Council

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

Council – 24 September 2026 5.1 QUESTION FROM ANDREW RETTER OF PINNER ROAD, NORTHWO OD, TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS’ SERVICES - COUNCILLOR BRIDGES With regard to the Harefield Recycling Centre , c an the Cabinet member please advise: a) why the non-residents’ barriers are broken and have not been repaired and how much money to the borough is being lost while these barriers are not in use, and b) why are magazines, paper and textiles no longer recycled at the Centre? 5.2 QUESTION FROM JOANNA SM ITH OF PEACHEY LANE, COWLEY , TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE – COUNCILLOR LAVERY The London Borough of Hillingdon in April 2026 has implemented changes to the way Council Tax Reduction is calculated. These changes impact badly mainly on women and disabled residents. Previously there were no non-dependant deductions if the claimants were in receipt of disability benefits. Now these deductions apply to ALL working age claimants. In their Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment, (see page 103, Council, 22/01/26) LBH has admitted this has a negative impact on vulnerable residents, but they have implemented these changes regardless. My question is: will the Cabinet commit to reviewing the impact of the new Council Tax Reduction scheme after 12 months and publishing the results for residents to scrutinise? 5.3 QUESTION FROM SUSAN RICHARDS OF ROSEVILLE ROAD, HAYES ON BEHALF OF THE HILLINGDON FEDERATION OF COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & PROPERTY – COUNCILLOR DENYS Can you please provide an update on Brookside Community Centre, 70 Brookside Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 0PL, a Council building that you own? This centre has been closed since COVID. This is a vital community resource for the local residents, but it has been left in a dilapidated state externally. According to the Charity Commission Br ookside Community Association has spent over £100K from their reserves on the internal upgrades. Why is the community centre still closed and who is responsible from the Council in managing the centre? QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC Council – 24 September 2026 5.4 QUESTION FROM JOHN RYMILL OF TRUESDALE DRIVE, HAREFIELD, TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS’ SERVICES - COUNCILLOR BRIDGES Can the Council confirm that as a “body” described in the Goods Vehicle O perator’s licence application guidance (below), t hey fulfil the ir obligations in response to the Operator’s license application with specific regard to: • the general suitability of any operator’s centre • the environmental impact of the operating centre • its effect on the surrounding environment • planning permissions or applications relating to the centre or the land near it • the number, type and size of vehicles using the centre and please confirm the department within the Council that discharges these responsibilities. Background Information Document: Operating Centres Your operating centre is where your vehicles are normally kept when not in use. When you apply for an operator’s licence, you’ll be asked to give the address of your proposed centre(s) and information about the numbers of trailers and vehicles you will keep there. You’ll need to show that your operating centre:  is large enough & has safe access,  is in an environmentally acceptable location If you do not own the operating centre, you must show that you’re allowed to use it. Advertising your application for a goods vehicle operator’s licence You must advertise your application for a licence in a local newspaper and supply details of your proposed operating centre. This advertisement must appear at least once in the period from 21 days before to 21 days after you make your application, to give people the chance to object. Your application may be refused if you do not advertise the centre properly. Objecting to an application for a goods vehicle operator licence Local councils, planning authorities, police, trade associations, trade unions and other bodies may object to your application for a licence. Objections may be made on the grounds of:  your fitness to operate & the general suitability of the centre  your financial arrangements & your professional competence  the environmental impact of the operating centre Your operating centre will need to meet certain conditions and not interfere with any local amenities. Certain things will be taken into account, like:  its effect on the surrounding environment  planning permissions or applications relating to the centre or the land near it  the number, type and size of vehicles using the centre  where and how vehicles will park  how often and for what purpose the centre will be used For reference purposes and information the following sheet is attached. Obtained from https://www.gov.uk/being-a-goods-vehicle-operator/operating-centres Council – 24 September 2026 5.5 QUESTION FROM VINOOBHAI PATEL OF SWAKELYS ROAD, IC KENHAM TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL What are the Hillingdon Council Cabinet members doing to assist local businesses in Hillingdon with their increasing cost s & how are they planning to increase the footfall for local shop areas so they can survive & keep serving the Hillingdon residents? 5.6 QUESTION FROM JAYSON POWER OF WHITETHORN PLACE, WEST DRAYTON TO THE CABINET MEMBER F OR PLANNING, HOUSING & PROPERTY – COUNCILLOR DENYS Where the Council has accepted that a resident has medical or welfare housing requirements which cannot reasonably be met by accommodation withi n their normal bedroom entitlement, will the Council consider using the discretion available under its Housing Allocation Policy to allocate a larger property or a property with a greater amount of bedrooms then they would ordinarily be entitled to? 5.7 QUESTION FROM GERALD ANDERSON OF HAWTHRONE AVENUE, RU ISLIP, TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL Would the Council now reconsider the structure of the new Audit Finance and Performance Committee, separate scrutiny from audit, thus avoiding fu rther damage and more consequences to our residents, as well as providing greater transparency to all? Background Information Document: The previous growing Council debt, exacerbated by the bailout loan applied for by the Council before the local electi ons, has reached a worrying debt level. A Best Value Notice has been issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. This focused on issues with financial management, governance, sustainability, resilience, responses to audits, lack of challenge and clarity of strategic direction and organisational grip and also concerns about organisational culture. The newly formed Audit Finance and Performance Committee, has mixed scrutiny with audit and also diluted transparency. The serious financial situation demands more transparency, not less. Decisions on this committee are now taken by fewer councillors, which reduce transparency and public trust in the council. This is compounded by recent constitutional changes, which have significantly raised the thresholds before greater oversight, meaning important decisions can now simply be published online with little opportunity for wider scrutiny, leaving the majority of elected councillors unsighted to these non transparent decisions, but yet left to de al with the rightful public outrage from residents affected by such decisions, which include possible unintended consequences. One example is several parades of shops, which have received demands from this Council for incredible increases to their rent. T his could well lead to the closure of many of these shops, causing serious damage to community cohesion. 5.8 QUESTION FROM DANIEL O’NEILL OF ASHBURTON ROAD, RUISLIP MANOR , TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL Chapter 25 of the Constitution, the Members' ICT Code of Practice, governs how councillors are expected to conduct themselves when communicating using electronic means. Its content shows no awareness of broadband, Wi -Fi, mobile data, smartphones, tablets, or social media - its only concern is dial-up connections, office computers, and removable media such as CDs and USB sticks. Its one honesty and Council – 24 September 2026 identification provision, at paragraph (k) under "Inappropriate Use, Prohibited Sites and Offensive Material," applies only to a Member's use of "council computer facilities" - not to a social media account on a smartphone, which is how councillors, including the Leader and Deputy Leader, and the Council's own Corporate Communications team, now routinely communicate with residents on platforms including Facebook, X and Instagram. Will the Leader commit to a review of Chapter 25, so that it addresses how councillors are expected to conduct themselves when communicating publicly online more generally - including on social media accounts, regardles s of the device used, when discussing Council business or speaking in their capacity as a councillor - and, in particular, ensures councillors are required to identify themselves honestly when doing so? Background Information Document: The Constitution's Version History records that it was first established on 2 May 2002, remodelled on 12 May 2022, and most recently updated on 27 August 2026 to reflect management changes, and on 9 July 2026 for changes to the petition scheme. Neither of those recent updat es, nor the 2022 remodel, appears to have touched the substance of Chapter 25, the Members' ICT Code of Practice. That chapter's main security concern is dial -up internet connections. It does not mention broadband, Wi-Fi or mobile data. It discusses deskt op computers connected to the Council's network and removable media such as CDs, but does not mention smartphones or tablets. Its only reference to a Member's own equipment concerns accessing email through a Council security facility, not a smartphone used to post publicly. When it discusses informal online discussion, its examples are chat rooms and newsgroups; it has no concept of a social media post, comment, reply, or profile, real or pseudonymous. The chapter's only rule requiring a Member to identify themselves honestly online reads: "Members using the council computer facilities must identify themselves honestly, accurately and completely and must not impersonate any other person particularly when in chat rooms or newsgroups, or when setting up accou nts on outside computer systems." That rule is written around outdated chatrooms and newsgroups, and applies only to use of the council's own computer facilities. It cannot apply to a councillor using a social media account on a smartphone, even when that account is being used to discuss Council business or to speak in their capacity as a councillor. None of this reflects how the Council itself now operates. Hillingdon's own Leader and Deputy Leader maintain public social media accounts, and the Council's Corporate Communications team runs official Facebook, X and Instagram accounts as a routine part of how it communicates with residents. The document meant to govern how councillors conduct themselves online does not acknowledge any of this: not the platfor ms, not the Council's own use of them, and not their role as the main way most residents now encounter their councillors' views. Responsibility for Digital and Technology previously sat within the Chief Operating Officer's directorate, a post which is not currently filled on a permanent basis. I would suggest that bringing this chapter up to date would be a reasonable priority to set for whoever is permanently appointed to that role, or to whichever post assumes responsibility for Digital and Technology go ing forward, and I would ask the Leader to commit to a review of this chapter, so that the standards of honesty and identification it sets for the use of Council equipment are extended to cover how councillors communicate publicly online, when discussing Council business or otherwise speaking in their capacity as a councillor. Council – 24 September 2026 5.9 QUESTION FROM LARA WILSHER OF OAKDENE ROAD, HILLINGDON, TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL To what extent can local democracy in Hillingdon be said to be functio ning effectively if the Council is refusing to accept petitions submitted by residents? 5.10 QUESTION FROM MARIE GREEN OF NEW PEACHEY LANE, COWLEY, TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS’ SERVICES - COUNCILLOR BRIDGES Given that the permanent closure of the West Drayton Waste Weekends service will directly affect residents who have used and relied upon the service for many years, why were residents not consulted before the decision to permanently close it was made, and will the Council now commit to meaningf ul consultation with affected residents before the closure is implemented? Background Information Document: The West Drayton Waste Weekends service provides household waste and recycling provision for residents in West Drayton, Yiewsley and surrounding areas. The decision to permanently close the service was made without a public consultation with the residents who use it. Since the closure was announced, significant concerns have been raised by residents about accessibility, additional journeys, the ad equacy of alternative provision and the impact on different groups of residents. A petition opposing the closure has subsequently received thousands of signatures and a separate residents' survey has provided further evidence of residents' concerns. My question therefore asks why residents were not consulted before a permanent change to this local service was approved and whether the Council will now provide a meaningful opportunity for affected residents to be heard before the closure is implemented. 5.11 QUESTION FROM CAROLYN TOWNER OF LAKESIDE CLOSE, RUISLIP, TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS’ SERVICES - COUNCILLOR BRIDGES The recently published Ruislip Lido Operational Safety Plan (Revision 4) of 1/8/26 states the following: "Typically, the Lido sees more than 20,000 visitors per day over the Easter period and summer months through to mid -September" … and " that the site attracts over a million visitors per annum”. For context, the population of the Ruislip ward at the last census was 15,441. These figures show plainly why the Lido has such a negative effect on the local area. Does the Cabinet Member agree that these recently made public numbers show an unreasonable and unsustainable level of impact on both the area round the Lido and the wider Ru islip ward, and will the council commit to reducing visitor numbers to alleviate this blight on the community and infrastructure of Ruislip? Council – 24 September 2026 5.12 QUESTION FROM KEITH HERBERT O F SUTTON COURT ROAD, H ILLINGDON TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL Due to the probability of having 50% of the shops closed in Sutton Court Parade Hillingdon by the summer of 2027 with little hope of re -leasing them due to the exorbitant rent increases of over 100%. So, with full transparency, what are the Council’s plans for the parade and local residents in the future? 5.13 QUESTION FROM DARREN SULLIVAN OF SNOWDEN AVENUE, HILL INGDON TO THE CABINET MEMBER F OR PLANNING, HOUSING & PROPERTY – COUNCILLOR DENYS In relation to Sutton Court Road and Mulberry Shops , as a resident can you reassure me that the Council will not redevelop the sites over the next 10 years? 5.14 QUESTION FROM ARABELLA STANLEY OF THE GREEN , WEST DRAYTON TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS’ SERVICES - COUNCILLOR BRIDGES Could the Cabinet member address residents’ concerns about the chronology of the decision-making process (below) and, in light of the substantial evidence now before the Council, reconsider the permanent closure of the West Drayton Waste Weekends? Background Information Document: The permanent closure of West Drayton Waste Weekends was publicly announced by the Council on 24 June 2026. The formal decision, Chief Officer Decision 2026/1734, is dated 13 July 2026. Residents are therefore concerned about how the formal decision-making process could have informed the outcome when the permanent closure had already been publicly announced. Since the announcement, residents have provided substantial evidence of the strength of concern about the closure. The petition formally submitted to the Council contains 6,594 signatures, comprising 4,921 paper signatures and 1,673 online signatures. A separate residents’ survey was also submitted to the Council as supporting evidence. 94% of respondents said they expected the closure to have a hig h or very high impact on their household. 5.15 QUESTION FROM ARANKA HORVATHNE KOROSI, RESIDENT OF THE BOROUGH, TO THE CABINET MEMBE R FOR RESIDENTS’ SERVICES - COUNCILLOR BRIDGES What assessment did the Council make of the impact of closing West Drayton W aste Weekends on disabled residents and families with SEND children who rely on its affordable reuse provision, and how will the proposed replacement service replicate that provision? Council – 24 September 2026 Background Information Document: I am a disabled parent living with h ealth conditions that prevent me from working, and I raise three children who also have Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). As I am unable to work, our household is on a limited income and careful financial management is essential. Our family regularly visits the West Drayton site. The reuse provision provides an important source of affordable everyday necessities for our family, including school uniforms, household basics and developmental and sensory items for my children. The money raised through the reuse provision also supports hospice care. Without access to this affordable local provision, purchasing equivalent essential items elsewhere would place additional financial pressure on my family. Under the Public Sector Equality Duty (Sec tion 149 of the Equality Act 2010), Hillingdon Council has a statutory duty to have due regard to the impact of its decisions on people with protected characteristics, including disabled adults and children. Given my disability and my children's additional needs, I believe these impacts should be properly considered as part of the decision-making process. The proposed pop-up waste drops do not replicate the affordable reuse provision available at West Drayton. They do not provide residents with the opportu nity to purchase low -cost reused items and do not replicate the associated fundraising for hospice care. I therefore ask the Council to consider the impact of losing this provision on d isabled residents, SEND families and households experiencing financial hardship when considering the future of West Drayton Waste Weekends. 5.16 QUESTION FROM BARBARA ANN MILTON OF BRICKWALL LANE, RUISLIP , TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS’ SERVICES - COUNCILLOR BRIDGES I am an older Hillingdon resident without access to a car. I travel by bus from Ruislip to West Drayton with a full large , four-wheeled trolley and then walk to the West Drayton Waste Weekends site from West Drayton station because it provides me with an accessible way to dispose of my household waste and recycling. Before deciding to permanently close this service, what assessm ent did the Council make of the impact this might have on older residents and residents without cars who rely on public transport and walking to access the site, and what accessible alternative will the Council provide for residents like me after it closes? I do not drive or have access to a car. When I need to use the West Drayton Waste Weekends service, I travel from Ruislip to West Drayton by bus and walk from West Drayton station to the site. The ability to reach a household waste and recycling servic e using public transport and on foot is, therefore, important to me. The closure of West Drayton raises a practical question about how residents in my circumstances will access an a lternative service. I would therefore like the Council's response to explain what consideration was given to residents who cannot drive to another site, including older residents and those Council – 24 September 2026 without cars, dependent upon public transport, and what practical alternative will be available to us following the closure. 5.17 QUESTION FROM ABDIRAHMAN HASSAN, A RESIDENT OF THE BOROUGH, TO THE CABINET MEMBER F OR PLANNING, HOUSING & PROPERTY – COUNCILLOR DENYS As a person residing in a HMO, am I counted as one of th e residents the Council is protecting from HMO’s or am I the thing you are protecting residents from? 5.18 QUESTION FROM SUKHPREET KANG OF MULBERRY PARADE, WES T DRAYTON TO THE CABINET MEMBER F OR PLANNING, HOUSING & PROPERTY – COUNCILLOR DENYS Why 184%-100% increase at once? Background Information Document: I would ask Cabinet to recognize that Council -owned commercial properties are not simply financial assets. They are also premises where local businesses employ people and provide services to the comm unity. Increasing rents by 100 -184% could result in businesses closing or leaving the area, which may ultima tely damage the local economy and reduce the long - term value of the Council’s commercial property portfolio. 5.19 QUESTION FROM LISA MALKI OF SEAFORD CLOSE, RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR C OMMUNITY, ENVIRONMEN T & ENFORCEMENT - COUNCILLOR BENNETT: This summer, the UK has experienced unprecedented heatwaves and drought, reminding us of the severity of the climate crisis. What is Hillingdon Council doing to combat climate change, and how will it honour its commitments to Net Zero in the future? 5.20 QUESTION FROM ROBIN ROCKELL OF DEAN CLOSE, UXBRIDGE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & PROPERTY – COUNCILLOR DENYS Hillingdon Council says it “recognises the pressures businesses face.” What is the Council actually doing to stop small independent businesses being forced out by unaffordable rent increases?

