Home Decisions Meetings News
← Back to Corporate Resources SC

Corporate Resources SC

Thursday 5th March 2026 • View on LB Hillingdon’s website
Meeting documents
👥 Attendance details📄 Agenda frontsheet PDF 371 KB📦 Agenda reports pack PDF 5 MB📝 Printed minutes PDF 450 KB
Read the text of: Agenda frontsheet PDF 371 KB (29 pages)
- Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee HILLINGDON CENTRE FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING 2009/10 Members of the Committee: Cllr Judith Cooper (Chairman) Cllr Pat Jackson Cllr Peter Kemp Cllr John Major (Labour Lead) Cllr Michael Markham (Vice Chairman) Anthony Way (Councillor until 6 May 2010) Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living Contents Chairman’s Foreword 1 Summary of Recommendations 3 Introduction 5 Background 9 Findings & Recommendations 13 Closing Word 21 Annexes 22 Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 1 CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD This committee reviewed the options for Hillingdon Centre for Independent Living (HCIL) (then Hillingdon Independent Living Centre, Hilc) in 2007. Officers were requested to explore the options further and return to the Committee with their findings. Since then numerous changes have occurred – most significantly the modernisation agenda and self-directed support. A re-evaluation of the role and work of HCIL was agreed as a topic as a result of the Committee’s last review: having examined a broad area of modernisation, this review is intended to complement it by exploring the practicalities in one area of modernisation. Independence is central to treating people with dignity. Enabling people to live independently not only provides better service outcomes for individuals but also enables the maximum benefit to be gained from increasingly pressured Council and PCT resources. Our witness sessions revealed that HCIL clearly has the potential to deliver far more than it does at present – and the confidence and satisfaction expressed by service users indicates that it has the ability to do so. The committee’s view is that HCIL needs a clear vision of how its’ potential can be delivered and that this will involve: • More partnership working • More involvement by volunteers • More effective communication • A pro-active attitude to the development of its ro le • An examination of the gaps in its service and the challenges of its location • A clear grasp of the benefits and limitations of a user-led service This report summarises our findings from the two wi tness sessions held and reports some recommendation to Cabinet on our findings. It is hoped that by developing these Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 2 recommendations we can further improve the service we are providing to service users and increase the number people that use this service. Finally, on behalf of the Committee, I would like t o thank the external witnesses who contributed to our review, particular thanks to the services users that attending the committee meetings. Thanks also to the officers who advised on the main issues from the Council’s perspective. Particular thanks to the Joint Commissioning Manager for her comprehensive briefings on this topic. I commend th e report and recommendations to Cabinet Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 3 Summary of Recommendations This review examines the Hillingdon Centre for Indepen dent Living (HCIL) as a case study of the modernisation process The HCIL is a joint service that has been developed and funded on a partnership basis betwe en the local authority and the PCT. It makes recommendations that hope to strengthen the delivery of services to people with physical and sensory di sabilities. Following the evidence received, we make the following recommendations: 1. That Local Authority and PCT Officers develop a procedure to ensure that the service is widely recognised and easy to a ccess. This procedure should encompass two key elements: • That the HCIL service be more widely advertised so that more people have access to the benefits offered; in pa rticular to improve its internet and online presence to make it more visible and more user-friendly to the wider community. • To engage with other organisations to promote partn ership working, one outcome of which would be greater kno wledge and visibility of the service in hospitals and doctors surgeries. 2. That working practices are developed which ensur e closer co- operation between local authority, PCT and HCIL Off icers regarding advice given to potential service users. As part o f this function Officers will ensure that people who are not eligib le for funding receive the information, support and advice they are entitled to. 3. That relevant user groups, including Carers and the Customer Engagement team be involved in the development of H CIL and that their input is central to the development and impro vement of the service. That the development and progression of HC IL should be user and carer led, and the user group to include a user led management board. 4. That employees at HCIL be given training relevan t to the specific needs of service users, and which is regularly upda ted. This is particularly important where use of equipment is concerned. 5. That volunteers be encouraged to work and assist in HCIL: the model of “experts by experience” is of particular rel evance and Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 4 value. It was recognised that volunteers would have support needs that needed to be identified and met. 6. That Officers use the Service User from the witn ess session as a case study on how to improve the services offered t o carers and to co-ordinate this with the development of working pr actices outlined above. 7. That local authority and PCT Officers undertake a gap analysis as part of the development of the service. The Commit tee noted the constraints of space and the challenges of the loca tion of the service, but believe that, if the recommendations a re implemented, these concerns can be satisfactorily addressed. The Committee recommend that a more centralised, easier to access location should be looked into for at least the medium term. 8. That HCIL ensure carers needs are referred to Ad ult Social Care where appropriate for carers assessments. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 5 Introduction The Importance of reviewing Hillingdon’s Centre for Independent Living Strong public interest: The publication of the recent Green Paper- Shaping the Future of Care Together’ emphasised the importanc e to many older and disabled people of maintaining their independence an d remaining in their own home. Opportunities for promoting independent living are also a central theme raised by disabled people in Hillingdon’s Disabled People’s Pl an. This can allow people to live in their own homes as safely and indepen dently as possible, and enable them to continue to live with their family. Government Pressure: The cross-department report ‘Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People’ (2005) published a recommen dation that each local authority area would need to develop a user led organisation, primarily through a Centre for Independent Living. User-led org anisations are led and controlled by disabled people. The Government concordat ‘Putting People First’ (2007) focuses on the reform of the Adult Social Care system in England and Wales, emphasising the need for personalised services that promote choice an d independence. The H-CIL achieves this by providing information and ad vice to people on disability related subjects and giving disabled people the opportunity to look at and try out a range of equipment that is available to promote independence. Council Plan: Includes the priorities of improving the health and we llbeing of Hillingdon’s residents and to build strong and active communities. Inspection report recommendations: It is a government requirement that every local authority area has a user led organisation in place by 2010. Areas within the Council’s influence: The Council can work with its partners in the Primary Care Trust and third sector to support the development of HCIL as a stand-alone organisation with its own legal identity and to consider becoming a social enterprise. High impact on residents: The HCIL has the potential to benefit Hillingdon residents who are in need of advice or information on d isability related issues by providing a one-stop shop to provide information and advice, demonstration of equipment to promote independent li ving, and through developing support services (for example NHS Hillingdo n’s development of Expert Patient programmes). Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 6 Expertise on which to draw: There are existing centres for independent living (for example in Harrow and Ealing) and the ‘I deal for All’ services in Sandwell (a not-for profit, registered charity that is run by and for disabled people that was visited as part of the process of devel oping a model for HCIL) are two models of centres of independent living that co uld provide expertise on HCIL. Reason for review The Committee chose this review in order to examine the Hillingdon Centre for Independent Living (HCIL) as a case study of the m odernisation process and to make recommendations that will strengthen the d elivery of services to people with physical and sensory disabilities. In 2006/07 the Committee conducted a review entitled ‘Hillingdon Independent Living Centre’. The review provided Member s with an opportunity to suggest ways in which services for people w ith physical and sensory disabilities might be accessed and delivered. This new review sets out the progress made since the last r eview. The review outlines the ‘ideal’ position for the Authority as det ailed in the previous review and sets out those steps (which are feasible in the curren t economic climate) which are required to improve services for HCIL users. Terms of Reference 1. To review how the existing HCIL arrangements in Hill ingdon are working, including, services, (provision to) client groups and access t o information, advice and guidance. 2. To identify opportunities to strengthen the role a nd function of HCIL arrangements in Hillingdon. 3. To make recommendations that will help officers and partners address any identified gaps on the role and function of HCIL to improve access to services. 4. To make recommendations to Cabinet / Cabinet Member s based upon the findings of this review. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 7 Methodology • Introductory report from Adult Social Care Health & Housing officers on an update of the service provided by HCIL. • Evidence gathering sessions from a range of witnesses: o Beverley Grayley, Joint Commissioning Manager o Service User A o Service User B o Angela Wegener, Chief Officer DASH o Heather Russell, HCIL Manager o Gill Dickinson, Head of Adult Services HCIL o Naeem Arif - Executive Director, Ideal for All, Sandwe ll o Vicki Phipps - Lead Officer for Personalisation, Ideal for All, Sandwell o Chris Commerford - Chief Officer, Age Concern o Sam Taylor - Change Manager, Transformation Team o Steve Cross – E-Communications Manger, ICT • Research into best practice elsewhere, e.g. look at Ideal for All, Sandwell (www.idealforall.co.uk ) and the Inspire Independent Living Centre, Bexley (www.inspirecommunitytrust.org ) • Read summary findings from Cordis Bright 2007 report • The key questions the committee wanted to look into we re: - What is the role and function of HCIL? - What services does HCIL currently provide (including)? - To whom? - The location of the service? - How are these services accessed? - What gaps are there in current service provision? - What measures are being taken by the Council to address these? - What can the Council do differently and what can it change/adapt to what it already does to improve services? - How does the Council work in partnership with NHS Hillingdon/Hillingdon Hospital and other stakeholders? - [Bearing in mind the current economic climate] what future challenges does the Council face in delivering excellent services? Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 8 First Witness Session: 16 th February 2010 The first session provided an overview of the role and function of HCIL, an update on the progress made, identified key issues and investigated any gaps in service provision. • The witnesses were: o Beverley Grayley, Joint Commissioning Manager o Grace Adjekum, Service User o Maureen Eames, Services User o Angela Wegener, Chief Officer DASH o Heather Russell, HCIL Manager o Gill Dickinson, Head of Adult Services HCIL Second Witness Session: 25 th March 2010 The second session examined what the Council could do differently, partnership working and future challenges faced by the Adult Social Care, Health & Housing to deliver excellent services for disabled people. • The witnesses were: o Naeem Arif - Executive Director, Ideal for All, Sandwe ll o Vicki Phipps - Lead Officer for Personalisation, Ideal for All, Sandwell o Chris Commerford - Chief Officer, Age Concern o Sam Taylor - Change Manager, Transformation Team o Steve Cross – E-Communications Manger, ICT The next section of the report provides background on th e main issues, and then presents the main issues arising in our evidence. We then make recommendations to Cabinet, which we believe will address these issues. