Read the text of: Printed minutes PDF 540 KB (25 pages)
Minutes
COUNCIL
9 July 2026
Meeting held at Council Chamber - Civic Centre, High
Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW
Councillor Reeta Chamdal (Mayor)
Councillor Colleen Sullivan (Deputy Mayor)
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Councillors: Shehryar Ahmad-Wallana
Tommy Balaam
Adam Bennett
Jonathan Bianco
James Bourke
Wayne Bridges
Paul Capps
Philip Corthorne
Darran Davies
Nick Denys
Navnit Dhesi
Sophie Dror
Elizabeth Dumergue
Ian Edwards
Tony Eginton
Matthew Elder
Hedson Farinha De Castro
Ella Garelick
John Garner
Tony Gill
Ekta Gohil
Sarah Hassoun
Adam Huddle
Amanpreet Kaur
Kamal Preet Kaur
Kuldeep Lakhmana
Eddie Lavery
Stacey Lucas
Gursharan Mand
Kelly Martin
Stuart Mathers
Douglas Mills
Richard Mills
Terence Murray
Susan O'Brien
Jane Palmer
Sital Punja
Ranjeet Rathore
Archan Raval
John Riley
Riley Russell
Raju Sansarpuri
Jagjit Singh
Daniel Singham
Peter Smallwood OBE
Jan Sweeting
Anil Taneja
Steve Tuckwell
OFFICERS PRESENT: Tony Zaman, Dan Kennedy, Sandra Taylor, Pete Carpenter,
Lloyd White, Daniel Toohey, Mark Braddock and Nikki O'Halloran
13. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1)
Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Banerjee, Garg and
Higgins.
14. MINUTES (Agenda Item 2)
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2026 and 14
May 2026 be agreed as correct records.
15. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (Agenda Item 3)
Mr Pete Carpenter declared a pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 6iii) Appointment of
Statutory Officer, as the item was in relation to his appointment, and left the room
during the consideration thereof.
16. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (Agenda Item 4)
The Mayor welcomed all new Councillors and advised that she had had a busy six
weeks since the Annual Council meeting. It had been a privilege to represent
Hillingdon at a huge range of events and to meet so many people, and she thanked
her escorts and consort for accompanying her.
The Mayor thanked everyone who had attended her recent fundraising quiz night.
She reflected that it was important to be kind to each other and that a simple smile
had the power to brighten someone’s day.
17. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (Agenda Item 5)
5.1 QUESTION FROM SALINA SHABBIR OF ALANDALE DRIVE,
NORTHWOOD TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR ADULTS, CHILDREN, HEALTH
& CARE– COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN
“A 2023 detailed analysis of UK diets found that plant-based diets result in 75% less
greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution and land use than diets in which more
than 100g of meat a day was eaten. Plant-based diets also cut the destruction of
wildlife by 66% and water use by 54%. Less than a third of adults manage to eat the
NHS recommended 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day. So, by helping the
community access plant-based food through council events, school menu changes
and public education, it will not only help lower Hillingdon's carbon footprint but have
positive impacts on the health of our community.
“Therefore, will Hillingdon join 70 councils worldwide, including Lambeth, Edinburgh,
Belfast, Norwich, Exmouth and Haywards Heath in the UK, and endorse the Plant
Based Treaty initiative and take meaningful steps to expand access to healthy plant-
based food?”
In the absence of the questioner, the Mayor asked the question on her behalf.
Councillor O’Brien advised that she would provide a written response to the question.
[NOTE: The following written response was forwarded to Ms Shabbir after the
meeting:
Hillingdon Council is currently delivering both through the Local Plan and
Public Health programmes, the provision of supporting healthier diets, reducing
food waste and helping children develop a better understanding of healthy and
sustainable food through our ‘School Food Matters’ programme.
Many of the commitments contained in the Plant Based Treaty relate to
national and international policy on food production and regulation which are
areas that Hillingdon Council has no power to control or affect change.
Therefore, Hillingdon will not be signing up to the Plant Based Treaty as the
commitments set out cannot be delivered upon, nor can the council be held
accountable for.
This council’s focus will remain on taking practical action where we can
genuinely make a difference for Hillingdon residents.]
5.2 QUESTION FROM DANIEL O’NEILL OF ASHBURTON ROAD, RUISLIP TO
THE DEPUTY LEADER OF THE COUNCIL & CABINET MEMBER FOR
CORPORATE SERVICES, DIGITAL & TRANSFORMATION – COUNCILLOR
RICHARD MILLS
“At Cabinet on 25 June, the Council emphasised transparency, scrutiny,
accountability and resident confidence. The Council also has a published
‘Unreasonable or Unreasonably Persistent Complainants’ policy with formal
safeguards before contact restrictions are imposed.
“Could the Cabinet member explain whether the Council operates any separate non-
UPC Single Point of Contact arrangements which restrict, route, filter, delay or
centralise residents’ correspondence; publish the governance framework for those
arrangements, including threshold criteria, authorisation, data-protection basis, notice,
review or appeal rights, duration and response-time standards; confirm whether such
arrangements can affect correspondence sent directly to elected Councillors; and
provide the current number of residents subject to: (a) formal UPC restrictions, (b)
non-UPC SPOC arrangements, and (c) any arrangement affecting emails addressed
to Councillors?”
The Mayor asked the question on behalf of Daniel O’Neill. Councillor Richard Mills
advised that the Council’s SPOC arrangements were in place in limited, evidence-
based circumstances – these were managed contact arrangements that were
separate from the Council’s UPC policy where the contact did not meet the UPC
threshold but still needed structured management. Only a small number of individuals
had been subject to these arrangements. SPOC was not a ban on contact,
replacement for the UPC policy or an unmanaged or hidden restriction. Neither did it
affect correspondence with elected Members.
5.3 QUESTION FROM NICKY CROWTHER OF WINNOCK ROAD, WEST
DRAYTON TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS SERVICES –
COUNCILLOR BRIDGES
“I urge Hillingdon Council to accelerate the electrification of transport and easy EV
charging. I note the bewildering recent purchase of 32 new diesel vehicles for the
council fleet. Yet six years have lapsed since the climate emergency declaration in
2020. This underlines the need to accelerate zero emissions policy.
“Can the Council commit to making all subsequent vehicle purchases fully electric?”