Council – 24 September 2026 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF DEMOCRATIC SERVICES Reporting Officer: Head of Democratic Services 6.1 URGENT IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS RECOMMENDATION: That the Urgency decisions detailed below be noted. Information 1. The Constitution allows a Cabinet or Cabinet Member decision to be implemented before the expiry of the 5 -day scrutiny call -in period, provided the decision is deemed urgent and agreement is given from the Chair of the relevant Select Committee that the matter is urgent and to waive the scrutiny call -in period. All such decisions are to be reported for information only to the next full Council meeting. 2. Since last reported to Council, the following decisions have been made using urgency procedures: Date of Decision Nature of Decision Reason for Urgency Decision-Maker 20 August 2026 Hayes Estate Regeneration Pre Contract Works for the development of Hayes Town Centre (Phases 2, 3 & 5) and Avondale (Phases 1B and 2) and release of funds from 2026/27 Budgets To enter into a further pre-contract service agreement with Higgins Partnerships 1961 PLC and hand over the Avondale Drive blocks for demolition as soon as possible in order to mitigate escalating site risks and avoid additional costs to the Council. Leader of the Council, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Finance and the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Property 30 July 2026 Hillingdon Water Sports and Activities Centre – Acquisition of Land To enable the purchase to complete by 31 July 2026 and thereby safeguard the future delivery of services at the proposed Water Sports and Outdoor Activities Centre, pending the issue of the formal planning decision notice. Leader of the Council, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Finance and the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Property Background Papers: Decision Notices 6.2 POLITICAL GROUPS ON THE COUNCIL , CALCULATION OF POLIT ICAL BALANCE AND COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS Background 1. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 provides a statutory basis for the rights of political groups to secure representation upon Council Committee and Sub-Committee meetings in proportion to their respective political strengths within the Council. Council – 24 September 2026 2. A ‘political group’ is one which has been constituted in accordance with Regulation 8 of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990 and consists of at least two Members. It is, therefore, separate from the concept of a political party, although it may well consist of Members of the same political persuasion. 3. At the last meeting of the Council, it was noted that t he Council has 3 Political Groups:  The Conservative Group with 31 Members  The Hillingdon Labour Group with 16 Members  The Reform UK Group with 4 Members In addition, there is one Green Party Member and one independent Member. 4. Council is asked to note that Councillor Elder, who had previously formed a part of the Reform UK Group, has resigned his membership of that Group and become an independent Member and, therefore, does not constitute a ‘Group’ within the definition of the legislation. 5. This resignation has only marginally altered the political balance of the Council and does not require any Group to vacate seats on Committees. RECOMMENDATIONS: That a) the political balance of the Council, following the resignation of Councillor Elder from the Reform UK Group, be noted and b) the following change s to membership of the Council Committees be approved:  Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee - Councillor Dror to replace Councillor Elder.  Audit, Finance & Performance Committee – Councillors Bianco, Gohil and Smallwood to replace Councillors Huddle and Riley c) The membership of the Licensing Committee be increased to 15 Members and the following additional Members be appointed:  Councillors Bianco, Corthorne and Garner (Conservative)  Councillors Gill and Singh (Labour) Information Political Groups Change and Political Balance 6. The Head of Democratic Services has received notice of a change in the composition of the Reform UK Group whereby Councillor Elder has resigned as a member of that Group and is, therefore, sitting as an independent Member. 7. Council is asked to note the subsequent overall political balance of the Council as shown below, which has not altered significantly from that reported at the last Council meeting: Council – 24 September 2026 % of cttee Members places Conservative 31 58.49 Labour 16 30.19 Reform 3 5.66 Green Party 1 1.89 Independent #1 1 1.89 Independent #2 1 1.89 Total 53 100 8. As single Members cannot form a Political Group, Councillor Elder is not entitled to be appointed to any Committee seats and, therefore the Reform UK Group has determined that on the Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee Councillor Dror will replace Councillor Elder. Audit, Finance & Performance Committee 9. Councillor Higgins recently gave notice of his resignation from the Audit, Finance & Performance Committee and the Conservative Group have notified the following changes to the membership of th at Committee – Councillors Bianco, Gohil and Smallwood to replace Councillors Huddle and Riley. Licensing Committee 10. Council is also asked to consider increasing the membership of th e Licensing Committee from 10 to 15 Members (the maximum number allowed). This will provide a greater pool of Members for the membership of the Licensing Sub Committee. The political balance of the Committee will be:  9 Con (up from 6)  5 Lab (up from 3)  1 Reform UK (no change) Financial Implications 11. There are no financial implications arising from this report. Legal Implications 12. These are contained within the report. Background papers: Party Group declarations Council – 24 September 2026 6.3 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 2025/26 contains information to be presented to Council, so that it can be assured that the Committee is acting appropriately on its behalf by providing independ ent 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 2025/26, as attached, be noted. Information 2. The Annual Report summarises, for the Council, the work of the Audit Committee during 2025/26 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. The Committee was 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 Council – 24 September 2026 6.4 APPOINTMENT OF AUDIT, FINANCE & PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE INDEPENDENT CHAIR SUMMARY 1. Council established a new Audit, Finance & Performance Committee at the AGM in May 2026, and at that time, it was confirmed that the Committee would be chaired by an independent person (the previous Independent Chair of the Audit Committee had declined to continue in that role as Chair of the new committee) 2. Accordingly, an exercise has been undertaken to recruit a new Independent Chair with the Vice-Chair chairing the meetings until such time as a new Chair is appointed. 3. Council is asked to give consideration to the recommendation of the Audit, Finance & Performance Committee for the appointment of the Independent Chair . RECOMMENDATION: That Mr Paul Grady be appointed as the Independent Chair of the Audit, Finance & Performance Committee. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Independent Chair 4. The appointment of an I ndependent Chair of the Audit, Finance & Performance Committee is essential for several reasons:  Objectivity and Impartiality : The Independent Chair should bring objectivity and impartiality to the committee, ensuring that the committee can focus on governance, risk, and control matters without political bia s from the Chair.  Credibility: The Chair's credibility with the public and the ability to achieve a non-political focus on governance, risk, and control matters are crucial for the committee's effectiveness.  Continuity: The Independent Chair provides conti nuity outside the political cycle, ensuring that the committee's focus on governance and risk remains consistent and relevant.  Independence: The Chair's independence allows the committee to operate without interference from other tasks or political conside rations, allowing it to advise effectively on governance and risk management. 5. The Independent Chair should also be able to demonstrate a commitment to maintaining high standards in public life and have a keen interest in local government. Audit, Finance & Performance Committee Recommendation 6. The Audit, Finance & Performance Committee interviewed a shortlist of prospective candidates for the role and are unanimously recommending the appointment of Mr Paul Grady. Council – 24 September 2026 7. Mr Grady has extensive experience working within the audit field – particularly in the public sector and demonstrated a passion for the value of good governance and effective stewardship of funds within public services , and the importance of accountability to the taxpayer. 8. Mr Grady is a firm believer in the importance of local audit in supporting effective and informed decision making and was able to express how he will use all of the skills and experience he has accumulated to date to help shape audit, risk, governance, financial assurance and corporate oversight within a modern and ambitious local authority like Hillingdon 9. Mr Grady demonstrated a clear understanding of how London authorities work, the challenges they face and the governance and regulatory requirements within which they operate. He has extensive experience of working with senior figures in a number of public sector bodies and demonstrated a good understanding of how to chair an effective Committee. FINANCIAL & LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 10. There are no specific financial implications arising from this report. Although a voluntary role, the position of Independent Chair carries an annual Special Responsibility Allowance of £24,318.39. 11. The legal implications are contained in the body of the report. Background Papers: Audit, Finance & Performance Committee Agenda 10 September 2026 (Part II) 6.5 REVIEW OF COUNCIL CONSTITUTION #1 – PROCUREMENT STANDING ORDERS Background 1. The Constitution of the London Borough of Hillingdon sets out how the Council is governed and operates, the various roles of the elected Members, how decisions are made and the procedures which are followed to ensure that everything the Council does is efficient, transparent, accountable, done with integrity and engages residents in the way it does business. 2. Many of the Council’s constitutional procedures are required by law, whilst others are a matter of local choice. Council regularly reviews the Constitution to ensure it meets local priorities and legislative changes. RECOMMENDATIONS: That: a) the changes to the Procurement Standing Orders (Chapter 18 of the Council Constitution) as set out in the body of this report be agreed. b) the consequential amendments to the Cabinet Scheme of Delegations (Chapter 5) and Responsibilities and Delegations to Officers (Chapter 12) relating to capital release approvals and associated governance arrangements, as set out in the report, be agreed. Council – 24 September 2026 c) the Head of Democratic Services exercise his delegation to make any necessary minor consequential, typographical, formatting and c ross- referencing amendments arising from the approved changes prior to publication of the revised Constitution. Procurement Standing Orders 3. The revised Standing Orders represent the first comprehensive post - implementation review following commencement of the Procurement Act 2023 and reflect both operational experience under the new regime and recommendations arising from the Council's governance review programme and external legal review. 4. The Council's Procurement Standing Orders were last subject to a comprehensive review in 2024 in anticipation of the implementation of the Procurement Act 2023. Since that review, the Lawyers in Local Government (LLG) Governance Review and the Governance Review Improvement Programme (GRIP) identified a number of areas where the Standing Orders could be further strengthened to improve governance, accountability, transparency and legal compliance. 5. In response, the Council commissioned Trowers & Hamlins LLP to undertake a detailed legal review of the existing Procurement Standing Orders, taking account of the Procurement Act 2023, the Procurement Regulations 2024 and evolving procurement best practice. The resulting recommendations have been considered alongside officer feedback from Procurement, Legal Services, Finance and Democratic Services. 6. The proposed revisions are intended to ensure that the Procurement Standing Orders remain compliant with the new procurement regime whilst providing a clear and robust governance framework that supports proportionate decision making, transparency and the delivery of value for money. 7. The review identified opportunities to improve clarity, remove ambiguity, strengthen governance controls and better align procurement processes with the Council's wider constitutional arrangements. The r ecommendations also seek to ensure that procurement responsibilities are clearly understood by officers and Members, and that statutory governance roles, including the Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer, are appropriately reflected within the procurement framework. 8. The review has also provided an opportunity to strengthen the Council's governance framework by clarifying the respective responsibilities of Members, officers, the Monitoring Officer, the Section 151 Officer and the Head of Procurement. The revised Standing Orders provide greater certainty around procurement decision -making, compliance requirements and accountability arrangements, reflecting recommendations arising from the LLG Governance Review and subsequent legal advice from Trowers & Hamlins LLP. Council – 24 September 2026 Proposed changes - In summary 9. The revised Procurement Standing Orders introduce a number of substantive changes designed to modernise the Council's procurement governance arrangements and reflect the requirements of the Procurement Act 2023. 10. The key changes include:  Introduction of enhanced interpretation and definitions provisions to provide clarity and consistency throughout the Standing Orders, including definitions and clarification of key procurement concepts, governance roles, procurement procedures and associated terminology  Strengthening of governance provisions by expressly identifying the roles of the Monitoring Officer, Section 151 Officer and Head of Procurement in relation to procurement compliance, oversight and assuranc e. This reflects recommendations arising from the LLG review.  Updated compliance provisions to reflect the legislative framework established by the Procurement Act 2023, Procurement Regulations 2024 and other applicable procurement legislation.  Clarification of the relationship between the Constitution, Procurement Standing Orders, Financial Regulations, Procurement Standard Operating Procedures and supporting guidance through the introduction of a clear governance hierarchy and allocation of responsibilities.  New provisions addressing conflicts of interest, conflict assessments, confidentiality obligations and procurement transparency requirements, reflecting specific obligations introduced by the Procurement Act 2023.  Clarification of procureme nt planning requirements, including forward procurement pipelines, transparency obligations and record -keeping duties to support compliance with statutory notice and publication requirements.  Revision of minimum tendering requirements to better reflect th e proportionate procurement routes available under the new legislation, including the use of Quick Quotes, Framework Agreements, Mini - Competitions and Direct Awards where legally permissible.  Revision of procurement approval thresholds and decision -making routes, introducing a more proportionate framework of officer, Cabinet Member and Cabinet approvals whilst retaining appropriate democratic oversight of higher -value and strategically significant procurement decisions.  Updated transparency, publication and procurement record-keeping and notification requirements including a clear responsibility for publication of statutory notices introduced by the Procurement Act 2023.  Refinement of approval and decision -making arrangements, including clearer approval ro utes for contract awards, contract modifications, waivers and exemptions.  Introduction of strengthened governance arrangements for contract extensions, novations and contract modifications, including cumulative approval requirements, clearer controls over contract roll -over arrangements and additional Member oversight of long -term contractual relationships. Council – 24 September 2026  Additional provisions relating to contract execution, contract novation, contract modifications and contract management in to strengthen commercial governance and lifecycle management of contracts.  Further clarification of the governance arrangements for agency workers, consultancy services and off-payroll engagements to ensure consistency with procurement legislation and wider governance requirements.  Introduction of enhanced requirements relating to ethics, probity, conflicts of interest, procurement confidentiality and transparency, reflecting the Council’s obligations under the Procurement Act 2023 and strengthening procurement integrity arrangements.  Enhanced requirements relating to contract management including designated contract management responsibilities, supplier performance monitoring and key performance indicators, reflecting contract management obligations under the Procurement Act 2023.  Introduction of a dedicated governance framework for concession contracts, including valuation methodology, approval arrangements and procurement compliance requirements where the Council grants rights to exploit works or services.  Updated provisions relati ng to Local Authority maintained schools, strengthening compliance expectations and increasing Council oversight of higher-value procurement activity undertaken by schools.  