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 9 Background Joint work undertaken by Adult Social Care, Health & Ho using and Hillingdon Primary Care Trust (PCT) as part of the 2002 Best Valu e Review of Aids and Adaptations identified the need for an enhanced Indep endent Living Centre for Hillingdon residents with a disability. In August 2007 Cordis Bright Consulting produced a rep ort identifying a range of service models for an enhanced centre for independent living as a replacement for the existing service that started in 1993. Services available at HCIL HCIL is currently co-located with the Hillingdon wheel chair service at the Wood End Centre, Judge Heath Lane, Hayes, Middlesex. T he Disablement Association of Hillingdon (DASH) also operates from the same premises. The centre had been in existence since 1990, and was re -launched in September 2009 following funding that was made avail able. This re-launch event was attended by many people including Council off icers, PCT staff, representatives of third sector organisations, (including DASH staff and volunteers), and potential users of the service. HCIL provides information, advice and support to people who experience difficulties with daily living because of illness, age, disability or an accident. Assessment and demonstration of equipment, aids and assistive technology is also available. The centre operates 4 days a week, with one late evening opening (between 2:00 and 7:00PM) also available to users. Since the re-launch staff had updated some of the equ ipment and were looking to expand this service. Simple daily aids, such as bath seats and kettle aids could be provided on prescription to service us ers. This prescription exchange would not come into place until 2 012. This would link in with the transformation agenda. HCIL aspires to provide a one-stop shop for people with physical and sensory disability of all ages. Services currently on offer at HCIL include: • assessment services for equipment related needs • advice and information about equipment and services and how to obtain them. • opportunities to try out aids and equipment, includin g telecare The following services are available through the Disabl ement Association Hillingdon (DASH) (which is based on the same site as HCI L, but are not provided under the HCIL umbrella): Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 10 • access to information about direct payments • advice and information about a range of disability issu es • information about services provided for disabled people and/or their carers by statutory and/or third sector organisations • Direct Payments Support Service Potential services on offer at HCIL include: • access to and support with self-assessment • access to an equipment retail facility • pre-employment brokerage support and advice • opportunities to try out equipment that would suppo rt disabled people in employment • short term rehabilitation programmes and training fo r carers • information regarding a range of statutory and volun tary services for users and their carers. • volunteering and employment opportunities for disable d people • user led and run provision, such as an Internet café The implementation of HCIL addresses key Government obj ectives arising from ‘Modernising Social Services’ (1998), the NHS Plan (1999), the Green Paper ‘Independence, Wellbeing & Choice’ (2005), Cab inet Office report ‘Improving Life chances for Disabled People’ (2005), th e White Paper ‘Our Health, Our Care, Our Say’ (2006) and the Office for Disability Issues’ ‘Independent Living Strategy’ (2008). The 2007 Government concordat focuses on the reform of the adult social care system in E ngland and Wales, emphasising the need for personalised services that promot e choice and independence. The 2009 Green Paper- Shaping the Future of Care Together’ emphasised the importance to many older and disabled p eople of being able to live independently in their own homes. HCIL also contributes to the delivery of the objectives co ntained within the Council Plan to develop Hillingdon as a Borough with improving health, housing and social care and a Borough where opportunities are open to all. Key issues Work is currently in progress on the development of a stra tegy for personalisation. This includes future access to universal advice, information and advocacy services. A review of the Direct Payments Support Service and the most appropriate model to promote the self-direct ed support (SDS) agenda is also in progress. The Transforming Community Equipment Services (TCES) pr ogramme introduced the retail prescription model. This model of equipment provision allows service users and/or their carers to take a presc ription for a piece of equipment to an approved outlet and exchange the pre scription for the Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 11 specified equipment. Service users may choose to pay for additional extras (for example a toilet seat that matches the colour of the bath room). There is potential for HCIL to develop in becoming an accredite d outlet to exchange prescriptions. Progress made in the development of HCIL Funding from the Council and from Hillingdon Communi ty Health services (HCH) has paid for an occupational therapist and two tr usted assessors to be employed. NHS Hillingdon also invested capital in making improvem ents to the infrastructure with the installation of ‘phone lines to enable access to the Internet. Prior to the official relaunch of HCIL in September 2 009, the staff designed and produced leaflets and posters to advertise the service. They promoted the service at the Carers’ fair, at a PCT event held at Uxb ridge College and at the older people and disabled people’s assemblies. All of the equipment in the exhibition area has been reviewed, updated and itemised by the staff at HCIL. Contact has also been mad e with Medequip to establish an arrangement where equipment can be lent t o HCIL for demonstration purposes. The assessment and care management staff in the sensory ne eds team (Adult Social Care Health and Housing) have worked close ly with HCIL to review and develop the range of equipment that is avai lable to demonstrate to people visiting HCIL who may have a sensory impairment. As part of the development of the HCIL the occupationa l therapist and two trusted assessors have spent a day at Hertfordshire Action for Disability to find out more about the retail model of equipment provision. Discussions are in progress with the community equipment ser vice provider about the possibility of a retail outlet being availab le on the HILC site with the intention of providing users with more choice in the ran ge and type of equipment available. Hillingdon Independent Living Centre – Preliminary Report by the Committee in April 2007 Further supplementary information is provided by the Preliminary report produced in 2007. This review examined the issues surroun ding proposals for an enhanced Hillingdon Independent Living Centre (HI LC). The Committee took evidence from a wide range of stakeholders including Hillingdon Council Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 12 and PCT officers, representatives of service users and the v oluntary sector, and consultants engaged to explore proposals for establi shing an enhanced HILC. The evidence clearly demonstrated that there was a need for change. The Committee therefore had requested that the Social Ser vices, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee would return to this issue to ensure that this project received the impetus that elected Member s upport could provide. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 13 Findings & Recommendations Background Report on the Hillingdon Centre for Independent Living In their report to the Committee it was noted that H CIL staff have signposted service users to statutory organisations (e.g. making referr als through to Hillingdon Social Care Direct) and to third sector org anisations (e.g. to DASH) for further advice and support regarding a range of disability related issues. Staff at HCIL had recorded the feedback from service user s who have contacted or visited the service. This feedback does suggest tha t access to HCIL has enabled people with queries about equipment to resolve them directly without the need to contact Adult Social Care. A recent meeting of service users had been set up with t he aim of developing HCIL as a User Led Organisation. The first meeting of t his group took place on Monday 15 th February 2010. It was noted that since the re-launch of HCIL in Sept ember 2009 there have been an increasing number of referrals through to the service as residents become more aware of it. Since the re-launch there h ave been much stronger links between HCIL and the assessment and care management teams within Adult Social Care and this has led to the range of equ ipment to address sensory needs being updated. Training for professionals such as moving and handling tha t had previously been offered by the independent living but had gone into abeyance in recent years has also now been re-launched at HCIL. The scope for extending this to local care homes will be explored. Witness Session 1: The witnesses that were in attendance were: • Service User A • Service User B • Angela Wegener, Chief Officer DASH • Heather Russell, HCIL Manager • Gill Dickinson, Head of Adult Services HCIL • Beverley Grayley, Joint Commissioning Manager A longer term goal from Officers was to provide users w ith more choice in the range and type of equipment available. This related to the prescription model Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 14 that was discussed, and the timescale for implementing thi s was around 12- 18 months. Other Boroughs would be monitored beforehand so that Hillingdon could do this in the best possible way. This was at the ea rly stages of discussion. In respect of promoting the service, its was noted that t he service was used more by older people; DASH and Age Concern were close ly worked with, and LINks too. Officers were looking at developing web prese nce for HCIL. There was close working with Community Services and Social Services. There were links with staff in Adult Social Care, and H CIL was working with people in different teams to ensure they had new and current equipment. There was also a trust of assessors from DASH. The informa tion on equipment was provided in a database and this informat ion could be explained to service users in detail. Other services and inf ormation available was also provided to service users. Partnership was crucial and key to the working of HCIL, and it had always been present. It also brought about funding. HCIL had information about other organisations and private businesses that may be of use to service users. HCIL did not provide transport to and from the centre . It was on a bus route and there was on-site parking available. Transport was something that could be looked at in the future. The centre did provide assistance to users by giving access to taxis and dial-a-ride services. An outreach service was discussed. Staff from HCIL would g o out to a service user’s home if it was required, but they were not repl acing the services of Social Services. Although there would be some overlap. It was hoped that in the future HCIL would be recruit ing volunteers, particularly disabled people. This would give them good work experience and with a view to paid employment in the future. An area for improvement highlighted was links with ho spitals and how information was passed to patients post-discharge. The centre had PC and internet access to show the service users information and pictures of equipment that they do not have on site. HCIL had the capacity to do more. It was not stretched or over-used. Especially during the winter months which were not very busy. Staff had taken the winter months as an opportunity to signpost the cent re. More people were wanted through the doors to use the service. HCIL woul d consider expanding opening hours and days to better suit the needs of the service users. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 15 Temporary users were assisted at in the centre and ther e was a need to look at those with high needs as a priority. Officers needed to go into day centres and doctor surgeries to promote HCIL, as well as advertise in different places such as Hillingdon People. It had originally predomina tely been a leaflet based campaign but officers were looking at expanding this using facilities such as the web. The Committee met Service User A Service User A had been touch with Adult Social Care p rior to contacting HCIL but she felt let down as she was not eligible for any funding after being means-tested. No further advice or support was given to h er from Adult Social Care. Officers apologised for this bad experience and hop ed that the advice and support she would get now would be much improved. Regardless of the financial support available for the service user, Social Services should still be providing the same level of support to all. Officers would look into this and use this as a case study to ensure that Social Services provide a service to all, not just those eligible for grants. A year later she found out about HCIL after seeing a n advertisement. She felt very at ease when she entered the centre. Service User A cares for her husband who is disabled. She sa w HCIL advertised at an open day. She had not had much success p reviously when she requested it through Social Services. HCIL helped a l ot in providing equipment, information, advice and general assistance. Th e service that HCIL provided her and her husband had made life a lot easier for them, from simple things like frames for the bed and toilet to a recliner chair for sleeping downstairs. HCIL gave advice on eating, showed different equipment available and gave suggestions on changing things to mak e life easier, e.g. heightening the table. The Service User was asked to br ing her husband to the centre where they showed them the range of things that may help them. The Committee met Service User B Service User B had found out about HCIL from DASH. She originally thought it was part of DASH. She wanted to be more independe nt, and wanted the equipment to be able to do this. She called HCIL and they asked her to visit the centre. A DASH representative was also present at the centre and welcomed her at the gate. The Service User said the service she was provided with was very, very good. That she felt she could not have got that kind of service from Social Services. Most of the time her social worker could not answer h er questions and Social Services did not give her the time she would like. At HCIL they gave her time and talked her through th e different equipment she could use. She found out a lot of information fro m HCIL, they showed her Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 16 things on the Internet and advised where to get equipm ent from. They also sent her a catalogue and were very helpful. The Service User believed that HCIL should be better pub licised so that others became aware of the services it provided. She comm ented that it felt like the HCIL staff were like friends who knew what the y were talking about. There was a human touch and they were very understanding. She also commented that when she was in rehabilitation in hospital, she was expected her to find out a lot of things herself withou t much support. The Service User believed that HCIL should be promoted in ho spitals so patients would know about the service provided to them. She also believed there should be closer working with Social Services so that social workers can see what HCIL could provide for them. In summary, both service users were extremely happy with t he service that was provided by HCIL. They commented that simple thing s from information provided by HCIL made things so much easier. The staff a t the centre explained things very well and this service should be advert ised more widely so that others could benefit from the service. Witness Session 2: The witnesses that were in attendance were: • Naeem Arif - Executive Director, Ideal for All, Sandwe ll • Vicki Phipps - Lead Officer for Personalisation, Ideal for All, Sandwell • Chris Commerford - Chief Officer, Age Concern • Sam Taylor - Change Manager, Transformation Team • Steve Cross – E-Communications Manger, ICT Naeem Arif and Vicky Phipps from Ideal for All began the witness session with a presentation on Ideal for All. The presentation focu sed on how the organisation developed and what resources they used to make it a success. It was a user-led organisation, but had developed from this model. Ideal for All had started out 20 years ago and develop ed more aggressively over the last 10 years. They discussed the perceptions of disabled people and what the experience in reality was like when disabled people were able to take control themselves. Disabled people, Sandwell Health Authority and Social Services worked together in the 1990’s to create Ideal for All and improved the lives of disabled people by providing them with accessible services that they required. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 17 In 1996 Sandwell Council and Sandwell Health Authori ty helped disabled people to set up their own Organisation, Ideal for Al l. An initial budget of £54,000 was awarded. Ideal for All was a registered c harity and not for profit voluntary sector organisation. It was run by people fro m the community that it served. Current staffing levels were 47; 43% had a disability. The role of Ideal for All was to help disabled people , their families and carers and the elderly to live independent and fulfilling l ives. They raised almost 50% additional funds themselves for programmes that could n ot be funded through the core contract. A centre was completed in 2000. Ideal for All had a growing membership of over 2000 members; they listened to what people said. They also engaged with people through their growing network of over 150 local organisations. A garden and market garden had been developed through funding and raising money. Ideal for All supported people with Personal Budgets, assessed for and issued items to support independent living and gave informati on and advice. It also produced information and learning materials in accessible formats. It helped people learn how to use computers, find work or go to college for further education. Ideal For All supported a Social Events group to help d isabled people go on accessible short holidays and day trips. Within the Centre they had a service for people with visual impairment and a wheelchair servi ce managed by Sandwell Council and Sandwell PCT respectively. Different organisations had visited them and they offe red to help others for no charge. They wanted to inspire others to develop in ways to help others. Funds were raised from sources such as local businesses and national lottery. Naeem would send a list to the Beverley Gray ley with details on the websites where additional funding could be sourced. Chris Commerford spoke about Age Concern. She could rel ate to both Hillingdon and Sandwell. Age Concern was developing T ownfield Community Centre, was working with DASH and had acquired some all otments. Age Concern had applied for local food grants from the Lottery. There were a large number of older people that were disabled and services needed to be suited to all needs. Age Concern worked with HCIL and was involved in the planning group which helped to re-launch the centre. It also recommended HCIL to service users for Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 18 advice on purchases. The feedback they had back users on th e HCIL service was very good. Particularly from older people who pre ferred face to face interaction. Sam Taylor, Transformation Team, spoke about the info rmation, guidance and advice that could be given to service users. User led opportunity was key in this. There was a vision, and they were looking at h aving a network of organisations delivering a range of functions. Disabled people, the service users, would be part of discu ssions on how to develop the service. With support, choice and independen t living more control was being given to the user, but the authority still h as a duty of care to consider. Steve Cross, ICT, spoke about how IT could help in providi ng information in engagement and support. Technology was used to show t he tools and equipment already and this could be developed. Technology could be used for promotion, for funding, accessibility and having online forums/communities so users could provide feedback/view s. They could use various sites to promote the service and use oth ers thoughts on how to develop the IT service. The Council was looking at designing a website where people can budget and shop for their needs. The information that HCIL staff gave service users was vita l and therefore important that it was accurate. It was also important t hat staff had the necessary tools to provide users with the service they ne eded. This means that training of the staff in the centre was crucial for the service provided to service users. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That local authority and PCT develop a procedure to ensure that this joint service is widely recognised and easy to access. This procedure should encompass two key elements: • That the HCIL service be more widely advertised so that more people have access to the benefits offered; in particular to improve its internet and online prese nce to make it more visible and more user-friendly to the wider community. • To engage with other organisations to promote partn ership working, one outcome of which would be greater Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 19 knowledge and visibility of the service in hospital s and doctors surgeries. The witness sessions highlighted gaps in how the service wa s being advertised. This means that any potential service users wer e not signposted to the HCIL service that is provided for them. Therefore these services users are missing out on the opportunity to use t his service and gain the benefits. The HCIL manager did explain tha t currently the service was not being utilised to its full capacity, and they ha d scope to take on more clients. Currently the web access and advertising f or the service was very limited. The first witness session highlighted that there was a lack of awareness in some services and organisations that could be promoting the service provided by HCIL. Patients that were in hospital were not made aware of HCIL and often had to do their own research about af tercare that could be provided to them. If hospital, doctors surgeries and simil ar organisations worked more closely with HCIL more people could be mad e aware of the service it provided. 2. That working practices are developed which ensur e closer co- operation between local authority, PCT and HCIL Off icers regarding advice given to potential service users. As part of this function Officers will ensure that people who are n ot eligible for funding receive the information, support and advice they are entitled to. The first witness session highlighted a major concern to M embers on the care and advice given to service users who were not eligibl e for funding from Adult Social Care. It was agreed that the witness who attended the session be used as a case study on how the service could be im proved. Members stressed the importance of still providing all se rvice users with information, support and advice regardless of whether th ey are entitled to funding. It was also discussed that Adult Social Care and Social Workers be more proactive in explaining the HCIL service to users. 3. That relevant user groups, including Carers and the Customer Engagement team be involved in the development of H CIL and that their input is central to the development and improvement of the service. That the development and progression o f HCIL should be user and carer led, and the user group to include a user led management board. The Committee would like to stress the importance of fee dback and customer engagement. The service being offered by HCIL i s vital to users Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 20 quality of life, therefore it is vital to get their f eedback. Service users should be asked about how the service could be improved and about developments that officers maybe considering in the future. 4. That employees at HCIL be given training relevan t to the specific needs of service users, and which is regularly upda ted. This is particularly important where use of equipment is concerned. At the second witness session Ideal for All spoke about the training offered to staff at their centre. Members stressed the importance of training the centre’s staff so that service users got the best possible advi ce. That training should be on-going and as many staff as possible should be trained as possible so all needs were met. 5. That volunteers be encouraged to work and assist in HCIL: the model of “experts by experience” is of particular rel evance and value. It was recognised that volunteers would have support needs that needed to be identified and met. The first witness session spoke about potentially recruitin g volunteers, particularly disabled people, to work and assist at HCIL . This could not only increase the resources available at the centre but also provide valuable training and employment experience to people and enable them to find employment in the future. Members were very e ncouraged by this idea. It was recognised that volunteers’ needs would hav e to be met by training and the relevant recruitment practices. 6. That Officers use the Service User from the witn ess session as a case study on how to improve the services offered t o carers and to co-ordinate this with the development of working practices outlined above. As above, recommendation 5, there could be better partn ership working between social services, services users and HCIL. 7. That Officers in the Local Authority and PCT undertake a gap analysis as part of the development of the service. The Committee noted the constraints of space and the ch allenges of the location of the service, but believe that, if t he recommendations are implemented, these concerns can be satisfactorily addressed. The Committee recommend t hat a more centralised, easier to access location should be lo oked into for at least the medium term. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 21 The Committee would like officers to look into other op tions for location and to see how accessibility could be improved. There are some residents that may find the current location difficult to get to and HCIL do not offer the same services off-site. The option of another site (l ong term lease) could be explored in a central location with good tran sport links. Officers could also look into exploring how staff at HCIL could i ncrease visits to service users and assist them in their own homes. The Commi ttee recognises further work would need to be done by office rs and any proposed service change would be subject to approval by the Cabinet/Cabinet Member. 8. That HCIL ensure carers needs are referred to Ad ult Social Care where appropriate for carers assessments. The Committee recommends that there be closer working between HCIL and Adult Social Care. That Social Workers need to have the knowledge to be able to recommend the services, or a particular ser vice, to service users. The Committee acknowledged that HCIL would not be providing the service that Adult Social Care would, but there may be some overlap. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 22 Closing Word Our review showed that witnesses were very satisfied with the service they receive from HCIL, which was heartening but may not al ways be typical. We must continue to consider users feedback on the service the y may or may not be receiving. HCIL clearly has the potential to deliver far more an d needs a clear vision of how its potential can be delivered. Independent living is a vital aspect of adult social care in Hillingdon and the HCIL is a tool which ca n be used to meet those needs for service users to live more independently. We, along with the PCT, must do as much as we can to assist in achieving independent living. Our review makes a series of recommendations which seek to r aise the profile of independent living in Hillingdon and also provide ways in which we can improve the HCIL service. Promoting, communication an d signposting of services are vital in ensuring that services users needs are met through this service. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 23 Annex A Data of service users using Hillingdon’s Centre of Independent Living In the first monitoring period (April- September 2009) HCIL staff dealt with 135 enquiries. (This number includes phone enquiries as well as visitors to the centre). The number of enquiries is shown below broken down by e thnicity, age, gender, disability, marital status and location in Hillingdon (by post code): Ethnicity Asian Black African Black Caribbean White UK White European Not Known 11 3 1 80 4 36 Age Under 18 18-64 65+ Not Recorded 0 18 82 35 Gender Male Female Not Recorded 38 62 35 Disability Physical Learning Sensory Mental Health Dual Not Recorded 87 2 4 1 3 38 Marital Status Single Married/ Widowed Divorced Not Known 11 26 24 2 72 Post Code HA4 HA5 HA6 UB3 UB4 UB7 UB8 UB9 UB10 Live outside the Borough Not Recorded 15 7 9 4 18 10 9 3 14 2 44 This monitoring information indicates that the majority of people who are making contact with HCIL are white older people with physical disabilities. People who live in the Hayes, West Drayton, Hillingdon and Ruislip areas are making contact with HCIL. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 24 Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 25 Community health staff Crown centre for Deaf People Age Concern Hillingdon Other centres for Independent Living Individual contacts from disabled people LINK Hillingdon Carers SAMS/Stroke clubs support groups for disabled people Hospital therapists OTs, rehab officers Social Care Direct H-CIL A.S.C.H.H Middlesex Association for the blind H-CIL’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS DASH User led Committee Hillingdon Community Health Services Organisation makes referrals to H-CIL for information/specialist advice HCIL has signposted to these organisations or given presentations/training H -CIL Partners Annex B

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

Read the text of: Printed minutes PDF 450 KB (29 pages)
- Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee HILLINGDON CENTRE FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING 2009/10 Members of the Committee: Cllr Judith Cooper (Chairman) Cllr Pat Jackson Cllr Peter Kemp Cllr John Major (Labour Lead) Cllr Michael Markham (Vice Chairman) Anthony Way (Councillor until 6 May 2010) Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living Contents Chairman’s Foreword 1 Summary of Recommendations 3 Introduction 5 Background 9 Findings & Recommendations 13 Closing Word 21 Annexes 22 Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 1 CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD This committee reviewed the options for Hillingdon Centre for Independent Living (HCIL) (then Hillingdon Independent Living Centre, Hilc) in 2007. Officers were requested to explore the options further and return to the Committee with their findings. Since then numerous changes have occurred – most significantly the modernisation agenda and self-directed support. A re-evaluation of the role and work of HCIL was agreed as a topic as a result of the Committee’s last review: having examined a broad area of modernisation, this review is intended to complement it by exploring the practicalities in one area of modernisation. Independence is central to treating people with dignity. Enabling people to live independently not only provides better service outcomes for individuals but also enables the maximum benefit to be gained from increasingly pressured Council and PCT resources. Our witness sessions revealed that HCIL clearly has the potential to deliver far more than it does at present – and the confidence and satisfaction expressed by service users indicates that it has the ability to do so. The committee’s view is that HCIL needs a clear vision of how its’ potential can be delivered and that this will involve: • More partnership working • More involvement by volunteers • More effective communication • A pro-active attitude to the development of its ro le • An examination of the gaps in its service and the challenges of its location • A clear grasp of the benefits and limitations of a user-led service This report summarises our findings from the two wi tness sessions held and reports some recommendation to Cabinet on our findings. It is hoped that by developing these Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 2 recommendations we can further improve the service we are providing to service users and increase the number people that use this service. Finally, on behalf of the Committee, I would like t o thank the external witnesses who contributed to our review, particular thanks to the services users that attending the committee meetings. Thanks also to the officers who advised on the main issues from the Council’s perspective. Particular thanks to the Joint Commissioning Manager for her comprehensive briefings on this topic. I commend th e report and recommendations to Cabinet Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 3 Summary of Recommendations This review examines the Hillingdon Centre for Indepen dent Living (HCIL) as a case study of the modernisation process The HCIL is a joint service that has been developed and funded on a partnership basis betwe en the local authority and the PCT. It makes recommendations that hope to strengthen the delivery of services to people with physical and sensory di sabilities. Following the evidence received, we make the following recommendations: 1. That Local Authority and PCT Officers develop a procedure to ensure that the service is widely recognised and easy to a ccess. This procedure should encompass two key elements: • That the HCIL service be more widely advertised so that more people have access to the benefits offered; in pa rticular to improve its internet and online presence to make it more visible and more user-friendly to the wider community. • To engage with other organisations to promote partn ership working, one outcome of which would be greater kno wledge and visibility of the service in hospitals and doctors surgeries. 2. That working practices are developed which ensur e closer co- operation between local authority, PCT and HCIL Off icers regarding advice given to potential service users. As part o f this function Officers will ensure that people who are not eligib le for funding receive the information, support and advice they are entitled to. 3. That relevant user groups, including Carers and the Customer Engagement team be involved in the development of H CIL and that their input is central to the development and impro vement of the service. That the development and progression of HC IL should be user and carer led, and the user group to include a user led management board. 4. That employees at HCIL be given training relevan t to the specific needs of service users, and which is regularly upda ted. This is particularly important where use of equipment is concerned. 5. That volunteers be encouraged to work and assist in HCIL: the model of “experts by experience” is of particular rel evance and Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 4 value. It was recognised that volunteers would have support needs that needed to be identified and met. 6. That Officers use the Service User from the witn ess session as a case study on how to improve the services offered t o carers and to co-ordinate this with the development of working pr actices outlined above. 7. That local authority and PCT Officers undertake a gap analysis as part of the development of the service. The Commit tee noted the constraints of space and the challenges of the loca tion of the service, but believe that, if the recommendations a re implemented, these concerns can be satisfactorily addressed. The Committee recommend that a more centralised, easier to access location should be looked into for at least the medium term. 8. That HCIL ensure carers needs are referred to Ad ult Social Care where appropriate for carers assessments. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 5 Introduction The Importance of reviewing Hillingdon’s Centre for Independent Living Strong public interest: The publication of the recent Green Paper- Shaping the Future of Care Together’ emphasised the importanc e to many older and disabled people of maintaining their independence an d remaining in their own home. Opportunities for promoting independent living are also a central theme raised by disabled people in Hillingdon’s Disabled People’s Pl an. This can allow people to live in their own homes as safely and indepen dently as possible, and enable them to continue to live with their family. Government Pressure: The cross-department report ‘Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People’ (2005) published a recommen dation that each local authority area would need to develop a user led organisation, primarily through a Centre for Independent Living. User-led org anisations are led and controlled by disabled people. The Government concordat ‘Putting People First’ (2007) focuses on the reform of the Adult Social Care system in England and Wales, emphasising the need for personalised services that promote choice an d independence. The H-CIL achieves this by providing information and ad vice to people on disability related subjects and giving disabled people the opportunity to look at and try out a range of equipment that is available to promote independence. Council Plan: Includes the priorities of improving the health and we llbeing of Hillingdon’s residents and to build strong and active communities. Inspection report recommendations: It is a government requirement that every local authority area has a user led organisation in place by 2010. Areas within the Council’s influence: The Council can work with its partners in the Primary Care Trust and third sector to support the development of HCIL as a stand-alone organisation with its own legal identity and to consider becoming a social enterprise. High impact on residents: The HCIL has the potential to benefit Hillingdon residents who are in need of advice or information on d isability related issues by providing a one-stop shop to provide information and advice, demonstration of equipment to promote independent li ving, and through developing support services (for example NHS Hillingdo n’s development of Expert Patient programmes). Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 6 Expertise on which to draw: There are existing centres for independent living (for example in Harrow and Ealing) and the ‘I deal for All’ services in Sandwell (a not-for profit, registered charity that is run by and for disabled people that was visited as part of the process of devel oping a model for HCIL) are two models of centres of independent living that co uld provide expertise on HCIL. Reason for review The Committee chose this review in order to examine the Hillingdon Centre for Independent Living (HCIL) as a case study of the m odernisation process and to make recommendations that will strengthen the d elivery of services to people with physical and sensory disabilities. In 2006/07 the Committee conducted a review entitled ‘Hillingdon Independent Living Centre’. The review provided Member s with an opportunity to suggest ways in which services for people w ith physical and sensory disabilities might be accessed and delivered. This new review sets out the progress made since the last r eview. The review outlines the ‘ideal’ position for the Authority as det ailed in the previous review and sets out those steps (which are feasible in the curren t economic climate) which are required to improve services for HCIL users. Terms of Reference 1. To review how the existing HCIL arrangements in Hill ingdon are working, including, services, (provision to) client groups and access t o information, advice and guidance. 2. To identify opportunities to strengthen the role a nd function of HCIL arrangements in Hillingdon. 3. To make recommendations that will help officers and partners address any identified gaps on the role and function of HCIL to improve access to services. 4. To make recommendations to Cabinet / Cabinet Member s based upon the findings of this review. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 7 Methodology • Introductory report from Adult Social Care Health & Housing officers on an update of the service provided by HCIL. • Evidence gathering sessions from a range of witnesses: o Beverley Grayley, Joint Commissioning Manager o Service User A o Service User B o Angela Wegener, Chief Officer DASH o Heather Russell, HCIL Manager o Gill Dickinson, Head of Adult Services HCIL o Naeem Arif - Executive Director, Ideal for All, Sandwe ll o Vicki Phipps - Lead Officer for Personalisation, Ideal for All, Sandwell o Chris Commerford - Chief Officer, Age Concern o Sam Taylor - Change Manager, Transformation Team o Steve Cross – E-Communications Manger, ICT • Research into best practice elsewhere, e.g. look at Ideal for All, Sandwell (www.idealforall.co.uk ) and the Inspire Independent Living Centre, Bexley (www.inspirecommunitytrust.org ) • Read summary findings from Cordis Bright 2007 report • The key questions the committee wanted to look into we re: - What is the role and function of HCIL? - What services does HCIL currently provide (including)? - To whom? - The location of the service? - How are these services accessed? - What gaps are there in current service provision? - What measures are being taken by the Council to address these? - What can the Council do differently and what can it change/adapt to what it already does to improve services? - How does the Council work in partnership with NHS Hillingdon/Hillingdon Hospital and other stakeholders? - [Bearing in mind the current economic climate] what future challenges does the Council face in delivering excellent services? Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 8 First Witness Session: 16 th February 2010 The first session provided an overview of the role and function of HCIL, an update on the progress made, identified key issues and investigated any gaps in service provision. • The witnesses were: o Beverley Grayley, Joint Commissioning Manager o Grace Adjekum, Service User o Maureen Eames, Services User o Angela Wegener, Chief Officer DASH o Heather Russell, HCIL Manager o Gill Dickinson, Head of Adult Services HCIL Second Witness Session: 25 th March 2010 The second session examined what the Council could do differently, partnership working and future challenges faced by the Adult Social Care, Health & Housing to deliver excellent services for disabled people. • The witnesses were: o Naeem Arif - Executive Director, Ideal for All, Sandwe ll o Vicki Phipps - Lead Officer for Personalisation, Ideal for All, Sandwell o Chris Commerford - Chief Officer, Age Concern o Sam Taylor - Change Manager, Transformation Team o Steve Cross – E-Communications Manger, ICT The next section of the report provides background on th e main issues, and then presents the main issues arising in our evidence. We then make recommendations to Cabinet, which we believe will address these issues. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 9 Background Joint work undertaken by Adult Social Care, Health & Ho using and Hillingdon Primary Care Trust (PCT) as part of the 2002 Best Valu e Review of Aids and Adaptations identified the need for an enhanced Indep endent Living Centre for Hillingdon residents with a disability. In August 2007 Cordis Bright Consulting produced a rep ort identifying a range of service models for an enhanced centre for independent living as a replacement for the existing service that started in 1993. Services available at HCIL HCIL is currently co-located with the Hillingdon wheel chair service at the Wood End Centre, Judge Heath Lane, Hayes, Middlesex. T he Disablement Association of Hillingdon (DASH) also operates from the same premises. The centre had been in existence since 1990, and was re -launched in September 2009 following funding that was made avail able. This re-launch event was attended by many people including Council off icers, PCT staff, representatives of third sector organisations, (including DASH staff and volunteers), and potential users of the service. HCIL provides information, advice and support to people who experience difficulties with daily living because of illness, age, disability or an accident. Assessment and demonstration of equipment, aids and assistive technology is also available. The centre operates 4 days a week, with one late evening opening (between 2:00 and 7:00PM) also available to users. Since the re-launch staff had updated some of the equ ipment and were looking to expand this service. Simple daily aids, such as bath seats and kettle aids could be provided on prescription to service us ers. This prescription exchange would not come into place until 2 012. This would link in with the transformation agenda. HCIL aspires to provide a one-stop shop for people with physical and sensory disability of all ages. Services currently on offer at HCIL include: • assessment services for equipment related needs • advice and information about equipment and services and how to obtain them. • opportunities to try out aids and equipment, includin g telecare The following services are available through the Disabl ement Association Hillingdon (DASH) (which is based on the same site as HCI L, but are not provided under the HCIL umbrella): Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 10 • access to information about direct payments • advice and information about a range of disability issu es • information about services provided for disabled people and/or their carers by statutory and/or third sector organisations • Direct Payments Support Service Potential services on offer at HCIL include: • access to and support with self-assessment • access to an equipment retail facility • pre-employment brokerage support and advice • opportunities to try out equipment that would suppo rt disabled people in employment • short term rehabilitation programmes and training fo r carers • information regarding a range of statutory and volun tary services for users and their carers. • volunteering and employment opportunities for disable d people • user led and run provision, such as an Internet café The implementation of HCIL addresses key Government obj ectives arising from ‘Modernising Social Services’ (1998), the NHS Plan (1999), the Green Paper ‘Independence, Wellbeing & Choice’ (2005), Cab inet Office report ‘Improving Life chances for Disabled People’ (2005), th e White Paper ‘Our Health, Our Care, Our Say’ (2006) and the Office for Disability Issues’ ‘Independent Living Strategy’ (2008). The 2007 Government concordat focuses on the reform of the adult social care system in E ngland and Wales, emphasising the need for personalised services that promot e choice and independence. The 2009 Green Paper- Shaping the Future of Care Together’ emphasised the importance to many older and disabled p eople of being able to live independently in their own homes. HCIL also contributes to the delivery of the objectives co ntained within the Council Plan to develop Hillingdon as a Borough with improving health, housing and social care and a Borough where opportunities are open to all. Key issues Work is currently in progress on the development of a stra tegy for personalisation. This includes future access to universal advice, information and advocacy services. A review of the Direct Payments Support Service and the most appropriate model to promote the self-direct ed support (SDS) agenda is also in progress. The Transforming Community Equipment Services (TCES) pr ogramme introduced the retail prescription model. This model of equipment provision allows service users and/or their carers to take a presc ription for a piece of equipment to an approved outlet and exchange the pre scription for the Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 11 specified equipment. Service users may choose to pay for additional extras (for example a toilet seat that matches the colour of the bath room). There is potential for HCIL to develop in becoming an accredite d outlet to exchange prescriptions. Progress made in the development of HCIL Funding from the Council and from Hillingdon Communi ty Health services (HCH) has paid for an occupational therapist and two tr usted assessors to be employed. NHS Hillingdon also invested capital in making improvem ents to the infrastructure with the installation of ‘phone lines to enable access to the Internet. Prior to the official relaunch of HCIL in September 2 009, the staff designed and produced leaflets and posters to advertise the service. They promoted the service at the Carers’ fair, at a PCT event held at Uxb ridge College and at the older people and disabled people’s assemblies. All of the equipment in the exhibition area has been reviewed, updated and itemised by the staff at HCIL. Contact has also been mad e with Medequip to establish an arrangement where equipment can be lent t o HCIL for demonstration purposes. The assessment and care management staff in the sensory ne eds team (Adult Social Care Health and Housing) have worked close ly with HCIL to review and develop the range of equipment that is avai lable to demonstrate to people visiting HCIL who may have a sensory impairment. As part of the development of the HCIL the occupationa l therapist and two trusted assessors have spent a day at Hertfordshire Action for Disability to find out more about the retail model of equipment provision. Discussions are in progress with the community equipment ser vice provider about the possibility of a retail outlet being availab le on the HILC site with the intention of providing users with more choice in the ran ge and type of equipment available. Hillingdon Independent Living Centre – Preliminary Report by the Committee in April 2007 Further supplementary information is provided by the Preliminary report produced in 2007. This review examined the issues surroun ding proposals for an enhanced Hillingdon Independent Living Centre (HI LC). The Committee took evidence from a wide range of stakeholders including Hillingdon Council Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 12 and PCT officers, representatives of service users and the v oluntary sector, and consultants engaged to explore proposals for establi shing an enhanced HILC. The evidence clearly demonstrated that there was a need for change. The Committee therefore had requested that the Social Ser vices, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee would return to this issue to ensure that this project received the impetus that elected Member s upport could provide. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 13 Findings & Recommendations Background Report on the Hillingdon Centre for Independent Living In their report to the Committee it was noted that H CIL staff have signposted service users to statutory organisations (e.g. making referr als through to Hillingdon Social Care Direct) and to third sector org anisations (e.g. to DASH) for further advice and support regarding a range of disability related issues. Staff at HCIL had recorded the feedback from service user s who have contacted or visited the service. This feedback does suggest tha t access to HCIL has enabled people with queries about equipment to resolve them directly without the need to contact Adult Social Care. A recent meeting of service users had been set up with t he aim of developing HCIL as a User Led Organisation. The first meeting of t his group took place on Monday 15 th February 2010. It was noted that since the re-launch of HCIL in Sept ember 2009 there have been an increasing number of referrals through to the service as residents become more aware of it. Since the re-launch there h ave been much stronger links between HCIL and the assessment and care management teams within Adult Social Care and this has led to the range of equ ipment to address sensory needs being updated. Training for professionals such as moving and handling tha t had previously been offered by the independent living but had gone into abeyance in recent years has also now been re-launched at HCIL. The scope for extending this to local care homes will be explored. Witness Session 1: The witnesses that were in attendance were: • Service User A • Service User B • Angela Wegener, Chief Officer DASH • Heather Russell, HCIL Manager • Gill Dickinson, Head of Adult Services HCIL • Beverley Grayley, Joint Commissioning Manager A longer term goal from Officers was to provide users w ith more choice in the range and type of equipment available. This related to the prescription model Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 14 that was discussed, and the timescale for implementing thi s was around 12- 18 months. Other Boroughs would be monitored beforehand so that Hillingdon could do this in the best possible way. This was at the ea rly stages of discussion. In respect of promoting the service, its was noted that t he service was used more by older people; DASH and Age Concern were close ly worked with, and LINks too. Officers were looking at developing web prese nce for HCIL. There was close working with Community Services and Social Services. There were links with staff in Adult Social Care, and H CIL was working with people in different teams to ensure they had new and current equipment. There was also a trust of assessors from DASH. The informa tion on equipment was provided in a database and this informat ion could be explained to service users in detail. Other services and inf ormation available was also provided to service users. Partnership was crucial and key to the working of HCIL, and it had always been present. It also brought about funding. HCIL had information about other organisations and private businesses that may be of use to service users. HCIL did not provide transport to and from the centre . It was on a bus route and there was on-site parking available. Transport was something that could be looked at in the future. The centre did provide assistance to users by giving access to taxis and dial-a-ride services. An outreach service was discussed. Staff from HCIL would g o out to a service user’s home if it was required, but they were not repl acing the services of Social Services. Although there would be some overlap. It was hoped that in the future HCIL would be recruit ing volunteers, particularly disabled people. This would give them good work experience and with a view to paid employment in the future. An area for improvement highlighted was links with ho spitals and how information was passed to patients post-discharge. The centre had PC and internet access to show the service users information and pictures of equipment that they do not have on site. HCIL had the capacity to do more. It was not stretched or over-used. Especially during the winter months which were not very busy. Staff had taken the winter months as an opportunity to signpost the cent re. More people were wanted through the doors to use the service. HCIL woul d consider expanding opening hours and days to better suit the needs of the service users. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 15 Temporary users were assisted at in the centre and ther e was a need to look at those with high needs as a priority. Officers needed to go into day centres and doctor surgeries to promote HCIL, as well as advertise in different places such as Hillingdon People. It had originally predomina tely been a leaflet based campaign but officers were looking at expanding this using facilities such as the web. The Committee met Service User A Service User A had been touch with Adult Social Care p rior to contacting HCIL but she felt let down as she was not eligible for any funding after being means-tested. No further advice or support was given to h er from Adult Social Care. Officers apologised for this bad experience and hop ed that the advice and support she would get now would be much improved. Regardless of the financial support available for the service user, Social Services should still be providing the same level of support to all. Officers would look into this and use this as a case study to ensure that Social Services provide a service to all, not just those eligible for grants. A year later she found out about HCIL after seeing a n advertisement. She felt very at ease when she entered the centre. Service User A cares for her husband who is disabled. She sa w HCIL advertised at an open day. She had not had much success p reviously when she requested it through Social Services. HCIL helped a l ot in providing equipment, information, advice and general assistance. Th e service that HCIL provided her and her husband had made life a lot easier for them, from simple things like frames for the bed and toilet to a recliner chair for sleeping downstairs. HCIL gave advice on eating, showed different equipment available and gave suggestions on changing things to mak e life easier, e.g. heightening the table. The Service User was asked to br ing her husband to the centre where they showed them the range of things that may help them. The Committee met Service User B Service User B had found out about HCIL from DASH. She originally thought it was part of DASH. She wanted to be more independe nt, and wanted the equipment to be able to do this. She called HCIL and they asked her to visit the centre. A DASH representative was also present at the centre and welcomed her at the gate. The Service User said the service she was provided with was very, very good. That she felt she could not have got that kind of service from Social Services. Most of the time her social worker could not answer h er questions and Social Services did not give her the time she would like. At HCIL they gave her time and talked her through th e different equipment she could use. She found out a lot of information fro m HCIL, they showed her Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 16 things on the Internet and advised where to get equipm ent from. They also sent her a catalogue and were very helpful. The Service User believed that HCIL should be better pub licised so that others became aware of the services it provided. She comm ented that it felt like the HCIL staff were like friends who knew what the y were talking about. There was a human touch and they were very understanding. She also commented that when she was in rehabilitation in hospital, she was expected her to find out a lot of things herself withou t much support. The Service User believed that HCIL should be promoted in ho spitals so patients would know about the service provided to them. She also believed there should be closer working with Social Services so that social workers can see what HCIL could provide for them. In summary, both service users were extremely happy with t he service that was provided by HCIL. They commented that simple thing s from information provided by HCIL made things so much easier. The staff a t the centre explained things very well and this service should be advert ised more widely so that others could benefit from the service. Witness Session 2: The witnesses that were in attendance were: • Naeem Arif - Executive Director, Ideal for All, Sandwe ll • Vicki Phipps - Lead Officer for Personalisation, Ideal for All, Sandwell • Chris Commerford - Chief Officer, Age Concern • Sam Taylor - Change Manager, Transformation Team • Steve Cross – E-Communications Manger, ICT Naeem Arif and Vicky Phipps from Ideal for All began the witness session with a presentation on Ideal for All. The presentation focu sed on how the organisation developed and what resources they used to make it a success. It was a user-led organisation, but had developed from this model. Ideal for All had started out 20 years ago and develop ed more aggressively over the last 10 years. They discussed the perceptions of disabled people and what the experience in reality was like when disabled people were able to take control themselves. Disabled people, Sandwell Health Authority and Social Services worked together in the 1990’s to create Ideal for All and improved the lives of disabled people by providing them with accessible services that they required. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 17 In 1996 Sandwell Council and Sandwell Health Authori ty helped disabled people to set up their own Organisation, Ideal for Al l. An initial budget of £54,000 was awarded. Ideal for All was a registered c harity and not for profit voluntary sector organisation. It was run by people fro m the community that it served. Current staffing levels were 47; 43% had a disability. The role of Ideal for All was to help disabled people , their families and carers and the elderly to live independent and fulfilling l ives. They raised almost 50% additional funds themselves for programmes that could n ot be funded through the core contract. A centre was completed in 2000. Ideal for All had a growing membership of over 2000 members; they listened to what people said. They also engaged with people through their growing network of over 150 local organisations. A garden and market garden had been developed through funding and raising money. Ideal for All supported people with Personal Budgets, assessed for and issued items to support independent living and gave informati on and advice. It also produced information and learning materials in accessible formats. It helped people learn how to use computers, find work or go to college for further education. Ideal For All supported a Social Events group to help d isabled people go on accessible short holidays and day trips. Within the Centre they had a service for people with visual impairment and a wheelchair servi ce managed by Sandwell Council and Sandwell PCT respectively. Different organisations had visited them and they offe red to help others for no charge. They wanted to inspire others to develop in ways to help others. Funds were raised from sources such as local businesses and national lottery. Naeem would send a list to the Beverley Gray ley with details on the websites where additional funding could be sourced. Chris Commerford spoke about Age Concern. She could rel ate to both Hillingdon and Sandwell. Age Concern was developing T ownfield Community Centre, was working with DASH and had acquired some all otments. Age Concern had applied for local food grants from the Lottery. There were a large number of older people that were disabled and services needed to be suited to all needs. Age Concern worked with HCIL and was involved in the planning group which helped to re-launch the centre. It also recommended HCIL to service users for Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 18 advice on purchases. The feedback they had back users on th e HCIL service was very good. Particularly from older people who pre ferred face to face interaction. Sam Taylor, Transformation Team, spoke about the info rmation, guidance and advice that could be given to service users. User led opportunity was key in this. There was a vision, and they were looking at h aving a network of organisations delivering a range of functions. Disabled people, the service users, would be part of discu ssions on how to develop the service. With support, choice and independen t living more control was being given to the user, but the authority still h as a duty of care to consider. Steve Cross, ICT, spoke about how IT could help in providi ng information in engagement and support. Technology was used to show t he tools and equipment already and this could be developed. Technology could be used for promotion, for funding, accessibility and having online forums/communities so users could provide feedback/view s. They could use various sites to promote the service and use oth ers thoughts on how to develop the IT service. The Council was looking at designing a website where people can budget and shop for their needs. The information that HCIL staff gave service users was vita l and therefore important that it was accurate. It was also important t hat staff had the necessary tools to provide users with the service they ne eded. This means that training of the staff in the centre was crucial for the service provided to service users. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That local authority and PCT develop a procedure to ensure that this joint service is widely recognised and easy to access. This procedure should encompass two key elements: • That the HCIL service be more widely advertised so that more people have access to the benefits offered; in particular to improve its internet and online prese nce to make it more visible and more user-friendly to the wider community. • To engage with other organisations to promote partn ership working, one outcome of which would be greater Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 19 knowledge and visibility of the service in hospital s and doctors surgeries. The witness sessions highlighted gaps in how the service wa s being advertised. This means that any potential service users wer e not signposted to the HCIL service that is provided for them. Therefore these services users are missing out on the opportunity to use t his service and gain the benefits. The HCIL manager did explain tha t currently the service was not being utilised to its full capacity, and they ha d scope to take on more clients. Currently the web access and advertising f or the service was very limited. The first witness session highlighted that there was a lack of awareness in some services and organisations that could be promoting the service provided by HCIL. Patients that were in hospital were not made aware of HCIL and often had to do their own research about af tercare that could be provided to them. If hospital, doctors surgeries and simil ar organisations worked more closely with HCIL more people could be mad e aware of the service it provided. 2. That working practices are developed which ensur e closer co- operation between local authority, PCT and HCIL Off icers regarding advice given to potential service users. As part of this function Officers will ensure that people who are n ot eligible for funding receive the information, support and advice they are entitled to. The first witness session highlighted a major concern to M embers on the care and advice given to service users who were not eligibl e for funding from Adult Social Care. It was agreed that the witness who attended the session be used as a case study on how the service could be im proved. Members stressed the importance of still providing all se rvice users with information, support and advice regardless of whether th ey are entitled to funding. It was also discussed that Adult Social Care and Social Workers be more proactive in explaining the HCIL service to users. 3. That relevant user groups, including Carers and the Customer Engagement team be involved in the development of H CIL and that their input is central to the development and improvement of the service. That the development and progression o f HCIL should be user and carer led, and the user group to include a user led management board. The Committee would like to stress the importance of fee dback and customer engagement. The service being offered by HCIL i s vital to users Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 20 quality of life, therefore it is vital to get their f eedback. Service users should be asked about how the service could be improved and about developments that officers maybe considering in the future. 4. That employees at HCIL be given training relevan t to the specific needs of service users, and which is regularly upda ted. This is particularly important where use of equipment is concerned. At the second witness session Ideal for All spoke about the training offered to staff at their centre. Members stressed the importance of training the centre’s staff so that service users got the best possible advi ce. That training should be on-going and as many staff as possible should be trained as possible so all needs were met. 5. That volunteers be encouraged to work and assist in HCIL: the model of “experts by experience” is of particular rel evance and value. It was recognised that volunteers would have support needs that needed to be identified and met. The first witness session spoke about potentially recruitin g volunteers, particularly disabled people, to work and assist at HCIL . This could not only increase the resources available at the centre but also provide valuable training and employment experience to people and enable them to find employment in the future. Members were very e ncouraged by this idea. It was recognised that volunteers’ needs would hav e to be met by training and the relevant recruitment practices. 6. That Officers use the Service User from the witn ess session as a case study on how to improve the services offered t o carers and to co-ordinate this with the development of working practices outlined above. As above, recommendation 5, there could be better partn ership working between social services, services users and HCIL. 7. That Officers in the Local Authority and PCT undertake a gap analysis as part of the development of the service. The Committee noted the constraints of space and the ch allenges of the location of the service, but believe that, if t he recommendations are implemented, these concerns can be satisfactorily addressed. The Committee recommend t hat a more centralised, easier to access location should be lo oked into for at least the medium term. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 21 The Committee would like officers to look into other op tions for location and to see how accessibility could be improved. There are some residents that may find the current location difficult to get to and HCIL do not offer the same services off-site. The option of another site (l ong term lease) could be explored in a central location with good tran sport links. Officers could also look into exploring how staff at HCIL could i ncrease visits to service users and assist them in their own homes. The Commi ttee recognises further work would need to be done by office rs and any proposed service change would be subject to approval by the Cabinet/Cabinet Member. 8. That HCIL ensure carers needs are referred to Ad ult Social Care where appropriate for carers assessments. The Committee recommends that there be closer working between HCIL and Adult Social Care. That Social Workers need to have the knowledge to be able to recommend the services, or a particular ser vice, to service users. The Committee acknowledged that HCIL would not be providing the service that Adult Social Care would, but there may be some overlap. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 22 Closing Word Our review showed that witnesses were very satisfied with the service they receive from HCIL, which was heartening but may not al ways be typical. We must continue to consider users feedback on the service the y may or may not be receiving. HCIL clearly has the potential to deliver far more an d needs a clear vision of how its potential can be delivered. Independent living is a vital aspect of adult social care in Hillingdon and the HCIL is a tool which ca n be used to meet those needs for service users to live more independently. We, along with the PCT, must do as much as we can to assist in achieving independent living. Our review makes a series of recommendations which seek to r aise the profile of independent living in Hillingdon and also provide ways in which we can improve the HCIL service. Promoting, communication an d signposting of services are vital in ensuring that services users needs are met through this service. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 23 Annex A Data of service users using Hillingdon’s Centre of Independent Living In the first monitoring period (April- September 2009) HCIL staff dealt with 135 enquiries. (This number includes phone enquiries as well as visitors to the centre). The number of enquiries is shown below broken down by e thnicity, age, gender, disability, marital status and location in Hillingdon (by post code): Ethnicity Asian Black African Black Caribbean White UK White European Not Known 11 3 1 80 4 36 Age Under 18 18-64 65+ Not Recorded 0 18 82 35 Gender Male Female Not Recorded 38 62 35 Disability Physical Learning Sensory Mental Health Dual Not Recorded 87 2 4 1 3 38 Marital Status Single Married/ Widowed Divorced Not Known 11 26 24 2 72 Post Code HA4 HA5 HA6 UB3 UB4 UB7 UB8 UB9 UB10 Live outside the Borough Not Recorded 15 7 9 4 18 10 9 3 14 2 44 This monitoring information indicates that the majority of people who are making contact with HCIL are white older people with physical disabilities. People who live in the Hayes, West Drayton, Hillingdon and Ruislip areas are making contact with HCIL. Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 24 Social Services, Health & Housing Policy Overview Committee Review Hillingdon Centre of Independent Living – April 2010 Review Page 25 Community health staff Crown centre for Deaf People Age Concern Hillingdon Other centres for Independent Living Individual contacts from disabled people LINK Hillingdon Carers SAMS/Stroke clubs support groups for disabled people Hospital therapists OTs, rehab officers Social Care Direct H-CIL A.S.C.H.H Middlesex Association for the blind H-CIL’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS DASH User led Committee Hillingdon Community Health Services Organisation makes referrals to H-CIL for information/specialist advice HCIL has signposted to these organisations or given presentations/training H -CIL Partners Annex B

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

Attendance
Present: Councillor John Riley, Councillor Adam Bennett, Councillor Scott Farley, Councillor Martin Goddard, Councillor Gursharan Mand, Councillor Mohammed Shofiul Islam
Apologies: Councillor Farhad Choubedar, Councillor Kaushik Banerjee

Agenda

121. Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Kaushik Banerjee with Councillor Martin Goddard substituting and also Councillor Farhad Choubedar.
122. Declarations of interest in matters coming before this meeting
None.
123. Minutes of the previous meeting PDF 514 KB
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting on 6 January 2026 agreed.
📄 Minutes of the previous meeting PDF 514 KB
Read the text of this document (5 pages)
Minutes CORPORATE RESOURCES & INFRASTRUCTURE SELECT COMMITTEE 6 January 2026 Meeting held at Committee Room 6 - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW Committee Members Present: Councillors John Riley (Chair), Adam Bennett (Vice -Chair), Scott Farley, Stuart Mathers (in place of Gursharan Mand) , Sital Punja (in place of Mohammed Islam) and Peter Smallwood (in place of Kaushik Banerjee) LBH Officers Present: Matthew Wallbridge (Chief Operating Officer), Dan Kennedy (Corporate Director of Residents Services), Steve Muldoon (Corporate Director of Finance), Chris Malin (Head of Finance - CF & Finance), Matt Davis (Director -Strategic & Operational Finance), Anisha Teji (Senior Democratic Services Officer) 112. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Kaushik Banerjee with Councillor Peter Smallwood substituting, Councillor Gursharan Mand with Councillor Stuart Mathers substituting and Councillor Mohammed Islam with Councillor Sital Punja substituting. 113. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) There were no declarations of interest. 114. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting on 19 November 2025 be agreed. 115. TO CONFIRM THAT THE ITEMS OF BUSINESS MARKED AS PART I WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC AND THAT THE ITEMS MARKED AS PART II WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PRIVATE (Agenda Item 4) It was confirmed that all items would be considered in Part I. 116. CABINET BUDGET PROPOSALS 26/27 (Agenda Item 5) The Committee received an update on the Coun cil’s financial position, noting that the Month 7 forecast remained broadly consistent with Month 6. Officers outlined t he context for the 2026/27 budget and the Medium-Term Financial Strategy ( MTFS) to 2028/29, highlighting significant demand pressures in adult social care, children’s services and homelessness, alongside cost increases exceeding inflation. The Council continued to experience financial pressures, w ith reserves fully utilised and funding levels remaining below those of comparable authorities. A 4. 