Councillor Bridges advised that the Council was committed to reducing emissions and
increasing its use of electric vehicles. Whilst having a fully electric fleet was a long-
term goal, this would be expensive and the vehicles that were currently available did
not yet offer the range, payload or operational resilience that would be needed. The
Council’s depot infrastructure could not yet offer large scale fleet charging without
significant further investment. A number of less efficient vehicles had recently been
replaced and the savings achieved would be reinvested in charging infrastructure at
Council depots. The Council would continue to review every replacement vehicle
opportunity and would choose electric vehicles where this was practical, reliable and
offered good value for money. The move to a fully electric fleet would need to be
done in a way that was operationally effective, financially responsible and delivered
the best outcomes for the environment and Hillingdon residents.
5.4 QUESTION FROM WENDY SEATH-JAMES OF WREN DRIVE, WEST
DRAYTON TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING AND
PROPERTY – COUNCILLOR DENYS
“What is preventing the council issuing a lease to the Yiewsley and West Drayton Arts
Council who are currently running the Borough's only Arts Centre on the goodwill of
volunteers, awaiting in frustration, a renewed lease which is required for surety in
Major Trust funding applications' criteria?”
In the absence of the questioner, the Mayor asked the question on her behalf.
Councillor Denys advised that he would provide a written response to the question.
[NOTE: The following written response was forwarded to Ms Seath-James after
the meeting:
We recognise and value the important work carried out by the Yiewsley and
West Drayton Arts Council. It is a well-managed and well used facility. Our
starting point is to support the charity in securing a sustainable future for
Southlands Art Centre. These are the types of places that make Hillingdon a
great place to live.
Indeed, in recognition of what the Yiewsley and West Drayton Arts Council
provides to the local area, over the years the Centre has been heavily
subsidised by the Council. But, as we are all aware, the financial pressures that
every council faces means that we need to be certain of the long-term financial
impacts of all decisions that are made. Even when the requests are good
ones. Unfortunately, the Labour government does not respect the importance
of supporting local arts groups.
Before committing Hillingdon taxpayers to a new long-term lease, we must
have a clear and up-to-date understanding of the potential cost
of maintaining the building. Under the historic lease, taxpayers carry significant
liability for structural and external repairs, and that arrangement cannot simply
be rolled forward without proper assessment.
An independent condition survey has been commissioned and results
expected soon. Once we have a full picture of the likely financial implications,
we will be in a position to consider the best way forward.]
5.5 QUESTION FROM PATRICIA WARDLE OF WYE CLOSE, RUISLIP TO THE
CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS’ SERVICES – COUNCILLOR BRIDGES
“I understand David Simmonds MP is behind a bid for a banking hub in Eastcote -
perhaps at the post office. The bid has been refused because there is a bank within 5
miles (Ruislip) - this bank has since closed. What is the Council doing to assist those
Residents who have difficulty with mobility or are not able to travel very far to gain
access to banking?”
In the absence of the questioner, the Mayor asked the question on her behalf.
Councillor Bridges advised that he would provide a written response to the question.
[NOTE: The following written response was forwarded to Ms Wardle after the
meeting:
I recognise the concerns of residents who may struggle to travel to access
banking services, particularly older people and those with mobility difficulties.
However, this is a national issue driven by commercial decisions taken by
banks, and the Council has no powers to require a bank branch to remain open
or to mandate the establishment of a banking hub.
Banking hubs are assessed through a national process operated by LINK and
Cash Access UK, which review local demand, cash access provision and
existing banking facilities. Residents, Councillors and MPs can all request a
review where there is evidence that additional banking services may be
needed.
Following the closure of NatWest in Eastcote, an application for a banking hub
was submitted. LINK considered the case but concluded that sufficient
alternative cash access facilities remained available locally and that access to
banking services continued to meet its assessment criteria. As a result, the
request was not taken forward.
While the Council cannot overturn that decision, we recognize the importance
of accessible, face-to-face banking services for many residents. The
Government has acknowledged that access to banking is a growing national
concern and is considering whether further measures may be required. I have
therefore asked officers to monitor developments closely, ensure Hillingdon
responds to any relevant consultations, and I will continue to liaise with David
Simmonds MP so that the Council can support any future opportunities to
improve banking access for our residents.]
5.6 QUESTION FROM SHAUN CREMIN OF PINE GARDENS, EASTCOTE TO
THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY, ENVIRONMENT & ENFORCEMENT –
COUNCILLOR BENNETT
“The Annual Performance Report highlights a big difference in fly-tipping enforcement
in Hillingdon compared to other London boroughs. Hillingdon recording 24 actions per
1000 incidents compared to a London average of over 600.
“Can the Cabinet member please indicate whether this disparity will be addressed?
“Fly tipping has a significant detrimental effect on resident’s experiences in, and
perceptions of, their community. It is noticeable in my locality how fly tipping has
increased and persistently happens in the same places. It does seem some fly tippers
are exploiting the lack of enforcement, as they know they are very likely to get away
with it.”
Councillor Bennett advised that the statistics in the report had not provided a like for
like comparison, as instances had been recorded in different ways. However, there
were disparities and these were being addressed. Fly tipping was an example of
criminal behaviour that would not be tolerated and was at the heart of Hillingdon’s
priorities. Action was being taken to ensure that the Council mastered the basics with
intelligence led operations, stronger investment and vehicles being seized and
crushed. Hillingdon’s residents should not have to pay to clear up after criminals.
5.7 QUESTION FROM SUSAN BROWNE OF KINGSEND, RUISLIP TO THE
CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING AND PROPERTY –
COUNCILLOR DENYS
“It is concerning that statutory consultee responses, which the Council has confirmed
form part of the public planning file, are not routinely published and have not been
provided for the St Martins Approach application despite repeated requests.