Review and expansion of exemption and waiver provisions to clearly distinguish betw een Council -controlled procedural requirements and statutory procurement obligations, whilst emphasising that statutory procurement requirements cannot be waived by the Council. Governance Benefits 11. The proposed revisions will provide greater clarity for officers undertaking procurement activities and establish a more coherent governance framework across the Council. The revised Standing Orders place increased emphasis on accountability, transparency, planning and contract management, whilst ensuring appropriate oversight by Members and statutory officers. 12. The revised Standing Orders establish a clearer framework for procurement planning, contract award, transparency obligations, contract management and contract modification. They also introduce strengthen ed requirements regarding conflicts of interest, procurement record keeping and publication of procurement notices, ensuring that the Council's governance arrangements remain aligned with the statutory obligations introduced by the Procurement Act 2023. 13. In particular, the revised Standing Orders strengthen governance around contract lifecycle management through clearer controls for contract extensions, novations, waivers and variations, helping to ensure that contractual arrangements remain subject to appr opriate scrutiny throughout their duration. There is also the introduction of clearer controls over contract spend, including mandatory escalation arrangements where expenditure is forecast to exceed approved contract values. Council – 24 September 2026 14. The revised Standing Orders clarify that contract extensions, variations and modifications are assessed on a cumulative basis for governance and approval purposes, preventing the artificial splitting of approvals 15. The revised Standing Orders also provide greater assurance against governance failure through clearer accountability for Approved Officers, strengthened procurement record -keeping requirements, explicit contract registration obligations, mandatory escalation of contract value overruns and clearer controls over cumulative contract extensions and modifications 16. The revised arrangements are expected to reduce ambiguity, support consistent decision making, improve auditability and strengthen assurance that procurement activity is conducted in accordance with both legislative requirements and the Council's governance framework. They also respond directly to the findings and recommendations arising from the LLG governance review and the independent legal review undertaken by Trowers & Hamlins LLP. 17. Taken together, the amendments pro vide a more modern, transparent and legally robust procurement framework which supports effective decision - making whilst maintaining appropriate Member oversight and accountability. Social Value & Sponsorship 18. It should be noted that work is underway to d evelop an updated Sponsorship Policy and introduce a Social Value Policy, to codify the Council’s approach and ensure that these matters are considered formally by officers as part of the procurement process. 19. The proposed approach is for the relevant requirements, procedures and supporting guidance to be adopted as Procurement Standard Operating Procedures. These will sit beneath the Procurement Standing Orders and provide practical operational direction for officers. 20. This approach will support consistent application across the Council by:  clarifying how social value and sponsorship should be considered during procurement activity;  setting out the procedural requirements officers must follow;  providing supporting guidance to assist implementation; and  ensuring alignment with the Constitution, the Procurement Standing Orders and the Council’s wider governance framework. 21. The Procurement Standard Operating Procedures may be approved by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Finance. This provides an appropriate governance route for implementation while maintaining clear alignment with the Council’s constitutional and procurement governance arrangements. Implementation 22. Subject to approval by Council, the revised Procurement Standing Orders will take effect immediately and will be supported by updated Procurement Council – 24 September 2026 Standard Operating Procedures, guidance and officer training. Where that is not possible, due to processes already being under way, it is expected that full migration to the updated Standing Orders will be completed within 12 weeks of approval. 23. Implementation will be led by the Procurement Team working with Legal Services, Finance and Democratic Services to ensure that officers understand the r evised governance requirements and the practical implications of the Procurement Act 2023. 24. Updated Procurement Standard Operating Procedures, guidance documents and officer training will be developed and issued to support implementation of the revised Sta nding Orders and to ensure a consistent approach to procurement activity across the Council. The revised Standing Orders clarify the relationship between the Constitution, Procurement Standing Orders, Financial Regulations and Procurement Standard Operating Procedures, and confirm that Procurement Standard Operating Procedures are supporting operational documents subordinate to the Constitution and Standing Orders. Future Review 25. Procurement legislation and best practice continue to evolve following implementation of the Procurement Act 2023. The Standing Orders include provision for review by the Monitoring Officer, Section 151 Officer and Head of Procurement to ensure continued compliance with legislative requirements, incorporation of emerging bes t practice and alignment with the Council's governance framework. Consequential Constitutional Amendments 26. In addition to the proposed revisions to Chapter 18, a number of consequential amendments are required elsewhere within the Constitution to ensure consistency between procurement governance arrangements, officer delegations and capital expenditure approvals. These amendments principally affect Chapters 5 and 12 and are intended to align procurement decision - making responsibilities with associated expenditure approval processes. Capital release monies approval 27. As part of the review of the Procurement Standing Orders, consideration has also been given to the alignment of procurement approval thresholds and the Council's capital release delegations. 28. The revised arrangements also strengthen governance through the formal involvement of the Section 151 Officer within the approval process for specified levels of capital expenditure. This reflects recommendations arising from the LLG review that statutory governance roles should be more explicitly linked to procurement and financial compliance arrangements. 29. The current constitutional arrangements require separate approvals for the release of capital expenditure, even where an appropriate procurement decision has already been approved through the relevant governance route. Council – 24 September 2026 In some cases, this can result in duplication of decision-making and additional administrative processes without providing additional assurance. 30. The proposed amendments to Chapters 5 and 12 of the Constitution seek to align the authority to release capital funding with the revised procurement approval framework. Subject to approval, Corporate Directors would be authorised to release capital expenditure up to £249,999, with expenditure up to £99,999 approved through internal systems and expenditure between £100,000 and £249,999 requiring the agreement of the Section 151 Officer and consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance and relevant Portfolio Holder through a published Chief Offic er Decision Notice. Capital releases above £249,999 would continue to be determined by Members in accordance with the existing constitutional arrangements. 31. These amendments relate to the governance arrangements for the release of approved capital funding and do not alter the procurement approval requirements contained within the Procurement Standing Orders. Procurement decisions will continue to be taken in accordance with the approval thresholds set out within Chapter 18 of the Constitution. 32. The proposed changes are intended to:  Align procurement approvals and expenditure approvals.  Streamline internal decision-making processes.  Reduce duplication within governance arrangements.  Retain appropriate financial oversight through involvement of the Section 151 Officer.  Support timely delivery of approved capital projects whilst maintaining transparency and accountability. 33. These amendments are consequential to the wider review of the Procurement Standing Orders and form part of the Council's broader programme of governance improvements arising from the LLG review and subsequent legal advice received from Trowers & Hamlins LLP. Legal Implications 34. The proposed revisions have been informed by the recommendations arising from the Lawyers in Local Government gover nance review and detailed legal advice provided by Trowers & Hamlins LLP. The amendments are intended to ensure that the Council's Procurement Standing Orders remain compliant with the Procurement Act 2023, Procurement Regulations 2024 and associated regulations and reflect current public procurement best practice. The proposed amendments also address recommendations arising from the LLG Governance Review concerning clearer allocation of governance responsibilities, enhanced procurement controls, stronger c ontract management arrangements and greater transparency in procurement decision-making. 35. The proposed amendments are intended to ensure continued compliance with the Procurement Act 2023 and associated regulations. The revised Standing Orders strengthen the Council’s procurement governance framework through clearer allocation of responsibilities between Members, officers, the Monitoring Council – 24 September 2026 Officer, the Section 151 Officer and the procurement function. They also provide greater clarity regarding the relationship between the Constitution, Procurement Standing Orders, Financial Regulations, Procurement Standard Operating Procedures and supporting guidance. 36. There are no additional legal implications arising directly from t he proposed constitutional changes. Particular regard has been given to the governance recommendations arising from the LLG review, including the role of statutory officers, transparency obligations, conflicts management, contract management and decision -making controls. Further legal advice will be provided as required in relation to implementation and future legislative developments Financial Implications 37. There are no direct financial implications arising from the proposed constitutional amendments. The revised Procurement Standing Orders are intended to strengthen governance, improve compliance and support the achievement of value for money in procurement activity across the Council. All future expenditure decisions will continue to be subject to existi ng budgetary controls, financial regulations and delegated authority arrangements and will continue to be subject to the requirement to secure Value for Money in working towards the Council’s objectives and obligations. 38. The Council’s Oracle Cloud platform provides the primary control mechanism through which appropriate officers are required to review and approve / reject request for new expenditure prior to any commitments being entered into. All expenditure incurred by the Council is subject to retrospec tive review and scrutiny through budget monitoring processes which complement transactional controls within the Oracle Cloud platform.] Background papers: Lawyers in Local Government Constitutional review Council – 24 September 2026 Summary of Proposed Changes Standing Order Principal Change Definitions & Interpretation Introduction of enhanced interpretation and definitions provisions to provide clarity and consistency throughout the Standing Orders, including definitions and clarification of key procurement concepts, governance roles, procurement procedures and associated terminology. SO1 - Compliance Updated compliance framework reflecting the Procurement Act 2023 and Procurement Regulations 2024, clarification of governance hierarchy, strengthened responsibilities of officers, and explicit recognition of the roles of the Monitoring Officer, Section 151 Officer and Head of Procurement. SO2 - Ethics & Probity Introduction of enhanced requirements relating to ethics, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, conf lict assessments, confidentiality and procurement integrity, reflecting statutory obligations under the Procurement Act 2023. SO3 - Decision-Making Process Strengthened procurement planning requirements, procurement pipelines, transparency obligations, publication requirements and decision -making arrangements, together with enhanced record keeping obligations. SO4 - Minimum Tendering Requirements Revision o f procurement thresholds and tendering requirements to provide a proportionate approach to quotation, tendering, Quick Quotes, Framework Agreements, Mini-Competitions and Direct Awards. SO5 - Custody, Receipt & Opening of Tenders Modernisation of tender receipt arrangements through mandatory use of the Council’s e-procurement platform and revised controls governing the treatment of late submissions improving transparency, equal treatment and auditability. SO6 - Acceptance of Tenders and Approvals Introduction of revised approval thresholds and decision - making arrangements, providing a clearer framework for officer, Cabinet Member and Cabinet procurement decisions. Updated provisions also address agency workers, consultants and off-payroll engagements. SO7 - Execution of Contracts Modernisation of contract execution requirements, including wider use of electronic signatures, revised arrangements for execution of lower-value contracts and risk-based use of the Council's Common Seal, updated contract docu mentation requirements and strengthened governance controls relating to contract execution. SO8 - Contract Extensions, Variations and Novations Strengthened governance arrangements for contract extensions, novations and contract modifications, including cumulative approval requirements, controls over contract roll-over arrangements, clearer controls over contract spend including mandatory escalation arrangements where expenditure is forecast to exceed approved contra ct values Council – 24 September 2026 and additional oversight of long -term contractual relationships. SO9 - Purchase Orders, Contract Purchase Agreements & Procurement Cards Updated provisions to reflect Oracle Cloud financial processes, purchase order controls and procurement card governance arrangements. SO10 - Local Authority Maintained School Procurement Revised framework for maintained schools, strengthening procurement compliance expectations and increasing Council oversight of higher-value procurement activity. SO11 - Concession Contracts Introduction of a new governance framework for concession contracts, including valuation methodology, approval requirements and procurement compliance arrangements. SO12 - Contract Management Introduction of enhanced contract managem ent requirements, including contract management responsibilities, supplier performance monitoring, key performance indicators and contract lifecycle governance. SO13 - Exemptions and Waivers Review and expansion of waiver and exemption provisions, clarifying circumstances in which waivers may be granted and reaffirming that statutory procurement requirements cannot be waived by the Council. Consequential Constitutional Amendments Amendments to Chapters 5 and 12 of the Constitution to align procurement g overnance arrangements with officer delegations and capital release approval processes. Council – 24 September 2026 6.6 REVIEW OF COUNCIL CONSTITUTION #2 – UPDATE TO CHAPTER 7, 'PLANNING DECISIONS’ Background 1. The Constitution of the London Borough of Hillingdon sets out how the Council is governed and operates, the various roles of the elected Members, how decisions are made and the procedures which are followed to ensure that everything the Council does is efficient, transparent, accountable, done with integrity and engages residents in the way it does business. 2. Many of the Council’s constitutional procedures are required by law, whilst others are a matter of local choice. Council regularly reviews the Constitution to ensure it meets local priorities and legislative changes. 3. This report seeks Full Council's approval to amend Chapter 7, 'Planning Decisions', of the Council's Constitution to implement the National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions. 4. The revised arrangements reflect statutory requirements coming into force on 31 October 2026 and establish a clear and transparent framework for deciding how planning applications will be determined. RECOMMENDATIONS: That a) the revised Chapter 7, of the Council Constitution, 'Planning Decisions', (as appended) be approved, with effect from 31 October 2026. b) That the Head of Democratic Services be authorised to make any minor or consequential amendments to Chapter 7 and other parts of the Constitution required to ensure consistency with the new arrangements. Reasons for the recommendations 5. The Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 introduces a National Scheme of Delegation which all relevant local planning authorities in England must follow from 31 October 2026. The Council must therefore amend its Constitution so that its arrangements accord with the statutory scheme. 6. The revised Chapter 7 provides a concise local framework for applying the Regulations, while retaining appropriate local referral triggers where the statutory requirements for Planning Committee consideration can be met. Supporting information 7. The Regulations divide planning applications into three broad categories: i) Schedule 1 applications, which must be determined by Officers, unless they are own-interest applications; ii) Schedule 2 applications, which are presumed to be delegated to Officers but may be referred to Planning Committee where the statutory Gateway Test is met and the Nominated Member and Nominated Officer agree; and Council – 24 September 2026 iii) own-interest applications, which may be referred to Planning Committee where the Nominated Member and Nominated Officer agree, without the Gateway Test applying. 8. The statutory Gateway Test is met where an application raises one or more issues of economic, social or environmental significance to the local area, or one or more significant planning matter having regard to the development plan and other material considerations. Where the required agreement is not reached, the application must be determined by an Officer. 