introduction of a sweeping default position in favour of development, particularly around stations, which would expose large parts of Hillingdon to high-density, unsuitable development imposed without proper local consultation or accountability.  Proposals for so-called emergency Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) relief in London, which would encourage overdevelopment while stripping away essential funding needed to support schools, healthcare, transport, and other vital local infrastructure.  Proposed changes to the Mayor of London’s call -in powers, which would allow City Hall to override the c learly expressed views of democratically elected local councillors, riding roughshod over local decision -making and silencing the voices of residents, making Hillingdon residents pay for the Mayor’s failure to deliver housing in central London Zones 1& 2 w here they are desperately required. This Council believes these proposals fundamentally undermine local democracy, weaken environmental protections, and place intolerable pressure on already stretched communities and infrastructure. Whilst the Council wil l respond to the 225 questions in the usual manner It also requests the Leader of the Council to write urgently to the borough’s three Members of Parliament, demanding that they publicly oppose these proposals, raise Hillingdon’s objections forcefully in Parliament, and take all necessary steps to defend the borough’s residents, communities, and green spaces from inappropriate and imposed development. 11.4 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR EDWARDS That this Council expresses its deep concern at the decision by the H ome Office last month to restrict local authorities’ access to data relating to the placement of asylum seekers in taxpayer-funded accommodation. Council – 22 January 2026 This decision is further evidence of the failure of the Government’s asylum and immigration policy that is characterised by poor planning and a failure to work transparently or constructively with local government and that has cost Hillingdon taxpayers millions of pounds in unfunded demand pressures. The Parliamentary Home Affairs Select Committee has reported that failure to share of data on asylum seekers with Local Authorities limits their ability to plan and respond to asylum seeker placements effectively. Where data on new arrivals, move -ons, or transfers isn’t shared in a timely and detailed manner it makes it difficult for Councils to allocate resources in education, health, social care or homelessness prevention, since authorities cannot anticipate demand reliably. The decision also damages trust in the Home Office, weakens accountability, and irresponsibly risks fuelling community tensions at a time when the Government should be focused on supporting local authorities, not sidelining them. Secrecy and centralised decision -making do nothing to fix a broken asylum system and instead place additional pressure on councils, frontline services, and local residents as well as potentially harming the welfare of asylum seekers. This Council, therefore, calls on the Government and the Home Office to urgently reverse this decision, restore full transparency with l ocal authorities and work in genuine partnership with councils to deliver a fair, effective and properly managed asylum system that commands public confidence.

Programme of Meetings - 2026/27- London Borough of Hillingdon Published Version Date: for full Council 22 January 2026 (Version 3) 2026 2027 Standard Start Time May June July Aug' Sept' Oct' Nov' Dec' Jan' Feb Mar' April May COUNCIL 7:30PM 14 (AGM) 9 24 26 21 25 (Budget) 13 (AGM) Whips Meeting 5PM 7 22 24 19 23 CABINET 7PM 28 25 23 17 22 19 17 14 18 25 29 27 Shareholder Committee (on rising of Cabinet or other time TBC) TBC 22 25 Petition Hearings - Planning, Housing & Growth 6PM 8 2 11 3 14 Petition Hearings - Community & Environment 6PM 22 18 13 10 Hillingdon Planning Committee 7PM 4 14 3 6 5 15 4 9 8 11 Pensions Committee 5PM 19 11 10 9 Audit Committee 5:10PM 28 12 30 10 26 Health & Wellbeing Board 2:30PM 9 8 1 9 Licensing Committee 10AM 3 (training) 8 6 Licensing Sub-Committee - dates TBC when required TBC Children, Families and Education Select Committee 7PM 16 16 22 12 14 11 11 13 Residents' Services Select Committee 7PM 10 7 9 25 19 18 18 21 Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee 7PM 17 29 16 24 20 17 17 15 Health and Social Care Select Committee 6:30PM 18 21 30 11 12 16 16 20 Corporate Parenting Panel 5:30PM 28 20 26 27 Standards Committee 7PM 24 2 9 2 Hillingdon SACRE 6PM 30 18 25 Induction and Member Development Days 1PM - 9PM 11 TBC