“Can the Cabinet member confirm whether the new planning portal will ensure routine
publication of statutory consultee responses and officer reports, and that the advice
already issued by Historic England and GLAAS - including GLAAS’s recommendation
for pre-determination archaeological evaluation - will be fully taken into account when
determining the St Martins Approach application?”
The Mayor asked the question on behalf of Susan Browne. Councillor Denys
recognised that the questioner was a super user of the Council’s planning case
management system and that the system was nearing the end of its operational life.
Whilst arrangements could currently be made to view documents, improvements were
being made to make this more accessible in the next few weeks. Furthermore, it was
anticipated that a new system enabling individuals to view statutory consultee
responses and officer reports would be in place by Easter.
5.8 QUESTION FROM GRAHAM BARTRAM OF BELL VIEW MANOR, RUISLIP
TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS’ SERVICES – COUNCILLOR
BRIDGES
“It is accepted that the Council is not responsible for the mess that has resulted from
the sudden bus stop / route changes at Ruislip Station for the H13 (and other routes) -
this lies with TFL. More than a month since the change the buses still announce that
they are stopping at Ruislip Station and then bypass it. Can the Cabinet member
inform us as to the steps that they have taken to alert TfL to the chaos that TfL have
caused and to work with them on a plan to improve matters for residents and visitors
to Ruislip?”
In the absence of the questioner, the Mayor asked the question on his behalf.
Councillor Bridges advised that he would provide a written response to the question.
[NOTE: The following written response was forwarded to Mr Bartram after the
meeting:
It is important to be clear that, as acknowledged in the question, decisions on
bus routes, bus stops and passenger information systems are matters for
Transport for London, not the Council. The decision to alter bus arrangements
at Ruislip Station was made by TfL on safety grounds and was implemented
with less than 36 hours' notice to the Council and without prior consultation.
Nevertheless, when officers became aware of the proposed changes, they
acted promptly by contacting London Buses, arranging a site meeting and
ensuring residents' concerns were raised directly and robustly with TfL. I would
like to thank officers for their swift intervention and our local Ward Councillors,
particularly those in Ruislip ward, for their continued engagement on behalf of
residents through a number of meetings with TfL officers.
As a result of this ongoing dialogue, additional signage and passenger
information have been introduced around Ruislip Station, including information
for passengers travelling to Ruislip Lido. Officers have also pressed TfL
regarding the incorrect onboard announcements which continue to state that
buses are stopping at Ruislip Station when they are not. London Buses has
confirmed that it is aware of the issue and is working to rectify it, although the
complexity of TfL's systems means this is likely to take several more weeks to
implement.
TfL has also confirmed that it is reviewing changes to local bus operations and
investigating longer-term infrastructure options that could increase bus
standing capacity within the station area.
These remain TfL projects and any significant changes will require further
design work, consultation and approvals. However, the Council will continue to
work constructively with TfL and to lobby both TfL and the Mayor of London to
secure the best possible outcome for Ruislip residents and visitors. A further
meeting with TfL has already been proposed for early September to review
progress and maintain momentum.]
5.9 QUESTION FROM CAROLYN TOWNER OF LAKESIDE CLOSE, RUISLIP
TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS’ SERVICES – COUNCILLOR
BRIDGES
“Following the near-fatal drowning incident on 26 May at Ruislip Lido, which required
attendance by the air ambulance and multiple emergency services and occurred
when no marshals or council staff were visibly present, the Council stated that clear
warning signage is in place to deter swimming.
“However, along the main 250-metre approach from the bus stop and main car park to
the beach, there are prominent information boards and notices relating to ducks,
geese, planets, asteroids, dog control and barbecues, yet there appear to be no clear
“no swimming” warnings or water hazard notices on that primary route. The only
signage relating to water danger appears to be located on the beach itself. Moreover,
the visibility of this signage can be obstructed when thousands of visitors with
gazebos and tents are using the beach on the very days incidents are likely to take
place.
“Given the known risks of unpredictable depth, swimmers itch, cold water shock and
underwater obstructions, can the Cabinet member confirm whether limited signage
alone is considered a sufficient safety control, and whether stronger physical
measures - including fencing or restricted access to the water from the beach - will
now be implemented to prevent further incidents?”
In the absence of the questioner, the Mayor asked the question on her behalf.
Councillor Bridges advised that he would provide a written response to the question.
[NOTE: The following written response was forwarded to Ms Towner after the
meeting:
As you acknowledge, open water presents an obvious and well-understood
risk. Sadly, this year there have been a number of tragic drownings across the
country in lakes, reservoirs, rivers and coastal waters. We are aware of the
recent incident at Ruislip Lido and are thankful it did not result in a fatality. Our
thoughts remain with the child and family involved.
The safety of residents and visitors is, and will continue to be, a priority for the
Council. However, the presence of open water does not create a duty to
remove every obvious risk or to fence off public open spaces. The primary
responsibility for keeping children safe rests with parents, carers and
individuals using the site.
I am aware that you have already had extensive correspondence and
discussions with a number of elected Members regarding this matter. As has
previously been explained, the Council has warning signs in place advising
visitors not to enter the water, and officers are currently reviewing whether any
further improvements to signage or public information would be appropriate.
That review will be informed by evidence, risk assessments and professional
advice.
There are currently no plans to install physical barriers around the Lido. There
is no evidence to suggest that fencing would materially reduce the risk, as
access could simply be displaced to other parts of the shoreline. Barriers may
also impede emergency access and rescue efforts should an incident occur.
Furthermore, Ruislip Lido is a public open space and any restriction on public
access must be justified by clear evidence that such action is necessary,
proportionate and effective. At present, we do not consider that threshold has
been met.
The Council has carefully considered the points raised and our position
remains unchanged. We will continue to keep safety arrangements at Ruislip
Lido under regular review and will implement any proportionate measures
supported by evidence. Decisions will be based on professional advice, risk
assessment and the wider public interest, not on the volume of representations
received, media campaigns or social media commentary.
Indeed, some of the recent reporting on this issue has itself contributed to the
misleading portrayal of Ruislip Lido as a "secret beach", whilst also
inaccurately attributing content to websites that have no connection
whatsoever with the Council. Residents deserve accurate, balanced and
responsible reporting, and the Council will continue to base its decisions on
evidence and professional advice rather than headlines.