9. The key changes from the current scheme are:  Applications falling within Schedule 1, including householder, minor commercial and minor residential applications, can no longer be referred to Planning Committee;  For the categories of Schedule 2 applications selected in Chapter 7, local triggers such as Ward Member call -in, petitions and major developments will identify cases for consideration, but referral to Planning Committee will additionally require the Gateway Test to be met and agreement be tween the Nominated Member and Nominated Officer;  Specific arrangements are introduced for own-interest applications, Section 73 and Section 73A applications, reserved matters relating to large outline permissions, section 106A applications and linked lis ted building consent applications;  The Chair of Planning Committee and the Assistant Director, Development Services are designated as the Nominated Member and Nominated Officer, with provision for substitutes; and  The scheme records the statutory restric tion on lobbying those exercising referral functions and maintains officer delegation for all other planning matters. 10. The detailed practical arrangements for operating Chapter 7, including reviews, substitute arrangements, record keeping and reporting, will be set out in an Officer procedure document, in accordance with Chapter 7 and the Regulations, and managed by Officers in consultation with the Nominated Member. Alternative options considered / risk management 11. The Council could retain its current scheme. This is not recommended because it would not accord with the Regulations when they come into force. Decisions taken contrary to the statutory allocation of functions could be challenged by judicial review and may be quashed. The proposed amendments reduce this risk by aligning the Constitution with the National Scheme and statutory guidance. What will be the effect of the recommendations? 12. From 31 October 2026, planning applications will be determined in accordance with the National Scheme and the revised Chapter 7. Local triggers will identify Schedule 2 applications for consideration, but any referral to Planning Committee will require the Gateway Test to be met and the agreement of the Nominated Member and Nominated Officer. Council – 24 September 2026 13. The revised Chapter 7 will apply to all planning applications determined on or after 31 October 2026, including applications received before that date which remain undetermined. There are no transitional arrangements under which such applications may continue to be determined under the previous scheme of delegation. Consultation Carried Out or Required 14. No public consultation is required to amend the Council’s constitutional scheme of delegation. Financial Implications 15. There are no direct financial implications arising from the recommendations. The associated review and record -keeping arrangements will be managed within existing service resources. Failure to implement compliant arrangements could expose the Council to avoidable legal costs if decisions are challenged. Legal Implications 16. Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 enables the Council to arrange for functions to be discharged by a committee, sub -committee or officer. For planning functions, that general power is now subject to sections 319ZZC to 319ZZF of th e Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026. 17. Under those Regulations, regulation 4 requires Schedule 1 applications to be determined by an Officer. Regulation 5 provides that Schedule 2 applications must be determined by an Officer unless the Nominated Member and Nominated Officer agree to refer the application to Planning Committee and the Gateway Test is met. Regulation 6 makes separate provision fo r own - interest applications, and regulation 7 limits a Planning Committee determining applications under the scheme to no more than 13 members. 18. The statutory guidance released by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government expressly warns that where local planning authorities do not comply with the Regulations from the date they come into force (31 st October 2026) and their Planning Committees make decisions on applications which must be delegated to Officers, those decisions may be subject to judicial review by anyone aggrieved by the decision. This may lead to the decision being quashed. The Council must therefore have compliant constitutional arrangements in place by that date, and the proposed revisions to Chapter 7 provide for these arrangements. Background documents: Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/854). Planning Committees and the National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions: Guidance for local planning authorities in England (MHCLG, 1 June 2026).

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE 2025/26 HILLINGDON COUNCIL AUDIT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT Council – 24 September 2026 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 2025/26 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 2025/26 municipal year, the Audit Committee met on five occasions: 14 May 2025, 24 July 2025, 28 August 2025, 18 November 2025 and 10 February 2026. 2.3 Membership and attendance of the Audit Committee comprised as follows: Member name Appointment Meeting Attendance Mr John Chesshire Chair 24 July, 28 August, and 10 February Cllr Nick Denys Vice-Chair 14 May, 24 July, 28 August, 18 November and 10 February Cllr Tony Burles Committee Member 14 May, 24 July, 28 August, 18 November and 10 February Cllr Henry Higgins Committee Member 14 May, 24 July, 28 August and 18 November Cllr June Nelson Committee Member 14 May, 24 July and 28 August Cllr Douglas Mills Committee Member 14 May, 28 August, 18 November ad 10 February Cllr Sital Punja Reserve Member 10 February 2.4 The Audit Committee received no dedicated training sessions during 202 5/26. Two training sessions were arranged but cancelled as members were not available to attend. Given membership stability during this period this was not considered a significant risk, and training had been provided shortly before the beginning of the year. 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: HILLINGDON COUNCIL AUDIT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT Council – 24 September 2026 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 2025/26, the Audit Committee reviewed the 2024/25 Annual Internal Audit Report and Head of Internal Audit Opinion Statement, the 2026/27 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 actions taken by the Internal Audit service to ensure compliance with the Global Internal Audit Standards. 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 2025/26 the Audit Committee reviewed the 2023/24 Statement of Accounts, Audit Completion Report, and Value for Money report. This had been delayed from the prior year due to a deterioration in the timeliness of local audit for some years, with Hillingdon being one of many similar local authority audits.  In February 202 6 the Audit Committee received the 202 4/25 Statement of Accounts, draft Audit Results report and the draft Pension Fund Accounts and Audit Results Report. These were finalised following the meeting. The Audit Committee is satisfied with the Council’s External Audit arrangements during 2025/26 and the clarity, depth and approach taken by External Audit. 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 n Annual Report for 2024/25, and a detailed 2026/27 Annual Operational Plan. The team has responsibility for the oversight of the effectiveness of the Council’s policies and procedures to prevent and detect fraud and corruption. HILLINGDON COUNCIL AUDIT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT Council – 24 September 2026  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 2025/26, the CFT achieved several successful outcomes, including a total of c£12.7m in financial benefits across Council services. These savings included loss prevention savings of c£7.9 and the recovery of 1 13 council properties due to tenancy fraud, an increase on the previous year’s outcomes. The Audit Committee is satisfied with the effectiveness of the Council’s counter fraud arrangements during 2025/26 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 received quarterly risk management reports, including Key Performance Indicators and a summary of the Corporate Risk Register as part of the Committee's role to independently assess the Council's risk management arrangements.  Previous concerns in relation to the high number of risks overdue for review and without actions have been addressed and there was good performance against the key performance indicators by the year end.  The Audit Committee also received a copy of the Council’s Strategic Risk Register and confirmed the strategic risks were being managed appropriately to help ensure the Council’s strategy is achieved. The Audit Committee is satisfied that the Risk Management arrangements provide sufficient challenge to officers around the ir identification and management of the Council’s key risks. e) Approval of Financial Accounts  Throughout 2025/26, the Audit Committee was provided with audit progress reports on the Council’s annual statement of accounts for 2024/25. This included considering whether appropriate accounting policies have been followed in relation to the accounts. The Audit Committee also reviewed the Council’s Annual Governance Statement as part of the draft and final accounts for 2023/24 and 2024/25.  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 is satisfied previous challenges with the production, reporting and ultimate approval of the financial accounts are being addressed, and appropriate work is being undertaken to improve controls, better manage financial risks 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. 3.2. Looking ahead, the Committee will continue to develop its work programme to ensure that all elements of its Terms of Reference are considered app ropriately over time, including comprehensive governance oversight across its areas of responsibility. HILLINGDON COUNCIL AUDIT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT Council – 24 September 2026 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 th e 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 Fina nce, 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 Council – 24 September 2026 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 c ontract 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 acti ons 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.

Chapter 18 - Rules on procurement These rules, also known as the Procurement Standing Orders (SOs), set out how the Council procures Ggoods, Sservices, Wworks and Aagency Resource or consultancyConsultancy staffServices/Staff, when required. The rules seek to ensure corporate and legal compliance and that best value is achieved in the Council’s commercial transactions with third parties. These SOs are intended to: • Deliver value for money; • Maximise Public benefit; • Promote competition; • Support social value and sustainability objectives; • Ensure transparency and integrity in procurement. The Monitoring Officer, the Section 151 Officer and the Head of Procurement shall have authority to advise on compliance with these SOs, and Officers shall have regard to such advice before proceeding with any procurement or Contract Modification where a material compliance concern has been identified. SO 1 - Compliance Status and hierarchy of procurement governance documents These Procurement Standing OrdersSOs form part of the Council’s Constitution and are binding on all officers and Members when procuring Ggoods, Wworks or Sservices on behalf of the Council. In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between procurement -related documents, the following order of precedence shall apply (highest to lowest): 1. The Council’s Constitution (including these Standing OrdersSOs); 2. These Procurement Standing OrdersSOs); 3. The Council’s Financial Regulations; 4. Procurement Standard Operating Procedures issued under these SOstanding Orders; and 5. Guidance, toolkits or advisory documents issued from time to time. Procurement Standard Operating Procedures are issued to support the operation of these SOstanding Or ders and must be complied with where they are in force. However, they are subordinate to, and may not override, amend or conflict with the provisions of these Standing OrderSOss or the Council’s Constitution. No policy, guidance or instruction issued by the Leader of the Council, the Cabinet, a Cabinet Member or by officers shall disapply or override these Standing Orders SOs unless expressly permitted by the Council’s Constitution or required by statute. 1.1 Every contract (including Fframeworks and Dynamic Markets) awarded by or on behalf of the Council in respect of:- a) Goods; b) Works; or c) Services of any category or commodity, shall be procured and awarded, in accordance with: a) These Standing OrdersSOs; b) The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (to the extent it applies); c) The Public Procurement ( AmendmentAmendement Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 or other applicable statutory regulation being in force in the United Kingdom; d) The Procurement Act 2023; e) The Procurement Regulations 2024 (SI 2024/692); f) The Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023; g) Any other applicable procurement legislation in force from time to time; d)h) The Council’s Financial Regulations and Standing Orders, i) Corporate Procurement Strategy and any Procurement Standard Operating Procedures issued under paragraph 1.2. e)j) Any mandatory Procurement Policy Notes (PPNs), statutory guidance or other government guidance which the COuncilCouncil is required by law to follow or have regard to. 1.2 The Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, the Cabinet Member for Finance and the Chief Finance OfficeSection 151 Officer r, may issue, from time to time, Procurement Standard Operating Procedures setting out, in further detail, procedures to be followed when awarding contracts under these SOsContract Standing Orders SOs, together with guidance on relevant best practice for procurement. 1.3 Compliance with the procedures set out in the Procurement Standard Operating Procedures is mandatory under these SOsSOsStanding Orders , together with the application of best practice. Application of the Procurement Standard Operating Procedures is to be consistent across all Council Departments, including all areas where the procurement function is delegated. It is the responsibility of the Approved Officers to ensure compliance with the procedures is maintained where procurement is delegated to an external supplier or organisation. 1.4 These SOsStanding Orders SOs shall be read together with the Procurement Standard Operating Procedures. The Procurement Standard Operati ng Procedures and theseStanding Orders these SOs carry equal weight, and therefore a breach of the Procurement Standard Operating Procedures will have the same effect as a breach of these SOs.Standing OrdersSOs. In the event of conflict between these SOs and any policy issued by the Leader of the Council these SOs shall take precedence. 1.5 Corporate & Executive Directors, Directors, Deputy Directors and Heads of Service shall ensure that all officers who procure Ggoods, Wworks or Sservices ) comply with these Standing Orders SOs and the Procurement Standard Operating Procedures. Only officers who are deemed to be qualified and competent by the Director of Procurement Head of Procurement (or officer responsible for procurement). , in conjunction with the appropriate Corporate/ Executive Director, may procure gGoods, Wworks or Sservices. These officers are to be identified within each Department’s individual Scheme of Delegations, and known as “Approved Officers”. The Head of Procuremen t and each Corporate / Executive Director shall maintain a register of Approved Officers. 1.6 An Approved Officer shall be designated for all contracts, irrespective of value, and be competent in managing the supply of gGoods, Wworks or Sservices as appropriate. 1.7 The Director of Procurement Head of Procurement (or officer responsible for procurement). shall be responsible for maintaining a register of all contracts where the total contract value is £25,000 or greater. 1.8 No contract shall be procured unless written approval is obtained in accordance with the Scheme of Delegations. Such written approval will confirm there is adequate provision within the appropriate capital or revenue budgets or other financial provision, i.e. grant funding. 1.9 Pursuant to paragraph 1.8, before obtaining written approval, Approved Officers shall consult the Register of Contracts to ascertain if the Council has a contract for the Ggoods, Wworks or Sservices required. If such a contract is in existence, the -Approved Officer shall use the appropriate contract in force, and not procure another. 1.10 It shall be the duty of every officer of the Council placing contracts or committing expenditure to obtain and demonstrate value for money, and that the Ggoods, Wworks and sServices are fit for the intended purpose. 1.11 All procurements must be designed to facilitate competition, optimise quality, and deliver value for money throughout the contract’s entire life cycle. This depends on the nature of the procurement, its value, and any specific social interests the contract may attract. 1.12 To achieve these goals, all procurements must adhere to the applicable legal framework and have regard to the objectives of equal treatment, delivering value for money, maximising public benefit and sharing information for the purpose of allowing suppliers to understand the Council's procurement policies and decisions. 1.13 When designing a procurement process, Approved Officers must consider Central Government guidance, including Procurement Policy Notes (PPNs) and the National Procurement Policy Statement (NPPS), for best practice. While these guidelines are generally not mandatory, they must be followed where specifically identified as such. For guidance on when and how to apply current PPNs and the NPPS, consult the Director of Procurement Head of Procurement (or officer responsible for procurement).. 