It is disappointing that, rather than waiting to hear the facts set out in my
response this evening, these concerns were first raised through MyLondon.
Had a little more care and due diligence been exercised, it would have become
immediately apparent that the only organisation actively promoting Ruislip Lido
as a "secret beach" is MyLondon itself. The publication also wrongly implied a
connection between the Council and a website with which the Council has
absolutely no involvement, creating a misleading impression for readers.
There is a certain irony in a publication expressing concern about people being
attracted to the Lido whilst simultaneously helping to market it in precisely that
way. The combination of clickbait journalism, poor fact-checking and
misleading reporting, frankly, does very little to inspire confidence in the quality
of the journalism involved.]
5.10 QUESTION FROM JESSICA LANE OF GREENWAY, YEADING ON BEHALF
OF THE BARNHILL ESTATE RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION, TO THE CABINET
MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS’ SERVICES – COUNCILLOR BRIDGES
“Hillingdon parks, open spaces and grass verges unfortunately continue to be blighted
by litter. This is made worse when Hillingdon Council grass cutters churn up this
waste. A motion concerning litter picking before grass cutting was passed in
September 2024 which concluded with “That this Council asks the Cabinet Member
for Residents’ Services to continue to liaise with the Corporate Director of Place to
ensure that all maintenance activities are delivered in the most efficient way possible.”
“Since then, there has been no apparent improvement, with litter, including tin cans
and glass bottles, torn up and smashed and left in the grass for pets and wildlife to be
harmed by, along with young children playing in our parks. In fact, many would say
the situation has worsened. Please can the Cabinet member provide an update on
exactly what has been done as a result of Hillingdon Council passing the September
2024 motion?”
In the absence of the questioner, the Mayor asked the question on her behalf.
Councillor Bridges advised that he would provide a written response to the question.
[NOTE: The following written response was forwarded to Ms Lane after the
meeting:
I recognize residents’ concerns about litter being disturbed during grass
cutting, and I share the view that we should do everything reasonably possible
to reduce this problem.
Since the motion was agreed by Council in September 2024, we have
improved how these services are managed. Grounds Maintenance and Street
Cleansing now operate under a single Head of Service, strengthening
accountability and improving day-to-day coordination. Where practical, litter
picking is undertaken before grass cutting, particularly in known hotspot
locations and heavily used areas, with resident reports helping us target
resources more effectively.
However, there are operational challenges. Litter is often concealed in long
grass, some areas cannot be safely accessed before mowing for health and
safety reasons, and weather conditions can affect planned cutting schedules.
We will continue to refine our approach, improve coordination between teams
and focus resources where they can have the greatest impact. Ultimately,
however, the most effective solution is to reduce littering itself. Alongside
continued investment in cleansing and enforcement, we also need everyone to
play their part in helping to keep Hillingdon’s parks and open spaces clean and
safe.]
5.11 QUESTION FROM KATRINA PATTERSON OF VICTORIA ROAD,
UXBRIDGE, TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS’ SERVICES –
COUNCILLOR BRIDGES
“Uxbridge residents and people who work here have had a large post office in the
centre of town for over 100 years. Our last post office, at the junction of Belmont Road
and the High Street, closed on 30 May this year.
“The delay in replacing it is difficult to understand in a town where the population
continues to grow at pace. What is the Council doing to support and encourage
progress for bids to the Post Office Ltd for a post office in the town centre, even a
temporary one as soon as possible?”
Councillor Bridges advised that the Post Office was a commercial organisation so was
therefore not controlled by the Council. However, the Council had worked with the
organisation to explore options. Whilst it had not been possible to identify a
permanent solution in the short term, it had been agreed that a Post Office would be
run from the Civic Centre (next to Uxbridge Library) as a temporary operation.
Despite there being no statutory requirement, the Council had stepped in to help
resolve the issue.
5.12 QUESTION FROM JANET KELLY-WOEGINGER OF FRAYS AVENUE,
WEST DRAYTON, TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS’ SERVICES –
COUNCILLOR BRIDGES
“The dump at the Old Coal Yard was opened at weekends only after the closure of the
Rigby Lane site in Hayes. This means the dump serves the whole of the South of the
Borough where just within a few square miles approx’ half of the population in
Hillingdon live.
“Whilst saving money is on top of the list for many of us, living in filth and squalor is
not. I would like to ask the Cabinet member to address the following concerns
regarding the operation of this site:
a) given that only 1400 West Drayton residents have signed up for the green
waste scheme - where are the other 17,000 West Drayton residents going to
deposit their green waste if the dump is to close in favour of a small "mobile
day" a few times a year. What are we as residents expected to do with extra
household waste, green waste, general waste, large waste etc.?
b) at the weekend there are queues to get into the dump mostly supported by the
long lead road into the Coal Yard and then the roadway to the actual dump that
travels through private land. How will this be managed in Church Road and
Church Close without blocking the highways?
c) whereas a friendly neighbour may be willing to help get a mattress into a car,
how are residents now expected to carry large items to the skip ourselves once
we arrive at the mobile dump?
d) I note there seems to be no counting in and out of the Old Coal Yard dump but
am sure the LBH would have undertaken this task before making such a
decision - how many residents have used the dump over the last year and what
was the tonnage?”
In the absence of the questioner, the Mayor asked the question on her behalf.
Councillor Bridges advised that he would provide a written response to the question.
[NOTE: The following written response was forwarded to Ms Kelly-Woeginger
after the meeting:
I understand the concerns that residents have raised, but it is important to be
clear that these changes represent a service enhancement, not a reduction in
provision.
The Old Coal Yard has only ever operated on weekends. Under the new
arrangements, residents will have access to the Space Waye Household Re-
use and Recycling Centre seven days a week, providing significantly greater
flexibility than is currently available. In addition, we are making our successful
pop-up waste service permanent and increasing the number of pop-up
weekends in Yiewsley and West Drayton, giving residents more opportunities
to dispose of waste locally.