1.141114 These Procurement Standing Orders (SOs) SOs will remain in place as the Council transitions from the Public Contract Regulations 2015 and Public Procurement Regulations 2020 to the Procurement Act 2023 and Procurement Regulations 2024 . For all Procurement procurement engagement activity completed or formally commenced prior to 27th 24th October February 202520242025 (including any modifications/variations to these contracts contracts), these SOsStanding OrdersSOs will remain applicable for the period of those contracts or FframeworksFrameworksframeworks to the extent that it is possible within the previous regulations . This For all Procurement procurement engagementEengagement starting on or after 24th2824th October February 20252025'24 and to the extent that it is possible within the new regulations these SOsStanding OrdersSOs will continue to apply. Where adherence to SOsStanding Orders SOs is not possible, owing to divergence from old to new Regulations, Officers will adhere to the guidance in place from Cabinet Office and take necessary advice from Procurement and Legal teams. 1.15 Officers must not artificially divide, phase, structure or otherwise manipulate procurements, Contracts, expenditure or approvals for the purpose of avoiding procurement thresholds, approval requirements, transparency obligations or governance controls contained within these SOs or applicable legislation. 1.16 These SOs shall be reviewed periodically by the Monitoring Officer, Section 151 Officer and Head of Procurement and updated as necessary to reflect changes in legislation, statutory guidance, government policy, governance requirements or organisational structures. Any material amendments shall be approved in accordance with the Council’s constitutional arrangements. SO 2 - Ethics & Probity 2.1 Officers shall preserve the highest standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality and objectivity. This includes compliance with the Employees’ Code of Conduct. 2.2 Pursuant to paragraph 2.1, breaches of compliance will be referred to the Section 151 Officer Chief Finance Officer and the Head of Procurement in the first instance, who in conjunction with the Head of Business Assurance , will authorise any investigation. The outcome of any investigation may be referred to the HR OPerationsOperations Manager Head of Human Resources to determine if disciplinary action should be taken, in accordance with the Employee’s Code of Conduct. 2.3 In accordance with Section 117 of the Local Government Act 1972, The Head of Legal Services shall maintain a record of any officer who has a pecuniary interest in a contract with the Council, and notify in writing their Head of Service where, in the course of their work, have a personal financial or non-financial interest. 2.4 Any officer procuring Ggoods, Wworks or Sservices must declare gifts and hospitality received or offered, in accordance with the Employees’ Code of Conduct. 2.4 Any officer procuring Ggoods, Wworks or Sservices must declare gifts and hospitality received or offered, in accordance with the Employees’ Code of Conduct. 2.5 Officers acting in relation to a procurement must take all reasonable steps to identify and continuously review any conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest. Officers must work with Procurement Services to eliminate or mitigate any conflicts of interest (or potential conflicts of interest) in accordance with the ss 81 -83 of Procurement Act 2023. Any decision to exclude a supplier from a procurement because of such conflict will be made by the [ Director of Procurement Head of Procurement (or officer responsible for procurement).] in consultation with the [Monitoring Officer]. 2.6 A conflicts assessment must be prepared by the Council in accordance with section 83 of the Procurement Act 2023 before any procurement notices (such as tender notices or transparency notices) are published. The Council is under a duty to review and update the conflict assessment as required throughout the procurement process. 2.7 Where a conflict of interest, or potential conflict of interest, is identified after the commencement of a procurement process, the Approved Officer must notify the Procurement Team immediately and take all reasonable steps to review, update and, where necessary, revise the conflicts assessment and any mitigation measures. 2.8 Any failure by an officer to declare a conflict of interest, or to comply with agreed mitigation measures, whether deliberate or inadvertent, may result in the officer being removed from further involvement in the procurement and referred for consideration under the Council’s disciplinary procedures, in accordance with the Employees’ Code of Conduct. 2.9 Where a conflict of interest is identified and cannot be appropriately mitigated, the Council may take such action as is necessary to ensure compliance with the Procurement Act 2023, including excluding a supplier from the procurement or discontinuing the procurement process where required. Confidentiality and unauthorised disclosure 2.,10 2.10 Officers and Members involved in any procurement activity must preserve the confidentiality of all commercially sensitive, confidential or restricted information obtained in the course of the procurement process and must not disclose such information except where authorised or required by law. 2.11 Any unauthorised disclosure of information during a procurement process, whether deliberate or inadvertent, must be reported immediately to the Procurement Team taking advice from the Monitoring Officer where appropriate, 2,12 Unauthorised disclosure may result in the exclusion of an officer or Member from further involvement in the procurement and may give rise to disciplinary action, investigation under the Council’s governance procedures, and/or other remedial action to prote ct the integrity of the procurement process. SO 3 - Decision-making process 3.1 Member authority The Council’s executive decision-making process set out in Part 2, Chapter 5 requires for more significant contract decisions to be determined by the Cabinet or a Cabinet Member(s) to provide for Member oversight and accountability when using public monies. It is the prerogative of the Cabinet or Cabinet Member to decide to accept - or not accept - any tender recommended by Officers. Council sets the financial thresholds by which tenders shall be accepted by Members as set out in Standing Order 6. 3.2 Planning ahead Before any invitation to tender, Corporate & Executive Directors and their officers shall plan ahead and build into their project timetable the necessary informal approvals, notifications (via the Forward Plan) and the period of the formal decision-making process. Sufficient time should be planned to consider all service provision issues, including alternative decisions by the Cabinet or Cabinet Member. Corporate & Executive Directors should first seek the informal approval of their Cabinet Member to invite tenders. For tenders that have a corporate impact, the Leader of the Council should also be consulted beforehand. Cabinet Members will expect officers to have considered all alternative options before presenting them with a proposal to tender a contract. The Corporate & Executive Directors shall then ensure that the Forward Plan is updated with regard to forthcoming tender decisions which require formal approval by the full Cabinet or a Cabinet Member. Advance notice of at 46least 3 -4 months mustshould be given on the Forward Plan unless the Leader of the Council and Democratic Services Monitoring Officer agrees otherwise,. Corporate Directors shall maintain an appropriate forward Procurement ipelinepipeline for Contracts under their management. 3.3 Decision-making process and timings & transparency Any tender decision identified on the Forward Plan shall require a formal tender summary report to be prepared providing full tender evaluation information, using the sign -off procedures and templates approved by Democratic Services. For tender decisions to a particular meeting of the full Cabinet, officers should adhere to the report deadlines set out by Democratic Services. For tender decisions to a Cabinet Member(s), officers should ensure they are taken within the month notified. From the time the report is ready, the formal decision -making process can take approximately 1 month before a decision is made. This time period is mainly for legal reasons, but also to ensure that Members have time to read the report. In addition, after any decision is made by the Cabinet or Cabinet Member, 5 days must expire for the ‘scrutiny call-in’ period before any decision can formally take effect and any contract can be signed, executed or sealed. In exceptional circumstances to speed -up the democratic decision -making process, Special Urgency or Urgency procedures may be invoked to the relevant body authorised to make the decision (Leader of the Council/Cabinet Member or the Cabinet) but only with the prior agreement of the Leader of the Council via the relevant Corporate / Executive Director. Such procedures are set out in Chapter 17 – Rules on Access to Information. For transparency, ordinarily all Cabinet and Cabinet Member decisions to accept (or not accept) a particular tender are made public immediately following the decision, including the name of the successful tenderer / organisation and the value of the contract. Officers are to note the requirement of section 98 of the Procurement Act 2023 whereby the Council must keep records explaining all material decisions made relating to the award and entering into a contract. 3.4 Procurement notices and transparency requirements The Council must comply with all transparency and notice publication requirements under the Procurement Act 2023 and the Procurement Regulations 2024. This includes, where applicable, the publication of tender notices, transparency notices, contract award notices and notices relating to Ccontract Mmodifications. Responsibility for ensuring that all required notices are prepared and published in a timely and lawful manner rests with the Procurement Team, working in conjunction with the Approved Officer for the relevant procurement. No contract with an estimated total value of £30,000 (inclusive of VAT) or above shall be entered into unless the Procurement Team is satisfied that the applicable transparency and notice requirements have been met or, where permitted by legislation, are n ot required. Failure to comply with statutory transparency and notice obligations may result in the suspension of the procurement process, delay to contract award, remedial publication action, and/or referral for investigation in accordance with these Standing Orders and the Council’s governance procedures. 3.5 The Council shall retain procurement records in accordance with applicable legislation, the Council's Records Management Policy and any retention periods prescribed by the Procurement Team, Monitoring Officer or Section 151 Officer. SO 4 - Minimum Tendering Requirements 4.1 a) Tenders or quotations shall be invited for all proposed expenditure with an estimated total contract value, equal to or exceeding the minimum thresholds as set out as follows: - Total Value Minimum Tendering Requirement Authority to Commence & Evidence Required Award Criteria / Method of Publication £0 - £24,999 Three written quotations from viable suppliers. Where possible, at least two quotations should be obtained from local suppliers Budget Holder responsibilities Evidence of quotations must be retained for audit purposes and to support the raising of a purchase requisition. For procurements at this value, screenshots of online prices may be accepted as supporting evidence. Where a Direct Award, Mini Competition, or Quick Quote route is used, supporting Bids up to £24,999 may be sought on email with officers awarding to lowest cost unless there is a clear and unambiguous reason to select a higher priced quote. evidence must be submitted with the Purchase Requisition. This should clearly explain why the selected route is appropriate and how it demonstrates Value for Money. £25,0000 – £99,999 Either: A Quick Quote exercise run through the Council’s nominated eProcurement system, with officers awarding the contract to the Most Advantageous Quotation. A Mini-Competition conducted3 written quotations from viable suppliers or ‘mini competition’ from compliant Framework. Where possible at least two quotations should be sought from local suppliers. OR where a Direct Award this should be through a compliant Fframework. A Direct Award made via a compliant Fframework (see SO4.1 c). Any spend or contract over Budget Holder responsibilities . Evidence of quotations must quotes should be retained for audit purposesauditability and to support the purpose of raising of a purchase requisition. For procurements at this value, screenshots Screenshots of online prices maywill be accepted as supporting evidence. Where aconsidered for this value OR if Direct Award, Mini Competition, or Quick Quote route is used, supporting evidence must evidence should be submittedpresented with the Purchase Requisition. This should clearly explain of why the selected route isthis represents appropriate and how it demonstratesroute to award including Value for Money. Any spend or contract over £25,000 (£30,000 (inclusive of VAT) must be reported to Procurement to ensure compliance with legislation. Bids up to £24,999 may be sought on email with officers awarding to lowest cost unless there is a clear and unambiguous reason to select a higher priced quote. Bids between £25,000 and £99,999 must be sought (in some circumstances on the Council’sCouncils nominated eProcurement system) with Officers awarding to Most Advantageous Quote, or via a compliant Framework £25,000 (£30,000 (inclusive of VAT) must be reported to Procurement to ensure compliance with legislation. ) £100,000 & above Formal tender process, compliant with all necessary regulations, thresholds and best practice OR where a Direct Award this should be through a compliant Fframework (see SO4.1 c) Budget Holder, Head of Service & Director. Evidence of formal tender process including evaluation should be retained for purpose of audit and writing formal reports OR if Direct Award evidence should be included in formal report of why this represents appropriate route to award including Value for Money Tender must be issued on the Council’sCouncils nominated e-Procurement system with Officers evaluating asevaluating as set out in the tender documents. Pursuant to paragraph 1.1, every invitation to tender shall comply with all regulations and directives in force at that time. b) Where In a competitive tendering procedure where the award criteria is based on sectionMost Advantageous Tendersection 23 of the Procurement Act 2023 and the contract is to be awarded to the Most Advantageous Tender in accordance with section 19 of the Procurement Act 2023 , unless agreed by the Director of Procurement Head of Procurement (or officer responsible for procurement). in consultation with Cabinet Member for Finance or the Leader of the Council, where appropriate this paragraph shall apply . There will be three tiers of weighting reflecting the varied nature of services the Council procures: i. Goods / Wworks and Sservices considered to be a commodity and / or ones that are not considered to impact the strategic outcomes of the Council shall be based on a minimum 5080% weighting in favour inof price. ii. Goods / Wworks and Sservices where the quality of outcome is heavily influenced by the supplier selection (e.g. consultancy and professional services) shall be based on a maximum of 50of 85080% weighting in favour of quality. iii. All other requirements, where price and quality are deemed to be of equal importance when considered in the context of the Council’s operating and financial environment, should be undertaken on the basis of  equal cost / quality split. It is expected that the majority of requirements will fall under this tier. c) Frameworks (those established by theHillingdonthe Council , other public organisations or Public Sector Buying Organisations) represent a help buyers to procure Ggoods, Works and Sservices from a list of pre -approved suppliers, with agreed terms and conditions ...compliant method by which to award contracts . Some Frameworks require completion of a ‘further competition’ (i.e. asking suppliers to bid against each other) and these should be completed in accordance with the terms of the Fframework and adherence to the requirements of SO4.1 . Other Framework s permit Direct Awards to a specific supplier (i.e. entering into a contract without competition), often presenting an expedient and commercially attractive route to contract award. The approval process remains as per SO6.3 but the use of the Direct Awards need to be justified in writing with supporting evidence to justify explain why and how the supplier meet s LBH the Council's requirements and appropriate level of benchmarking to justify Value for Money in the proposed arrangements. 4.2 The Public Procurement Regulations 2020 Procurement Act 2023 and Procurement Regulations 2024 shall apply to the procurement of contracts with an estimated aggregate value equal to or exceeding the thresholds listed below that are in force at the time of tender, and pursuant to paragraph 4.3:- Supply Type Value (including VAT) Goods and services ((including consultancy and agency resource) £207,720181,302214,904 or greater Works £5,193,0004,551,4135,372,609 or greater Light touch contract £663,540429,809 or greater See Schedule 1 of the Procurement Regulations 2024 for further information or seek advice from the Procurement Team. Concession contract £5,193.000 or greater * The Head of Democratic Services may update the above figures in the Standing Orders, as and when prescribed from time to time. The figures provided above are the thresholds for the period 1 January 20262024 – 31 December 20262025. 4.3 Unless it is in the best interests of the Council, or forms part of a provision of duty of care, no requirement for Ggoods, Wworks or Sservices may be sub-divided into smaller contracts with the intention of circumventing the requirements of paragraph 4.1, or 4.2. 4.4 The contract lead must determine the total value of the procurement, including whole life costs and any potential extension periods. The estimate should reflect the maximum amount expected to be paid under the contract, including any amounts already paid. The contract lead must determine the total value of the procurement, including whole life costs and any potential extension periods. The estimate should reflect the maximum amount expected to be paid under the contract, including any amounts already paid. Where there is a risk that expenditure may exceed the approved contract value, the contract lead must clearly set out the consequences, including potential non-compliance with procurement and financial regulations, and take appropriate action. This may include initiating an early re-tender, seeking formal approval for a variation, or implementing other corrective measures to ensure continued compliance 4.5 Before proceeding in accordance with paragraph 4.1 in relation to any expenditure, the Approved Officer shall consult the Procurement Standard Operating Procedures, to confirm and determine how the Ggoods, Wworks or Sservices should be tendered. Appropriate guidance shall also be sought from the Procurement Team. 4.665 Tenders for all proposed contracts with an estimated total contract value greater than £100,000 shall be conducted following consultation with the Procurement Team, unless otherwise instructed by the Director of Procurement Head of Procurement (or officer responsible for procurement).. 4.7 Transparency and notices All procurement activity carried out under this Standing Order is subject to the transparency and notice publication requirements set out in Standing Order 3.4 Transparency, Notices and Publication Duties. SO 5 - Custody, Receipt & Opening of Tenders 5.1 All tenders are managed through the Council’sCouncils preferred eTendering Portal which will contain a record of all tenders received and opened and provides auditability of tender integrity. 5.2 Late Bids (Tenders & Quotations) (a) A bidBidbid (i.e. tender or quotation) received after the last date and time when bids should be received must be recorded as a late tender in the tender portal and must not be opened or considered. (b) Head of Procurement (or officer responsible for procurement) or the Head of Democratic Services TheSuch a late bid shall only be opened and considered for acceptance in exceptional circumstances with supporting written evidence and the authorisation of the Director of Procurement Head of Procurement (or officer or the Head of Democratic Services is required. (c) . The Council reserves the right to reject any bid that is received after the deadline/last date and time when bids should be received. (d) Any decision to accept a late bid under this Standing Order must be recorded in writing by the Procurement Team, including the reasons relied upon, and retained for audit purposes . The acceptance of any late bid under this Standing Order shall only take place where the reasons for doing so are fully documented by the Procurement Team, approved in accordance with these Standing Orders, and retained within the procurement records to e nsure transparency, accountability and auditability. SO 6 - Acceptance of tenders and approval of them 6.1 General Rules Where tenders or quotations have been received in accordance with the Procurement Standard Operating Procedures, they can only be accepted if the Approved Officer has satisfied themselves that: - a) All approvals required by Cabinet, Cabinet Member or Delegated Officers set out in these SOstanding Orders, the Council’s Constitution and Financial Regulations have been obtained first; b) the tender is compliant with the relevant regulations; c) the tender offers best value in accordance with the Procurement Standard Operating Procedures. d) all appropriate risks have been assessed and mitigated, as required by Procurement Standard Operating Procedures. e) An assessment of the contractor’sContractors contractors financial viability in accordance with Procurement Standard Operating Procedures must be carried out where the tender value exceeds £100,000 or at any value where payment is made in advance or risk of supplier failure would have detrimental impact on services to residents or the Finances of the Council f) f) That relevant and sufficient budgetary provision (whether capital or revenue) is available 6.3 Authority levels for tender or quotation acceptance (a) The Council has agreed the following financial thresholds for authority to accept the outcome of a tender or quotation exercise: Total valueValue of Contract (including any contract / extension / variation (1)extensions) Decision- Maker Approval Method for decision Notice on Forward Plan required (2) Where decision has been previously delegated to an Officer by Cabinet or Cabinet Member (3) £0 – –£99,999 Chief Executive or Corporate Director (may sub-delegate (4))using Oracle Financials Internal Oracle System N/A Internal Oracle System £100,000 - £249,999 Chief Executive or Corporate Director Chief Officer Decision Notice Yes - only if key decision Chief Officer Decision Notice £250100,000 - £999,999750,000 PortfolioFormal democratic decision by the relevant Cabinet Member, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder and the Leader of the Council or Cabinet Member for Finance * Formal Cabinet Member report Yes – only if key decision Chief Officer Decision Notice £1m+ - any value£750,000 or greater Cabinet Scheduled to Cabinet forFormal democratic decision in advance. Formal report.by the Cabinet */** Yes – no exceptions Chief Officer Decision Notice (a) Where a quotation or tender process has not been undertaken or extension is being requested beyond the scope or value of the original approval then authority levels are set out in Standing Order 1311 – Exemptions and Waivers (b) * * Any tender, at any value, if deemed a 'key decision', must be indicated on the Forward Plan in advance and determined formally (2) All procurement decisions taken by Cabinet are “key decisions” (as they exceed £1m) and must be published on the Forward Plan at least six months in advance. For decisions by Cabinet Members or officers that may also qualify as key decisions, advice should be sought from Democratic Services. This will depend on whether the decision has a significant impact on the community or specific groups, in line with the definition of a key decision in Chapter 5 of the Constitution. If any such decision on any tender is to have a significant impact upon communities, people or services within 2 or more wards and/or significantly outside the approved budget (by meeting the criteria for key decisions) then it must be taken by Leader & relevant Cabinet Member or the Cabinet, dependent on value as a formal democratic decision and prior details included within the Council's Forward Plan, except if taken under urgency rules. The Council's definition of a key decision is set out in Part 2, Chapter 5 of this Constitution. (c) ** Tenders above 1,000£750,000 in the absence of a regular Cabinet meeting and if decision deemed urgent by the Leader of the Council Cabinet is the primary body where tenders over £ 1m750k in value are considered in the ordinary course of events. In the absence of a Cabinet meeting where a decision is required that if not taken may prejudice service or project delivery or if a decision is deemed urgent by the Leader of the Council, then the Leader of the Council and relevant Cabinet Member may take a formal democratic decision on the matter, with it being reported to a subsequent Cabinet for ratification via a formal report. (d) In the case of a formal democratic decision required by the Leader of the Council / Cabinet Member or the Cabinet then the procedures in Standing Order 3.3 shall be followed. (1)The above procurement decisions may be subject to any prior internal spend control clearance internally first, put in place by Corporate Director of Finance before they go to the approved decision-maker or body for approval. (e) (3)Cabinet or a Cabinet Member may have previously delegated a future procurement decision when approving the original project or contract, for expediency. This delegation will be recorded in the Cabinet minutes or a Cabinet Member decision notice. Where such a delegation exists, the authorised decision-maker (usually a Corporate Director, and sometimes the Cabinet Member) may take the decision instead of applying the standard thresholds set out above. (f) (4)The Chief Executive or a Corporate Director may sub-delegate such decisions to lower senior management levels - or apply sub-thresholds within the total value set out, as per the Officer Scheme of Delegations. 6.4 Agency Resource / Temporary Workers and Consultants (a) Where there is a requirement to recruit an Individual Temporary Worker (within ‘IR35 - off payroll working) as an additional resource or to fill a vacant post this should be appointed through the Council’sCouncils nominated and approved temporary agency provider. Any such requests should be progressed with the HR Team and in accordance with HR policies & procedures. (b) Where there is a requirement to recruit an Individual Temporary Worker (within ‘IR35 - off payroll working) as an additional resource or to fill a vacant post and this cannot be fulfilled through the Council’sCouncils nominated and approved temporary agency provider, any request to use an alternative recruitment agency must be treated as new services provision and is subject to the full Standing Order SOs, including but not limited to, SO4.1 and SO6.3. d) Where there is a requirement to recruit a ‘consultant’ (appointed outside of ‘IR35 - off payroll working’ legislation) who, after appropriate due diligence is deemed by the commissioning manager, to be outside of IR35 this should be treated as a new service provision (whether through a recruitment agent or direct engagement) and is subject to the full Standing OrdersOs, including but not limited to SO4.1 and SO6.3. e) Any ambiguity as to whether roles are deemed inside or outside of IR35 should in the first instance refer to internal guidance on such matters before being referred for external opinion. f) A summary of all consultant engagements and/or outside of IR35 activity will be reported to Cabinet quarterly for noting only f) SO 7 - Execution of Contracts 7.1 Every contract that is entered into by the Council shall be executed be executed in a manner that is proportionate to their value, risk and legal complexity and in accordance with these Standing Orders and the Council’s Constitution ; accordance with the following:- £10,000 – £99,999 Signed by, Approved officer OR, where appropriate, through the raising of a Purchase Order on the Council’sCouncils Finance system £100,000 or greater Sealed with the Common Seal of the Council and attested by a Member of the Council and the Head of Legal Services or any other officer authorised by the Head of Legal S Director of Legal and Governance or any other officer authoirsed by the Director of Legal and Governance in writing ervices and the Leader of the Council in writing. 7.2 Pursuant to Standing SOOrder 1, a record of each contract executed in accordance with paragraph 7.1, shall be entered on a Register of Contracts maintained for that purpose by the Director Head of Procurement (or officer responsible for procurement). 7.3 No Council officer may call off a contract for Ggoods, Wworks or Sservices under a Fframework unless that contract is executed in accordance with paragraph 7.1. 7.4 All contracts, whether executed in writing or through the raising of a requisition on the Council’sCouncils Finance System must be appropriate to the nature of the services, supplies or works to be provided and contain provisions to protect the Council’sCouncils overall commercial, legal and reputational risk. Council Standard Terms and Conditions should be used as a matter of course but where a requirement to diverge from this applies, the following conditions apply: (a) Use of Supplier Contracts – Any requirement for Officers to contract on third party supplier terms and conditions must only be done with the specific written approval of Legal Services (b) Use of Public Sector Framework Contracts (CCS / YPO / ESPO etc) – OfficersOfficer may use Framework contracts with written approval of the Procurement Team (c) Use of Industry Standard templates (JCT / NEC etc) – OffiicersOffices may use Industry Standard Templates with the written approval of Procurement..Legal Services. 7.5 It is the requisitioners responsibility to ensure that any contract (formal written contract or Purchase Order) contains or reference as a minimum: (a) a specification of requirements or required outcomes (b) the agreed costs of the services to be delivered (c) start and finish date of the requirements (including the Council's right to terminate the contract) (c) (d) Compliance requirements (GDPR, H&S, Insurance etc) 7.6 The Council’sCouncils preference is for all contracts to be issued for signature using an electronic signature software. Reference to signing or signature in SO7 should be taken to mean either a physical /wet copy signature OR use of the electronic system where approved for use by the Council. 7.7 Legal Services must approve the form of contract or confirm that no legal review is required. SO 8 – Permitted Contract Extensions and Variations 8.0 Before approval is granted to extend or vary contracts in term , Corporate & Executive Directors and their officers shall give due consideration to all potential options that may exist to repackage gGoods, Wworks and Sservices. An appraisal of such options shall be produced and provided to the appropriate Cabinet Member for review in accordance with the provisions of Standing OrderSO 3. Only where the Cabinet Member approves the option that a contract shall be extended or varied shall such approval be sought. 8.1 Contracts may only be extended where the express provision in the original agreement exists to do so , it is compliant with the requirements of ProcurementPublic Contract RegulationsProcurement Act 2023 and Procurement Regulations 2024 and the appropriate approval to extend has been provided. Any contracts awarded under the Public Contract Regulations 2015 will remain regulated by the Public Contract Regulations 2015. Officers must ensure they are applying the correct regime when considering contract variations and extensions and seek advice from the Procurement Department as required. 8.2 No Contract Variation, extension , novation or other Contract Modification shall be implemented unless approved in writing in a ccordance with these SOs and where applicable relevant procurement legislation. 8.3 Any proposed novation must be supported by appropriate due diligence, including assessment of the incoming party’s financial standing, capability and compliance with applicable procurement legislation. A novation that results in a material change to the contract, the identity of the supplier, or the allocation of risk shall be treated as a Ccontract Mmodification and must be approved in accordance with Standing Order 6 and Standing Order 8, and the applicable procurement legislation. Novation must not be used for the purpose of avoiding competition, transparency requirements or approval thresholds unde r these Standing Orders and must be agreed in writing. Officers must monitor expenditure against approved Contract Values throughout the Contract term and take action sufficiently in advance of any anticipated overspend to enable all necessary approvals and procurement activity to be completed. 8.4 Officers must not approve a Contract Modification which would result in a material alteration to the nature, scope, economic balance or overall character of the Contract unless expressly permitted by applicable procurement legislation. 8.18.5 Where no provision to extend exists this any extension is considered a Vvariation cannot be considered an extension and should be managed as an Exemption or waiver under SO13SO11. 8.28.6 Approval to extend shall be sought in accordance with the following approval levels OR in accordance with any extension provision agreed at the time of the initial contract award, Value of Extension exceeds Approval Method £0 - £99,999 Corporate Director £100,000 - £999750,000 Formal democratic decision by the relevant Cabinet Member and the Leader of the Council or Cabinet Member for Finance £1m750,000 or greater Formal democratic decision by the Cabinet or to the relevant Cabinet Members where so delegated by the Cabinet 8.3 Any requests to vary a contract that does not have a financial implication but is considered a ‘key decision’ should be taken in consultation with the relevant Corporate Director and Cabinet Member in accordance with the principles established in SO3. 8.4 Where contract spend is likely to exceed the origina lly approved value , in response to increased time period, scope or use, it is the Officers obligation at the earliest opportunity (and in advance of reaching that limit) to submit a report , in accordance with the values set out in SO ’s. Any such report should set out the reasons for the additional spend and expectations on likely future spend . For the avoidance of doubt, where an approval is initially within one band ( i.e.ie a contract originally approved for £95k) and approval is sought to vary by a value of a further £50k, this should be submitted according to the total value – i.e.ie £145k and required Cabinet Member approval. Where an approval is initially for £200k but an extension of £95k is required, this can be through Corporate Director. If the extension was for £110k, it should go to Cabinet Member 8.5 All contracts with an average spend of £200k per annum or above must have formal approval from Cabinet to continue for greater than 10 years regardless of previous delegations provided 8.6 For the purposes of these SOs the value of any contract extension or variation shall be calculated cumulatively by aggregating: (a) the original approved contract value; and (b) the value of all previous extensions, Variations or Contract M odifications already approved or implemented under that contract. Contract extensions or Variations must not be artificially split, phased or treated as separate approvals for the purpose of avoiding the application of approval thresholds, decision-making requirements or procurement obligations. Where multiple extensions or Variations are proposed or have been implemented over time, approval must be sought by reference to the total aggregated contract value as amended, in accordance with Standing Order 6 and Standing Order 8, regardless of the individual value of any single extension or Variation. 