Importantly, we are delivering these improvements while reducing costs to
Hillingdon taxpayers. At a time when councils across the country are under
severe financial pressure, providing a better and more accessible service at a
lower cost is exactly the responsible approach residents expect.
Residents will continue to have routes for disposing of green waste, bulky
items and general household waste through Space Waye, New Years Green
Lane, the Council’s bulky waste collection service and the expanded pop-up
programme.
The queues regularly seen at the Old Coal Yard highlight the limitations of
relying on a single weekend-only facility. By providing access throughout the
week and expanding local pop-up provision, demand will be spread more
effectively and pressure on any one site reduced. For context, the site currently
receives around 1,500 to 2,000 visits each weekend and processes
approximately 6,000 tonnes of waste annually.
I appreciate that change can cause concern, but our responsibility is to deliver
the best possible service for all residents across the borough. These proposals
provide access seven days a week instead of weekends only, increase local
opportunities to dispose of waste, and do so at a lower overall cost. I believe
that is the right decision and one that will deliver long-term benefits for
Hillingdon residents.]
18. REPORT OF THE HEAD OF DEMOCRATIC SERVICES (Agenda Item 6)
Councillor Tuckwell moved, and Councillor R Mills seconded, the four parts to this
item as follows:
i) Urgent Implementation Of Decisions
ii) Borough Elections (Hillingdon West Ward), Political Groups On The
Council, Calculation Of Political Balance And Committee Memberships
iii) Appointment Of Statutory Officer
Members wished Mr Steve Muldoon a speedy recovery.
iv) Review Of Council Constitution – Council Residents’ Petition Scheme
Those speaking in support of the motion advised that a petition had been
received in opposition to the proposed changes to Hillingdon’s petition scheme
and that this had been taken into account before moving the recommendations.
The proposed changes would improve consistency, reduce bureaucracy and
speed up the process whilst also bringing the petition scheme in line with
neighbouring boroughs. Residents did not judge the Administration on the
number of meetings that it held but on its ability to work at pace and deliver
outcomes.
Members were reminded that the Council had objected to the legislation that
had prompted changes to the planning petition scheme but that Hillingdon was
required to make these changes.
Those speaking against the motion suggested that the changes would result in
a significant reduction in residents’ rights and the petition that had been
submitted objecting to the changes had shown a strength of feeling. The
increases in the thresholds for the number of signatories needed would make it
harder for residents to get a petition together.
The proposals would also get rid of Petition Hearings which had provided an
opportunity for residents to hold Cabinet Members to account. Concern was
expressed that residents should not be made to lose their speaking rights on
planning matters.
The four motions were put to a recorded vote:
Those voting for: The Mayor (Councillor Chamdal), the Deputy Mayor (Councillor
Sullivan), Councillors Ahmad-Wallana, Balaam, Bennett, Bianco, Bourke, Bridges,
Capps, Corthorne, Davies, Denys, Dror, Edwards, Elder, Garner, Gohil, Huddle,
Lavery, Lucas, Martin, D Mills, R Mills, Murray, O’Brien, Palmer, Rathore, Raval,
Riley, Russell, Singham, Smallwood, Taneja and Tuckwell.
Those voting against: Councillors Dhesi, Dumergue, Eginton, Farinha De Castro,
Garelick, Gill, Hassoun, A Kaur, K Kaur, Lakhmana, Mand, Mathers, Punja,
Sansarpuri, Singh and Sweeting.
Those abstaining: None.
The four motions were carried and it was:
RESOLVED: That:
i) the urgency decisions detailed in the report be noted.
ii) a) the result of the election in Hillingdon West ward be noted,
b) the political balance of the Council, following the Hillingdon West
election and the resignation of Councillor Banerjee from the
Conservative Group, be noted; and
c) the following changes to membership of Counc il Committees etc. be
approved:
Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee -
Councillor Rathore to replace Councillor Banerjee.
Audit, Finance and Performance Committee - Councillor Singham to
replace Councillor Banerjee.
Hillingdon Planning Committee - Councillor Ahmad-Wallana to
replace Councillor Singham.
Licensing Committee - Councillor Lucas to replace Councillor Elder.
Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee -
Councillor Elder to replace Councillor Lucas.
iii) Mr Pete Carpenter be appointed to the statutory role of Section 151 and
Chief Financial Officer of the Council (on an interim basis) until such time
as the Corporate Director of Finance returns from sickness leave.
iv) the revised Council Residents’ Petition Scheme, as set out in Appendix A of
the report, be approved.
19. WEST LONDON WASTE PLAN REGULATION 19 (Agenda Item 7)
Councillor Bridges moved, and Councillor Denys seconded, the motion as set out on
the Order of Business and it was:
RESOLVED: That:
1. the publication and consultation of the Proposed Submission (Regulation
19) West London Waste Plan, as attached at Appendix 1, be approved.
2. authority be delegated to the Director of Planning and Sustainable
Growth (as Chief Planning Officer) in conjunction with other participating
boroughs, to:
a. Make minor modifications to the Proposed Submission (Regulation
19) West London Waste Plan and accompanying documents before
consultation launch;
b. Suggest any necessary proposed modifications to the West
London Waste Plan and accompanying documents as well as
undertaking any associated consultation required throughout the
examination process to ensure that the West London Waste Plan
can be found sound by the Planning Inspector; and
c. Make minor modifications to the Proposed Submission (Regulation
19) West London Waste Plan and accompanying documents
following consultation and submit these documents under
Regulation 22 to the Secretary of State.
3. the Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) West London Waste Plan to be
used for d evelopment management purposes in determining planning
applications related to waste management development, be endorsed
with appropriate weight given in accordance with paragraph 49 of the
National Planning Policy Framework.
20. MEMBERS' QUESTIONS (Agenda Item 8)
8.3 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MURRAY TO THE CABINET
MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS SERVICES - COUNCILLOR BRIDGES
“Can the Cabinet member advise what steps this Council is taking to enable residents
from across the Borough access to waste and recycling centres?”