8.7 Where a Contract Modification requires publication of a notice under applicable procurement legislation, the Contract Modification shall not take effect until the relevant notice has been prepared and publication arrangements confirmed by the Procurement Team. SO 9 - Purchase Orders, Contract Purchase Agreements & Procurement Cards 9.1 Where Officers wish to commit spending on behalf of the Council, Purchase orders Orders shall be considered as the method of commitment with a supplier and shall be required for all Ggoods, Wworks and sServices, irrespective of value . Any Purchase Order must be raised against a Contract Purchase Agreement (CPA) to allow accurate reporting of spend against app roval. Processes for raising requisitions and CPA’s are set out in the Procurement Standard Operating Procedures. 9.2 No Ggoods, Wworks or Sservices shall be procured without the prior establishment of a legitimate purchase Purchase OrderorderOrder, duly approved in accordance with the Council’s Financial Regulations and the Scheme of Delegations. Exemptions to this shall be approved in writing by the Chief Finance Officer Section 151 Officer 9.3 Non-Invoice payments for one off payments such as grants or refunds can be made using Oracle Cloud’s One Time Payment function. The function must not be used for purchasing goods or services where an invoices should always be provided. Non -Invoice payments must not be subject to VAT. One Time Payments will utilise the cost centre hierarchy for their expenditure approval. 9.4 The Council recognises the need to ensure efficient processes are used to procure lower value Ggoods, Wworks and Sservices. Therefore Procurement Cards (P-Cards) may be used to procure Ggoods, Wworks and sServices in any of the following situations:- a) Purchases less than £500 b) Single purchases where the supplier will not be used again c) Urgent or emergency purchases where it is not possible to raise a purchase order, pursuant to paragraph 9.2 Exemptions to this shall be approved in writing by the Chief Finance Officer Section 151 Officer and Director of Procurement Head of Procurement (or officer responsible for procurement). as appropriate. SO 10 - Local Authority Maintained School Procurement 10.1 Delegated Authority to procure Ggoods, Wworks or sServices is awarded to Local Authority maintained schools only where they abide by the Council's Standing Orders with respect to all Procurement and contracting activity. Breaches of compliance will result in the removal of Delegated Authority and possible disciplinary action may also be initiated. 10.2 Schools who have been awarded Delegated Authority shall comply with these standing orders and all relevant best practice and specifically “DFE Buying for Schools Guidance”. It is the Head teacher and Governing bodies responsibility to ensure that any Schools officer involved in placing contracts is suitably experienced and qualified to do so. 10.3 Local authority maintained schools are required to abide by the Council’s Standing Orders with respect to purchasing, tendering and contracting. Governing Bodies are also empowered under paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the Education Act 2002 to enter into contracts, and in most cases they do so on behalf of the Local Authority as maintainer of the school. The Council has set the following delegated authority and criteria for the acceptance, consistent with the Financing Scheme for Schools approved by Cabinet: Value Range Process to follow Description Approval Up to £3,000 Best Value Officers to demonstrate best value has been achieved Headteacher £3,001 - £10,000 Quotes Two written quotes required* Headteacher £10,001 – £50,000 Quotes Minimum of 3 written quotes* Governing Body £50,001 - £100,000 Quotes Minimum of 5 written* quotes Governing Body £100,000 and above Tender Minimum of 5 tenders Governing Body £180,000 and above Tender / FTS Notice European tender procurement notice requirements applicable under Procurement Act 2023 (goods/services) Governing Body and Local Authority *Quotes should be invited from viable suppliers or use a ‘mini competition’ from compliant Framework. Where possible at least two quotations should be sought from local suppliers. Where a direct award via a compliant framework is proposed this should be undertaken with reference to Standing Order 4.1 c 10.4 Governing Bodies are required to obtain approval from the CouncilLocal AuthorityCouncil at the outset of any procurement where the contract value is greater than £180,000 so the Councillocal authoritCouncily can seek assurance on how value for money will be achieved through a compliant tender approach. 10.5 Governing Bodies are required to obtain counter-signature on contracts where the value of the contract exceeds £1 80,000 except where the process has been undertaken by experienced professional specialist support or has used a compliant Framework. The Local Authority counter-signatory for the London Borough of Hillingdonthe Council will be the Corporate Director of Finance or as sub -delegated by the Corporate Director in the Directorate's Scheme of Delegations. SO 11 - Concession Contracts 11.1 Concessions are broadly similar to "normal" contracts between contracting authorities/entities and suppliers, but with one key difference: the consideration in a concession contract consists in the right to exploit the work, or services, that are the subject of the contract, or that right to exploit together with a payment. Examples of concessions might include street furniture contracts whereby the provider has the right to use the Hillingdon Council land (highways and footways) to generate advertising income for themselves in return for a payment to theLBHthe Council. 11.2 The transfer to the concessionaire (ie provider) of the right to exploit the Wworks or Wservices shall always imply an operating risk of economic nature involving the possibility that it will not recoup the investments made and the costs incurred in operating those Wworks or Sservices. This means that under the contract, the concessionaire should not enjoy a guarantee of breaking even on investments and costs incurred. 11.3 Concession contracts should be treated in accordance with the general principles of these SOsStanding OrdersSOs and in particular the principles of openness, transparency, equal treatment and proportionality should apply. 11.4 The value of a concession contract is to be calculated on the basis of the estimated total turnover of the concessionaire (i.e. the amount the supplier could expect to receive under the contract and where applicable has already received) generated over the duration of the contract, net of VAT. The amount a supplier could expect to receive includes the following: • amounts representing revenue (whether monetary or non-monetary) receivable pursuant to the exploitation of the Wworks or Sservices to which the contract relates (whether from the Council or otherwise). • the value of any goods, services or works provided by the Council under the contract other than for payment. • amounts that would be receivable if an option in the contract to supply additional Sservices or Wworks were exercised. • amounts that would be receivable if an option in the contract to extend or renew the term of the contract were exercised. • amounts representing premiums, fees, commissions, or interest that could be receivable under the contract. • amounts received on the sale of assets held by the supplier under the contract. Thresholds are agreed as follows: Initial Value of Concession Approval Method £0 - £99,999–£250,000 Corporate Director £100250,000 - £999750,000 Formal democratic decision by the relevant Cabinet Member and the Leader of the Council or Cabinet Member for Finance * £1m750,000 or greater Formal democratic decision by the Cabinet or to the relevant Cabinet Members where so delegated by the Cabinet*/** If an officer is unable to estimate the value of a contract (for example because the duration of the contract is unknown), the Council is to be treated as having estimated the value of the contract as an amount more than the threshold amount for that type of contract. SO 12 – Contract Management 12.1 Contract management is a critical part of the Procurement lifecycle to ensure value in contracts i s protected and enhanced over its life. It is the Head of Service (or above) responsibility to appoint a nominated person responsible for contract management duties for all contracts in excess of £100k spend per annum. 12.2 Contract management duties include: checks that charging is in accordance with pricing schedules, contracts outputs and outcomes are meeting the specification, performance reporting is in place and being monitored (including the assessment of key performance indicators see paragraph 12.4 ), review actual and anticipated expenditure under the Contract to ensure the approved total contract value is not exceeded without approval , delivery of obligations under social value are being met , assur ance to the business on compliance of suppliers with legal responsibilities including data protection, insurances and health and safety, escalating key issues of concern to relevant Head of Service and / or Director and managing Ccontract Mmodifications. 12.3 Contract Managers will be responsible for leading and collating responses to Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 requests relating to the suppliers they manage. 12.4 In accordance with Sections 52 and 71 of the Procurement Act 2023 the Council is required to set, publish and report against at least three key performance indicators where the value of the contract is above £5 million. The obligation to set and publish at least three KPIs does not apply in relation to certain types of public contracts: a. a Fframework (although it does apply to call off contracts under Fframeworks where these are over £5m); b. a utilities contract awarded by a private utility; c. a concession contract; or d. a light touch contract. 12.5 Spend in excess of an approved contract value shall not be incurred unless one of the following actions has been completed in advance: (a) approval of a permitted contract variation or extension in accordance with these Standing Orders and the applicable procurement legislation; (b) commencement of a new competitive procurement process; or (c) approval of a waiver in accordance with Standing Order 13, where permitted by law. SO 13 - Exemptions and Waivers 13.1 These SOsStanding OrdersSOs shall not apply to the following services or actions that are managed by separate policies and guidelines . The following will be considered exemptions: 1. Contracts for the acquisition, lease or disposal of land and/or real estate (note: the exemption does not include the services to complete those transactions) 2. Contracts which make an individual a permanent or fixed term emplo yee of the Council. 3. Specific payment and / or directions as instructed by Courts or Tribunals. 4. LeviesLevysLevies, payments or taxes to public sector organisations that are required on a statutory rather than contractual basis. 5. Any decisions relating to the management and procurement activity of the Pension Fund which will be managed according to the mandate of the Pension Committees. Any decisions relating to the management, investment, administration or procurement activity of the Pension Fund, which shall be governed by the Pension Fund's statutory framework, governance arrangements and any delegations approved by the Pension Committee. 5. 6. Any wholly owned subsidiary of the Council (Eg. The Hillingdon Care Company (THHCC))First) 7. Direct Payments to residents following care assessment. For example, payments provided under Self Directed Support or individual budgets. 8. Residential placements sought for an individual with a registered care provider of their choice. 9. When the Chief Executive's Emergency Contract Delegation Protocol is invoked, with the agreement of the Leader of the Council (see Annex A below for protocol). Such decisions will be reported to Cabinet for ratification. 10. When the Leader of the Council deems a decision urgent under their Emergency Powers delegation. Such decisions will be reported to Cabinet for ratification. 13.2 W13Where these Standing OrdersSOs may conflict with any separate rules or guidance, and the Procurement Standard Operating Procedures, the Director of Procurement, the Cabinet Member for Finance and the Head of Legal Services will determine which takes precedence. 13.3 Circumstances may arise where permission is required to waive one or more of these SOs. Contract Standing Orders . Waivers are reserved for exceptional circumstances and will only be approved where good and sufficient evidence has been provided. Circumstances under which a waver may be considered are: (i) it is not reasonably practicable or prudent in meeting the Council’s objectives to obtain competitive tenders or quotations; or (ii) there would be no effective or genuine competition and the proposed supplier is the only genuine provider of the Ggoods / Wworks or Sservices (iii) it is necessary to safeguard health, life, property or environment (iv) where the requirements have been met under one of the tests in Schedule 5 of the Procurement Act 2023 (Direct Award Justifications), and the delegation to proceed has been approved by the relevant approval method depending on value outlined below 13.4 A Waiver will not simply be granted on the grounds of convenience or because of inadequate forward planning. Any request for a waiver must be supported by sufficient level of information setting out the reason for the request, why it has arisen , the impact of not proceeding with the waiver and how any risks (financial, legal, operational or reputational) are being mitigated. 13.5 The Council can only wa ive the rules as established by the Council. The Council cannot waive statutory requirements and specifically the ProcurementPublic Contract RegulationsProcurement Act 2023 and the Procurement Regulations 2024 that are n ot permitted with in the legislation itself . A waiver to any of the Council 's SOsStanding OrdersSOs must be sought in advance of any informal agreements, contractual agreement or order placement. 13.6 Waivers will be approved as follows: Value of waiver (in the aggregate including any existing spend) Approval Method £0 –£99,999 Corporate Director using designated Financial System * with justification attached to requisition

APPENDIX 3 PROPOSED CHAPTER 7 - PLANNING DECISIONS The London Borough of Hillingdon is a Local Planning Authority and determines planning matters permitted in law. All matters relating to town and country planning functions are delegated to the Chief Planning Officer1, except where determination by Planning Committee is permitted and authorised in accordance with this Chapter and the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026. Planning Committee The following matters may be determined by the Planning Committee where the requirements set out in the relevant section of this table are met. A. Specified Schedule 2 applications under the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 Subject to the Gateway Test 2 and agreement of the Nominated Member and Nominated Officer 1 Applications for planning permission which are not householder, minor commercial or minor residential applications and where one or more of the following apply:  A valid call-in request has been received from a Ward Member within 21 days of publication of the relevant weekly list and the ‘officer’s recommendation’ is contrary to the desired outcome of the request. The Ward Member must include a valid planning reason for the request (as defined in regulation 5(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026). Determination of what constitutes a valid planni ng reason will be made by the Chief Planning Officer or their sub -delegates. In exceptional circumstances, as determined by the Chief Planning Officer or their sub- delegates, the 21-day rule may be waived.  A valid petition with 50 or more signatures has b een received in accordance with the Council ’s petition scheme, and the ‘officer’s recommendation’ does not accord with the desired outcome of the petition. The petition must include a valid planning reason for the request (as defined in regulation 5(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026). Determination of what constitutes a valid planning reason will be made by the Chief Planning Officer or their sub-delegates.  The application is fo r Major 3 development and the ‘officer’s recommendation’ is for approval. A. Specified Schedule 2 applications under the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 Subject to the Gateway Test 2 and agreement of the Nominated Member and Nominated Officer 2 Applications under section 73 to develop land without compliance with conditions previously attached, where the original planning permission was for an application of a type specified in section A of this table, and where one or more of the following apply:  A valid call-in request has been received from a Ward Member within 21 days of publication of the relevant weekly list and the ‘officer’s recommendation’ is contrary to the desired outcome of the request. The Ward Member must include a valid planning reason for the request (as defined in regulation 5(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026). Determination of what constitutes a valid planning reason will be made by the Chief Planning Officer or their sub -delegates. In exceptional circumstances, as determined by the Chief Planning Officer or their sub- delegates, the 21-day rule may be waived.  A valid pet ition with 50 or more signatures has been received in accordance with the Council ’s petition scheme, and the ‘officer’s recommendation’ does not accord with the desired outcome of the petition. The petition must include a valid planning reason for the request (as defined in regulation 5(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026). Determination of what constitutes a valid planning reason will be made by the Chief Planning Officer or their sub-delegates.  The application is for Major development; and the proposal would result in a reduction of affordable housing provision; and the ‘officer’s recommendation’ is for approval. 3 Applications under section 73A for development already carried out, where one or more of the following apply:  A valid call-in request has been received from a Ward Member within 21 days of publication of the relevant weekly list and the ‘officer’s recommendation’ is contrary to the desired outcome of the request. The Ward Member must include a valid planning reason for the request (as defined in regulation 5(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026). Determination of what constitutes a valid planning reason will be made by the Chief Planning Officer or their sub -delegates. In exceptional circumstances, as determined by the Chief Planning Officer or their sub- delegates, the 21-day rule may be waived.  