Councillor Bridges advised that the Council had taken steps to improve access to
waste and recycling services with the New Years Green Lane site being open seven
days each week, the Tavistock Road site remaining available until December 2026
and a new provision for residents to use the Space Waye recycling centre in
Hounslow which was also open seven days each week. The addition of the Space
Waye facility would prove particularly valuable for residents in the south of the
Borough.
By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Murray asked if the drop and go
sessions had been well used and if there were any plans to expand this further.
Councillor Bridges advised that, following a successful pilot, the Council’s pop-up
waste drop service, which collected unwanted and bulky waste, would be made
permanent. It would be rotated across targeted locations across the Borough every
two weeks with at least six sessions in Yiewsley and West Drayton over the next year.
This meant that more residents would be able to access facilities closer to home.
8.7 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR SWEETING TO THE CABINET
MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS SERVICES - COUNCILLOR BRIDGES
“Could the Cabinet member explain to residents of Yiewsley and West Drayton and
beyond how the proposed closure of the Tavistock Road Civic Amenity site - decided
without any resident consultation, which would necessitate a round trip of an hour to
the new waste and recycling plant in Feltham to dump their rubbish, namely 25
minutes there, a waste drop of approximately 10 minutes plus the 25 minutes journey
back, a proposal which hardly inspires residents to reduce their carbon footprint - is
putting West Drayton and Yiewsley residents first?”
Councillor Bridges noted that he had answered this question in his previous response.
By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Sweeting asked when the
Conservatives would act as a responsible authority and identify a permanent civic
amenity site in the south of the Borough so that residents did not have to use the
facilities in Labour-run Hounslow.
Councillor Bridges advised that residents being able to use the Space Waye facility in
Hounslow provided them with a service improvement as it would be open seven days
each week rather than just open at weekends and would be particularly useful for
residents in the Heathrow Villages. He noted that there had been an article in 2018 in
which the opposition had claimed that the Powerday site in Tavistock Road was
deplorable and yet now these same Members were complaining about its closure.
The pop-up recycling and bulky waste service would be rotated around the Borough
which would give residents further opportunities to dispose of their waste. The
Administration would continue to do what was right for Hillingdon residents.
8.6 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR PALMER TO THE LEADER OF
THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL:
“Following the announcement that HS2 construction teams are likely to be present in
Hillingdon for a decade longer than previously identified, can the Leader of the
Council please provide an update on steps he is taking to ensure the Government
provide extra assistance to affected communities?”
Councillor Tuckwell thanked Councillor Palmer for the work that she had undertaken
in relation to HS2 and the relentless way that she had held them to account. He
advised that the extended period of works had not been what Parliament had signed
up for – the works were supposed to have been completed by 2026 but the disruption
was now expected to continue for several more years. The Leader had written to the
Secretary of State to explain the impact that this extended period of works would have
on Hillingdon residents and to set out the case for additional support to reflect the
reality (this correspondence would be published in the public domain).
HS2 was being pressed to engage with those affected and to return the land to its
former state promptly. The works should not be allowed to be extended without
providing Hillingdon with support and compensation.
There was no supplementary question.
8.2 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR RUSSELL TO THE CABINET
MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & PROPERTY – COUNCILLOR DENYS
“Can the Cabinet Member advise how the Council is supporting residents, in relation
to the commitment of Hillingdon Homes for Hillingdon People?”
Councillor Denys advised that providing affordable homes for Hillingdon residents was
a top priority and it was recognised how hard it was to get on the housing ladder or to
secure an affordable rented home. Over the last year, 510 social housing lettings had
been delivered which included 271 Council homes that had gone to local people. It
would be important to build Hillingdon communities and reduce homelessness by
providing early advice and guidance and working with the housing associations.
There was still more to do but the Council was committed to increasing the supply of
affordable housing, supporting those most in need and ensuring that local homes
benefitted local people – Hillingdon homes for Hillingdon people.
By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Russell asked what the Mayor of
London’s housing targets meant for Hillingdon and sought reassurance that the
Council remained committed to retaining its award-winning parks and open spaces.
Councillor Denys advised that the Council was committed to protecting its parks and
green spaces and this would never change. Hillingdon Homes was not just about
bricks and mortar but about having the best place to live. The Mayor of London’s
proposals would see outer London boroughs such as Hillingdon shouldering the
burden of inner London’s failure to deliver homes. It was anticipated that the housing
targets would likely be unrealistic and parts of the green belt might be at risk. The
Council would do all it could to protect the Borough from unwarranted development.
The administration did not oppose all development but acceptable development would
have to be sustainable, supported by infrastructure, enhance existing communities
and protect green spaces.
8.1 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BOURKE TO THE CABINET
MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS SERVICES - COUNCILLOR BRIDGES
“Can the Cabinet member please advise on feedback received from residents on the
launch and opening of the Platinum Jubilee Leisure Centre in West Drayton, and in
particular the free weekend at the end of May?”
Councillor Bridges advised that the feedback on the new Platinum Jubilee Leisure
Centre in West Drayon had been overwhelmingly positive, with around two thousand
visitors attending during the free open weekend. It had been a pleasure to see
residents of all ages and from all backgrounds making full use of the facilities which
were accessible and inclusive. Since opening, more than 1,700 residents had signed
up for health memberships and around 700 had been involved in the swim school.
The Cabinet Member thanked GLL and officers for their efforts in getting the centre
opened and making it a reality.
There was no supplementary question.
8.4 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BALAAM TO THE CABINET
MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & PROPERTY – COUNCILLOR DENYS
“Since the Council introduced its Article 4 Direction in relation to HMOs last
December, can the Cabinet member please advise how many HMO applications have
been refused in Hillingdon?”
Councillor Denys noted that, since he had been elected, Councillor Balaam had
worked hard with residents to ensure that an HMO application in Lees Close had
been refused. Since the Article 4 Direction came into force in December 2025, 25
planning applications had been submitted, 22 of which had been refused. Whilst
there would be no objection to HMOs that were well managed, appropriately located
and met required standards, poorly run HMOs would not be permitted to undermine
Hillingdon’s established communities. The Article 4 direction had given the Council
the ability to stand up for residents.
By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Balaam asked what additional
powers would be available to the Council once tighter licensing regulations were
introduced next month.