A valid petition with 50 or more signatures has been received in accordance with the Council ’s petition scheme, and the ‘officer’s recommendation’ does not accord with the desired outcome of the petition. The petition must include a valid planning reason for the request (as defined in regulation 5(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations A. Specified Schedule 2 applications under the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 Subject to the Gateway Test 2 and agreement of the Nominated Member and Nominated Officer 2026). Determination of what constitutes a valid planning reason will be made by the Chief Planning Officer or their sub-delegates.  The application is for Major development and the ‘officer’s recommendation’ is for approval. 4 Reserved matters approval applications related to a large outline planning permission4 5 Applications under section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to modify or discharge a planning obligation connected to a type of application specified in section A of this table, but only in circumstances where the modification/discharge results in a reduction of affordable housing provision. 6 Applications for listed building consent under section 10 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, or to vary or discharge conditions of listed building consent under section 19 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, but only in cases where there is a corresponding planning application which is of a type specified within section A of this table. B. Own-interest applications under the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 Subject to agreement of the Nominated Member and Nominated Officer (the Gateway Test does not apply) 7 Own-interest applications, namely applications made by the authority, or by an Officer or member of the authority, or where the authority or any of its members or Officers has an interest. For the purposes of determining whether an own -interest application made by or on behalf of an Officer should be considered for referral to Planning Committee, “officer” will normally mean a senior officer of the Council at Head of Service level or above, and/or an officer who, in the opinion of the Chief Planning Officer, is closely involved in the day- to-day work of the Local Planning Authority’s planning function. C. HS2 Act matters Not subject to the Gateway Test 8 The Chief Planning Officer, in consultation with the appropriate Cabinet Member, may refer Schedule 17(9) Applications which by level of public interest and importance are felt to warrant consideration at Planning Committee. Planning Committee Membership, Training & Conduct The Planning Committee will be politically balanced, and membership determined by the Full Council. Mandatory training in planning is required for new committee members and all members of the planning committee should observe the Planning Code of Conduct set out in Part 3 of the Constitution. Planning Committee Quorum No business shall be transacted at a meeting of the Planning Committee unless there is present at least one third of the whole number of Members of the body concerned or 3 Members of the Committee, whichever is the greater. Nominated Member and Nominated Officer Nominated Member and Nominated Officer are defined in the Town and Country Planning (Dischar ge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026. The Nominated Member is the Chair of the Planning Committee. The Council may provide for substitute Nominated Members, who shall be members of the Planning Committee, to act where the N ominated Member is unavailable or has an interest, subject to a written record of such arrangements being maintained. The Nominated Officer is the Assistant Director, Development Services. The Council may provide for substitute Nominated Officers, being Senior Officers within the Planning Service subject to a written record of such arrangements being maintained. Lobbying The Nominated Member or the Nominated Officer or any other officer of the authority, when exercising their powers under Regulations 4, 5 or 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 and this Scheme of Delegation, shall not be lobbied or otherwise contacted by any person or organisation, including by members or officers of the relevant authority, to use their power in a particular way. Any such lobbying that is received should be reported to the Monitoring Officer, who will deal with it as appropriate. Decisions made by Planning Officers Decisions on High Speed 2 (HS2) HS2 is a major national infrastructure project affecting the Borough and requires specific, albeit temporary, decision -making arrangements to ensure the Council can respond efficiently to applications submitted under the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Act 2017. All HS2 Act applications submitted to the London Borough of Hillingdon are delegated to the Chief Planning Officer. Exceptionally, and in accordance with Section C of the table above, the Chief Planning Officer may, in consultation with the appropriate Cabinet Member, refer Schedule 17(9) applications to Planning Committee where their level of public interest or importance is considered to warrant committee consideration. Delegated Decisions For all other planning matters, determination is delegated to the Chief Planning Officer (or their authorised subdelegate(s)). For the avoidance of doubt this includes (but is not limited to) the following matters.  Those matters listed in Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Disc harge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026.  To act on behalf of the Local Planning Authority in relation to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects promoted under the Planning Act 2008, including responding to consultations and submitting representations.  To represent, or authorise the representation of, the Council at all stages of the Development Consent Order process, including pre -application consultation, examination, hearings and post-decision procedures.  Applications for tree works  Applications for advertisement consent Referral to Committee Additionally, the Chief Planning Officer may refer any other planning matter to Planning Committee where the matter is not an application falling within Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026, and where the Chief Planning Officer considers that referral is necessary because of exceptional probity, governance, legal or strategic considerations.

Council – 24 September 2026 7.1 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR GARNER TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR ADULTS, CHILDREN, HEALTH & CARE - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN I note that the Council has been selected by the Department for Education as a Children’s Improvement Team provider. Can the Cabinet Member explain what this means and why Hillingdon was selected? 7.2 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR TANEJA TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR ADULTS, CHILDREN, HEALTH & CARE - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN Can the Cabinet Member share any further information about the upcoming Age Friendly Festival that the Council are holding in the South of the Borough? 7.3 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR AHMAD-WALLANA TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR C OMMUNITY, ENVIRONMEN T & ENFORCEMENT - COUNCILLOR BENNETT: I saw recently on Hillingdon Council's social media channels that we crushed our first vehicle linked to fly -tipping. Please can the Cabinet member share more details on the steps we're taking to combat fly-tipping? 7.4 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR RATHORE TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL: Whilst much has been made in London -wide news, though largely ignored locally, how has the Council responded to the Mayor of London’s proposals to build on Hillingdon’s Green Belt whilst simultaneously stripping away local powers to influence decisions on where development should take place? 7.5 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR SINGHAM TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & PROPERTY – COUNCILLOR DENYS Since this Administration took over in Mid -May, can the Cabinet member provide a summary of the level of work and repairs that have been undertaken for Hillingdon residents on home improvements across the Borough? 7.6 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR HUDDLE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & PROPERTY – COUNCILLOR DENYS Having obtained planning approval nearly three years ago, is the Government now proposing a new design for the hospital, Hillingdon Hospital 2.0 and will they need to start again with seeking planning permission? 7.7 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR EGINTON TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL: Can you confirm that the Council (including both elected Members and officers) is complying with the seven Nolan Principles of Public Life?? QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS Council – 24 September 2026 7.8 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR PUNJA TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL Does the Leader of the Council think it is acceptable for residents to be deceived by elected Councillors using fake accounts to comment on Council business while concealing who they really are? 7.9 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MATHERS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS’ SERVICES - COUNCILLOR BRIDGES How is the council seeking to ensure that its parking policies continue to meet the needs of all Hillingdon Residents? 7.10 QUESTION SUBMITTED B Y COUNCILLOR MAND TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL Hillingdon Council is one of four local authorities in 2026 to receive a Best Value Notice, because MHCLG had grounds for significant concerns about the Council's financial management, governance culture, and the reliability of financial information underpinning decisions. That, I am afraid, is not doing the basics brilliantly. So , can the Leader of th e Council tell us which of those basics: financial management, governance culture, or reliable information he considers fixed, and which are still broken? 7.11 QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR FARINHA DE CASTRO TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE - COUNCILLOR LAVERY Can the Cabinet Member confirm how many of the last twelve Cabinet budget reports were published on the agenda within the statutory five clear working days' notice period?

Council – 24 September 2026 MOTIONS 8.1 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR SWEETING That this Council recognises the widespread opposition to the proposed closure of the Civic Amenity Site, Tavistock Road Yiewsley, shown by a petition from residents totalling some 6594 signatures, calling for the facility to remain open. A site which currently receives around 2,000 visits each weekend and processes some 6,000 tonnes of waste annually. Therefore, this Council calls on the Cabinet to: 1. Pause its closure planned for 21st December 2026, 2. Undertake an immediate review of the Tavistock Road Civic Amenity site. This Review must include: a. A cost -benefit analysis of the Tavistock site, testing the Council’s assumption that closure saves money, given the likelihood that closure would increase local fly-tipping, including green waste, at greater cost to the Council. b. Full costs of all mitigations put in place, such as pop -up waste collections and an analysis of the results of the trials in areas and their contribution to the reduction in fly-tipping. c. A thorough Equalities Impact Assessment given that the local survey has revealed that those with disabilities, the elderly and those without cars will be unfairly disadvantaged. d. A detailed assessment of the additional pressure this closure would place on the Council’s only remaining Civic Amenity site in Harefield, which is already under significant strain, with residents left queuing in traffic for a basic service to which they are entitled. e. Data, by tonnage of waste deposited, on how well used the al ternative provision at the Feltham Civic Amenity Space Waye site has been by Hillingdon residents since it was made available to them. 3. Conduct a proper formal consultation on the proposed closure of the Tavistock Road Amenity site. 4. Respect and listen to the voice of Hillingdon residents who wish this facility to remain open until suitable alternative provision is available locally and in the borough by providing a date to formally hear the petitions submitted by residents. 5. Undertake an urgent search for appropriate sites in the south of the borough as a long -term solution to the need to provide adequate waste services to residents in areas with the highest populations. 6. Contact Powerday, who manage the site on behalf of the Council, to discuss the possible continuance of its current operations. Council – 24 September 2026 8.2 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR PUNJA That t his Council regrets that the current Code of Conduct contains no explicit provision addressing racist or sexist conduct or conduct on social media, and notes that this gap has made it difficult for complaints about such conduct to be properly addressed under the existing Code. This Council notes that: 1. Hillingdon's Code of Conduct for Members and Co -opted Members was adopted on 5 July 2012 and has no t been substantively reviewed or updated since. 2. The LGA Model Members Code of Conduct published in 2020 and updated in 2021 contains explicit provisions addressing bullying and harassment (defined with direct reference to the protected characteristics in t he Equality Act 2010, including race and sex), and conduct on social media and other electronic communication. 3. Clause 4 (8) of Hillingdon’s current code, “You must promote and support high standards of conduct when serving in your public post, in particula r as characterised by the above requirements, by leadership and example”, is ambiguous. It sets no standard of its own, referring only back to sub -clauses (1) – (7), none of which address bullying, harassment, discrimination, or online conduct. As drafted, it gives no clear basis for judging conduct in these areas. Therefore, this Council resolves to: 1. Ask the Monitoring Officer to report to the Standards Committee on how Hillingdon's Code of Conduct compares to the LGA Model Code, covering: a. provisions on bullying, harassment and discrimination under the Equality Act 2010; b. application of the Code to social media and electronic communication; c. replacing Clause 4(8) with a clear, substantive standard of conduct. 2. Ask that the report be brought to the Standards Committee within two months, setting out options for Full Council to adopt an updated Code of Conduct, whether it is the LGA Model Code in full or with local amendments. 3. Establish a clear timeline under which all complaints are responded to and dealt with under the process that does not exceed 2 months. 8.3 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR MATHERS That This Council notes that: o Neighbourhood shopping parades with local independent businesses make an important contribution to Hillingdon's local economy and communities, providing employment, services and amenities close to where residents live. o Independent business tenants on council-owned shopping parades across the borough have received notice of rent increases in excess of 100%, as reported by the Local Democracy Reporting Service 14th August 2026 and confirmed in correspondence to ward councillors. o These increases arise because the Council failed to carry out rent reviews due one to four years ago and the resulting increases are now being backdated to Council – 24 September 2026 the original review date, leaving tenants to bear the cost of this Conservative administration’s financial mismanagement. o The Conservative administration has justified the rent increases based on achieving "best value" for taxpayers. However, no evidence has been provided that this assessment considered the full costs of business failure or displacement, including void periods, re -letting costs, loss of business rates income, loss of local employment and the erosion of high street diversity, against the extra rent sought. A "best value" case that considers only rental income, and not these offsetting costs, is incomplete. o Other local authorities have recognised, in setting rents for their own commercial portfolios, that the great majority of independent business tenants are SMEs, and have adopted phased and negotiated approaches to rent - setting, rather than applying full market corrections in a single step. This Council calls on the Cabinet to: 1. Pause the current backdated rent increases pending the review set out below. 2. Ask officers to report to the Cabinet Member within two months on:  why the relevant rent reviews were delayed;  how many businesses are affected and the evidence supporting proposed rents;  whether the true costs of business failur e or displacement were weighed against the rent increases sought; and  options for a fairer approach to retrospective rent increases, on the principle that businesses should not be financially disadvantaged because the Council itself failed to undertake a r ent review within the appropriate timeframe. 3. Develop and publish a Commercial Tenant Charter, setting standards for communication, rent reviews, repairs and maintenance, dispute resolution and engagement with business tenants. 4. Develop and implement a new Commercial Estates and Local Parades Policy, setting out how the Council will use its commercial property portfolio to support thriving neighbourhoods, independent and craft businesses, and an appropriate diversity of local services, while continu ing to secure value for residents. This policy should be inclusive of:  a fair rent-setting approach for small and independent business tenants  support the transfer of commercial leases when businesses are sold, to enable viable businesses to continue under new ownership where appropriate, while protecting the Council's legitimate interests. 5. Establish regular engagement with tenants and businesses occupying Council- owned commercial premises, so that emerging problems can be identified and addressed earlier.