Councillor Denys noted that, from 24 August 2026, every HMO in Hillingdon housing
three or more unrelated individuals would require a licence. The Council would be
able to take firm enforcement action against landlords who failed to meet the required
standards. The new scheme gave the Council stronger powers to ensure that
properties were safe, well managed and properly maintained with appropriate fire
safety measures and decent living conditions for tenants. Poorly managed HMOs
could bring increased nuisance, antisocial behaviour, parking pressure and
environmental problems that had a real impact on neighbours. A robust approach
was being taken to improving housing standards.
8.5 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR RAVAL TO THE CABINET
MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY, ENVIRONMENT & ENFORCEMENT - COUNCILLOR
BENNETT:
“Fly-tipping is an increasing problem across London and the UK. Please can the
Cabinet member share how this administration is taking proactive steps to clamp
down on fly-tipping?”
Councillor Bennett advised that fly tipping remained a challenge across London and
nationally and Hillingdon had introduced a three-step approach to tackling it:
prevention and early intervention; rapid removal of waste; and robust enforcement
where offenders were identifiable. A Borough wide pop-up waste drop off would be
rotated around Hillingdon and residents were now able to use the Space Waye
recycling centre in Hounslow, providing residents with places to dispose of their bulky
waste.
The Love Clean Streets app had been trialled by Councillors enabling fast and easy
reporting of fly tipping – it was hoped that the use of this app would be extended to
residents in due course. The waste management team responded very quickly to
these reports. Where incidents happened on private land, such as the Lombardi
Retail Park in Hayes, the Council had been lobbying the land owners to ensure that
they responded quickly.
Where sufficient evidence was available, the Council would take formal enforcement
action by issuing fixed penalty notices, prosecuting offenders and seizing and
crushing vehicles involved in environmental crime. With all forms of enforcement
such as fly tipping, parking, traffic, street scene, public space protection orders,
planning, licensing, trading standards, HMOs or private sector housing, Councillor
Bennett wanted Hillingdon to be the local authority that was respected by residents,
envied by its peers and feared by offenders for its tough zero tolerance approach.
There was no supplementary question.
21. MOTIONS (Agenda Item 9)
9.1 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL
Councillor Tuckwell moved, and Councillor Denys seconded, the following motion:
That this Council reaffirms its longstanding and unequivocal opposition to the
expansion of Heathrow Airport through the construction of a third runway and
the associated infrastructure that would devastate Hillingdon's residents,
communities and environment.
This Council also notes that the Government’s indecision, has resulted in two
different promoters vying to deliver expansion through the development
consent order (DCO) process in the rushed timeframe. This is at the same time
as the Government consults on whether there should be expansion or not
through the Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement:
The requirement to deal with two separate Development Consent
Orders at the same time places a significant and unacceptable burden
on Hillingdon’s residents, who will experience prolonged uncertainty,
disruption and pressure on local services as a direct result of the
Government’s approach.
Managing two nationally significant infrastructure projects
simultaneously represents one of the largest and most complex
infrastructure planning exercises facing any local authority in the
country. It will require a sustained commitment of specialist planning,
highways, environmental, legal and technical expertise over a number of
years.
The greatest demands and costs to the Council will arise throughout the
examination of the applications and the years that follow, including the
preparation of technical evidence, legal representation, negotiation of
mitigation, the discharge of statutory planning functions and the
continued protection of residents' interests.
The Government has chosen to allow two competing Heathrow
expansion schemes to progress. It is therefore wholly unreasonable to
expect Hillingdon Council to discharge its statutory duties to the highest
possible standard, while protecting local services, unless it is fully
funded to do so.
Hillingdon residents should not be expected to pay, through their
Council Tax, for the Government's decision to pursue competing
Heathrow expansion proposals.
Expansion is a government proposal that is being forced on our communities. It
would fundamentally and permanently alter the geography and character of the
borough. This Council believes that if the Government expects Hillingdon
Council to defend the interests of its residents throughout what will be one of
the largest infrastructure planning processes in Europe, it has a corresponding
duty to ensure that the Council is properly resourced to do so.
Further, if a decision is taken outside the Council’s control to proceed with
expansion, the Council is clear that it must be fully resourced to respond. This
includes securing the strongest possible outcomes and protections for
residents, communities and the environment, as well as ensuring that the
Council has the capacity, expertise and funding required to manage and
regulate the impacts of an expanded Heathrow over the long term.
Further, this Council notes with disappointment the failure of the Mayor of
London to engage meaningfully on the implications of Heathrow expansion for
Hillingdon residents or to work with the Council in opposing the current
proposals. The Council has successfully united with the GLA in its opposition
to previous Third Runway proposals which makes the lack of engagement in
this latest attempt all the more frustrating.
Thousands of Hillingdon residents continue to endure uncertainty and planning
blight, with homes, businesses and community facilities remaining under threat.
They deserve recognition, respect and the full support of London's elected
Mayor - not silence.
Accordingly, this Council resolves to:
1. Reaffirm its unequivocal opposition to Heathrow expansion and commit
to working with neighbouring authorities, local communities and partners
to actively resist both current proposals and the HENPS in order to
defend the interests of Hillingdon residents.
2. Call on the Government to acknowledge and address the extraordinary
burden it has created by advancing two concurrent Development
Consent Order processes, and to provide sustained, long-term funding
to ensure residents are protected without any detriment to frontline local
services.
3. Insist that the Secretary of State for Transport guarantees full funding for
the Council to properly assess, challenge and report on the impacts of
Heathrow expansion, in line with established new burdens principles.
4. In the event that the Government proceeds with Heathrow expansion
against the wishes of this Council and our residents, it must ensure that
Hillingdon is fully and properly resourced to respond. This includes
providing the funding and capacity required for the Council to represent
residents effectively, secure the strongest possible protections and
mitigation, and manage the significant and long term impacts of hosting
a substantially expanded airport.
5. Condemn in the strongest terms the Mayor of London’s failure to
engage with Hillingdon Council on Heathrow expansion.
6. Press upon the Mayor of London to urgently step up and work in
genuine partnership with the Council, neighbouring authorities and
affected communities to tackle ongoing blight, end prolonged uncertainty
and secure robust protections for residents, businesses, community
infrastructure and the environment.
7. Direct the Leader of the Council to write to the Prime Minister, the
Secretary of State for Transport and the Mayor of London, enclosing this
motion and seeking an immediate and substantive response.
Those speaking in support of the motion noted that the Council remained steadfast in
standing up for residents and would continue to oppose Heathrow expansion.
Thousands of residents had been living with uncertainty, under the expansion
proposals, with the possibility of their homes being demolished and impacting
structures such as the Great Barn in Harmondsworth (which was over 600 years old).
GP and community health services had also been affected by the resultant
inadequate health infrastructure. Action was needed to fully assess the impact on
local communities.
The two separate DCOs would require a huge amount of resources to undertake the
associated compulsory work and Hillingdon residents would be expected to pay for
this statutory duty. If the Government chose to pursue these plans, it would need to
ensure that Hillingdon was fully funded and able to protect residents. The
Government influenced what the Council was able to do and how it spent its budget
but was expecting local government to do more without giving it the funds to pay for
those additional responsibilities. The Government should be required to meet the
cost of the planning process and the Council’s response.
If it went ahead, Heathrow expansion would be the biggest infrastructure project in
Europe. However, the Mayor of London had made no reference to Heathrow
expansion in his Strategic Planning Framework or acknowledged the impact that it
would have on Hillingdon residents. Neither had he stood up to the Labour
Government.
The expansion plans would impact on the M25 whilst a tunnel was built as well as on
waterways. Concern was expressed about the impact that diversions would have on
the Borough. Confusion had also been caused by two separate companies
competing to undertake the expansion project and the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves
MP, failing provide any clarity.
Those speaking on the motion from the Labour Group advised that they would be
abstaining from the vote as, whilst they opposed the impact of Heathrow expansion
on residents, climate, environment, transport and noise, the motion had been
purposefully drafted with openly partisan and misleading language. The motion did
not move forward or offer practical outcomes and lacked credibility.
The Mayor of London had been public in his opposition to Heathrow expansion and
yet the Conservative national position had been inconsistent. It was suggested that
the Conservative Group ask their own party to stop pushing for a speedy delivery of
the third runway. Labour Members were on the side of all residents and it was stated
that the issue should not be about politics but more about having a responsible
approach. They supported the objection to Heathrow expansion but did not support
political point scoring.
The motion was put to the vote and it was:
RESOLVED: That this Council reaffirms its longstanding and unequivocal
opposition to the expansion of Heathrow Airport through the construction of a
third runway and the associated infrastructure that would devastate
Hillingdon's residents, communities and environment.
This Council also notes that the Government’s indecision, has resulted in two
different promoters vying to deliver expansion through the development
consent order (DCO) process in the rushed timeframe. This is at the same time
as the Government consults on whether there should be expansion or not
through the Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement:
The requirement to deal with two separate Development Consent Orders
at the same time places a significant and unacceptable burden on
Hillingdon’s residents, who will experience prolonged uncertainty,
disruption and pressure on local services as a direct result of the
Government’s approach.
Managing two nationally significant infrastructure projects
simultaneously represents one of the largest and most complex
infrastructure planning exercises facing any local authority in the
country. It will require a sustained commitment of specialist planning,
highways, environmental, legal and technical expertise over a number of
years.
The greatest demands and costs to the Council will arise throughout the
examination of the applications and the years that follow, including the
preparation of technical evidence, legal representation, negotiation of
mitigation, the discharge of statutory planning functions and the
continued protection of residents' interests.
The Government has chosen to allow two competing Heathrow
expansion schemes to progress. It is therefore wholly unreasonable to
expect Hillingdon Council to discharge its statutory duties to the highest
possible standard, while protecting local services, unless it is fully
funded to do so.
Hillingdon residents should not be expected to pay, through their Council
Tax, for the Government's decision to pursue competing Heathrow
expansion proposals.
Expansion is a government proposal that is being forced on our communities. It
would fundamentally and permanently alter the geography and character of the
borough. This Council believes that if the Government expects Hillingdon
Council to defend the interests of its residents throughout what will be one of
the largest infrastructure planning processes in Europe, it has a corresponding
duty to ensure that the Council is properly resourced to do so.
Further, if a decision is taken outside the Council’s control to proceed with
expansion, the Council is clear that it must be fully resourced to respond. This
includes securing the strongest possible outcomes and protections for
residents, communities and the environment, as well as ensuring that the
Council has the capacity, expertise and funding required to manage and
regulate the impacts of an expanded Heathrow over the long term.
Further, this Council notes with disappointment the failure of the Mayor of
London to engage meaningfully on the implications of Heathrow expansion for
Hillingdon residents or to work with the Council in opposing the current
proposals. The Council has successfully united with the GLA in its opposition
to previous Third Runway proposals which makes the lack of engagement in
this latest attempt all the more frustrating.
Thousands of Hillingdon residents continue to endure uncertainty and planning
blight, with homes, businesses and community facilities remaining under
threat. They deserve recognition, respect and the full support of London's
elected Mayor - not silence.
Accordingly, this Council resolves to:
1. Reaffirm its unequivocal opposition to Heathrow expansion and commit to
working with neighbouring authorities, local communities and partners to
actively resist both current proposals and the HENPS in order to defend the
interests of Hillingdon residents.
2. Call on the Government to acknowledge and address the extraordinary
burden it has created by advancing two concurrent Development Consent
Order processes, and to provide sustained, long-term funding to ensure
residents are protected without any detriment to frontline local services.
3. Insist that the Secretary of State for Transport guarantees full funding for the
Council to properly assess, challenge and report on the impacts of Heathrow
expansion, in line with established new burdens principles.
4. In the event that the Government proceeds with Heathrow expansion against
the wishes of this Council and our residents, it must ensure that Hillingdon
is fully and properly resourced to respond. This includes providing the
funding and capacity required for the Council to represent residents
effectively, secure the strongest possible protections and mitigation, and
Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Only the start of this long document is shown here. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.