99% Council Tax increase was proposed, which would still leave the Borough among the lowest charging in Outer London. The 2026/27 budget included £22m of savings, rising to £30m by 2028/29, with £2.1m related to this Committee’s remit, while growth of near ly £70m was required to rebase budgets for unavoidable pressures. The capital programme had been substantially reduced to £229m over five years, with borrowing also significantly lowered. Officers confirmed that the Council could not balance the 2026/27 bu dget without Exceptional Financial Support (ESF) and was seeking £60m for the coming year, alongside further requests to restore reserves and address overspends, with future years also showing funding gaps that may require support. Risks identified included savings delivery, demand instability particularly in temporary accommodation and uncertainty around business rates following a major airport revaluation. The Committee discussed the financial position in detail. Members referenced statements from Londo n Councils regarding the severe pressures across London and the forecast multibillion -pound funding gap by 2027/28. Further information was requested on the operation of spending controls and officers reported strengthened processes, including senior sign -off for staffing, enhanced panels in adults’ and children’s services and a new system for temporary accommodation decisions. All non-contractual spend now required formal approval at multiple levels. Members questioned the impact of rising demand particul arly in children’s services, SEND transport, adult social care and homelessness on the Council’s ability to deliver statutory duties while making savings. Officers acknowledged the pressures and emphasised the need for stronger demand modelling and more gr anular weekly and monthly data to track caseloads and ensure residents were supported in the most appropriate and cost -effective settings. In response to a query on outsourcing the film office, officers confirmed this related to external management of film ing activity, which generated income and formed part of wider procurement reviews of service delivery models. Members also explored trends in service delivery and the role of digital investment. Officers highlighted examples where modelling informed decis ions, such as past shifts between outsourcing and in house provision. Ongoing digital improvements, including a new website, automated systems to reduce manual processing and enhanced business intelligence tools for forecasting and monitoring spend were reported. The Committee asked about recruitment controls and was assured that the new process for approving posts was now well -established and operating efficiently. In terms of savings within property services and resident services, officers confirmed tha t directorates had reviewed structures and working practices to identify achievable proposals while maintaining service delivery. Members raised concerns about energy costs and officers outlined ongoing work to reduce consumption, including the Civic Centre decarbonisation programme, insulation upgrades and participation in a national energy procurement group to secure competitive prices. The Committee also discussed the impact of improved procurement practices more widely, which officers reported had contributed positively to achieving value for money. The Committee looked at EFS and how the related borrowing costs had been included. Officers explained that these costs were expected to reach around £10 million a year by the end of the three -year period. Members raised concerns about the Council’s past difficulty in delivering savings and officers described the challenge sessions held to test proposals and the requirement for detailed delivery plans, supported by corporate oversight. Officers also noted that Hillingdon had historically had lower borrowing than many other authorities because it had avoided speculative investments, although the use of EFS would now increase borrowing levels. Members asked about the phased fair funding settlement and business r ates assumptions and It was explained that Government forecasts included assumptions about Council Tax but did not take into account the expected Heathrow appeal. Officers then outlined capital plans, noting that spending had been reduced to keep costs affordable, with investment focused on statutory duties, regeneration and major HRA projects, and that long-term affordability continued to be monitored. Members also queried the deliverability of savings such as garage voids and green waste subscriptions and it was explained that income had been spread across future years, noting that lessons from previous years had informed the approach. Officers reported around 75 responses in the first week of the public consultation and confirmed that the ranking question followed best practice. In relation to staff training and financial management, new investment in learning and development, improved financial training, stronger procurement awareness and better use of data systems was highlighted to the Committee . Offi cers also pointed to strengthened governance, including savings dashboards and spend controls over £500 and said these measures, together with rebased budgets and increased oversight, placed the Council in a stronger position to deliver savings and maintai n financial stability. The Committee considered the draft response to Cabinet. An amendment was proposed to retain the first two paragraphs and final section but to add wording commending the current government for the additional funding received this yea r, noting the increased allocation of £126.7 million over the next three years and its commitment to ensuring that Hillingdon residents continued to access much -needed services. Members agreed it was important to recognise that the uplift in funding was necessary and had now been provided. The Committee also discussed whether to retain references to Heathrow Airport in the response. Some Members argued that Heathrow should remain included because it disproportionately affected Hillingdon’s finances more tha n other boroughs and had been highlighted by officers as a significant forecasting risk. The draft response, incorporating the proposed amendments, was put to a vote and received three votes in favour and four against, including the Chair’s casting vote. The Committee then voted on whether to submit the original response to Cabinet as their view on the finance budget. Four members voted in favour and two voted against. The Committee therefore agreed the following comments: ‘The Committee is grateful for all the hard work undertaken by both Councillors Goddard and more recently Lavery in their respective Cabinet roles. Together with all the Finance Officers of the Council in whatever capacity. We recognise the exceptionally challenging climate that has p ertained over the last several years which has impacted not only harsh condition in which local authorities have to operate, but also the related but vital economic landscape in which partner businesses and services inhabit. All local authorities report significant challenges in operating in these conditions, some with far more issues than other. We in Hillingdon face particular problems associated with Heathrow which historically and currently has never been financially addressed. This includes the pr essures from asylum seekers, many of whom are unaccompanied children who generate immediate additional unrecoverable costs to our residents. It is of note that London Councils are forecasting a multi -billion deficit in London wide Council funding for at l east 50% of Boroughs in the Capital by the end of 2027 - this is unsustainable. The conditions under which Hillingdon is operating, with our additional pressures, are very significant. However as evidenced in the performance report, the Council has continued to provide good quality services at amongst the cheapest across London. We welcome all the efforts and proposals to ensure that the correct savings are made while keeping to the desire to maintain good services at reasonable costs to residents.’ RESOLVED: That the Committee: 1. Noted the draft revenue budget and Medium -Term Financial Strategy proposals for 2026/27 to 2030/31 relating to services within the Committee’s remit. 2. Considered and commented on the financial assumptions, savings proposals, g rowth pressures, service impacts and delivery risks within those proposals. 3. Agreed the above summary to be submitted to Cabinet for consideration as part of the final budget proposals to be presented to Council in February 2026. 117. BUDGET & SPENDING REPORT (Agenda Item 6) The Committee considered agenda items 5 and 6 together as they both related to financial performance. RESOLVED: That the Committee: 1. Noted the budget monitoring position as at October 2025 (Month 7) for the Council. 2. Noted the budget monitoring position as at October 2025 (Month 7) for the services within the remit of the Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee. 118. SIX MONTH PERFORMANCE MONITORING REPORT (Agenda Item 7) The six -month performance report for 2025/26 was presented to the Committee. Hillingdon’s performance was benchmarked against other local authorities using publicly available data and it was found that the Council maintained one of the lowest net expenditure levels i n London despite unique operational pressures. Adult Social Care was delivered in a financially sustainable way, achieving a ‘Good’ CQC rating, while Resident Services and Children’s Services were recognised for strong value for money and high-quality outcomes. Challenges such as rough sleeping and non -decent homes were identified but significant investment and improvement programmes were reported. Overall, the Council’s performance management framework was shown to support accountability, transparency and continuous improvement for residents. Questions were raised about the benchmarking practices used across service areas. Assurance was sought on the consistency of comparator groups, as different sets of boroughs appeared in different tables, with some including authorities such as Slough, Coventry and Peterborough while others did not. Clarification was requested on why benchmarking peers varied between metrics and directorates. It was noted that clearer explanations would be helpful and future reports wou ld include annotations explaining the rationale for each benchmarking group. Discussion then moved to the presentation of cost and performance information. It was commented that the resident services pack focused mainly on cost figures without showing how these translated into outcomes, such as the number of road repairs achieved for the level of spending. Officers noted that previous annual reports had included more detail on outputs, but feedback had indicated that these were too lengthy. It was confirm ed that the annual report combined benchmarking and activity-based data and officers agreed that Members’ suggestions would be considered when designing future reports. Members also asked whether performance reporting took account of internal trends as well as external comparisons. It was confirmed that extensive internal data was reviewed daily and monthly through business intelligence dashboards, service -level meetings and directorate leadership sessions. It was noted that around 190 automated dashboards were now in use and that work continued to strengthen staff capability in using data effectively. It was emphasised that efforts were ongoing to balance transparency, usability and the volume of information provided to both Members and residents. RESOLVED: That the final comments relating to the Select Committee’s budget comments be delegated to the Democratic Services Officer in conjunction with the Chair (and in consultation with the Opposition Lead(s)). 119. FORWARD PLAN (Agenda Item 8) RESOVLED: That the Forward Plan be noted. 120. WORK PROGRAMME (Agenda Item 9) RESOLVED: That the Work Programme be noted. The meeting, which commenced at 7.00 pm, closed at 9.15 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Anisha Te ji, Senior Democratic Services Officer on ateji@hillingdon.gov.uk or 01895 277655 . Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public.

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

124. To confirm that the items of business marked as Part I will be considered in Public and that the items marked as Part II will be considered in Private
It was confirmed that agenda items 1 – 11 would be heard in Part I and agenda item 12 would be heard in Part II due to the live enforcement matters.
125. Budget & Spend Report PDF 435 KB
The Committee received an update on the Council’s financial position and noted the Month 9 (December 2025) budget monitoring report for both the Council overall and the services within the remit of the Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee. At Council level, a forecast net overspend of £35.9m was reported. This was largely attributed to service pressures, challenges in delivering savings and corporate funding assumptions, partly offset by contingencies and management interventions. Within the Select Committee’s portfolio, a projected overspend of £5.5m was reported, with favourable movements since Month 7 noted across a number of directorates. The savings position was reviewed, with the majority of savings reported as either banked or on track. However, delivery risks and the deferral of some savings into future years were highlighted. It was noted that, since the report had been prepared, conflict had regrettably occurred in the Middle East. Members acknowledged that this was likely to have an adverse impact on energy and interest costs and asked whether any sensitivity analysis had been undertaken to assess the potential effect on the forecast outturn and the wider Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS). In response, it was confirmed that energy costs for the current financial year had been protected and that no related pressures were expected to impact the current year. It was also confirmed that all borrowing was held at fixed interest rates, with existing debt locked in at previous rates. In relation to savings, Members noted that a significant amount of work had been undertaken when setting the savings programme. Concern was expressed about £4m of savings being deferred into 2026/27 and the achievability of those savings. It was suggested that there may be an issue with delivery at levels below Corporate Director, and clarification was sought on how performance issues of this nature would be addressed. It was acknowledged that the challenges identified for 2026/27 had been recognised. It was explained that all service areas were now required to produce fully deliverable budgets and that a more robust approach to savings delivery was being applied. Processes had been strengthened to ensure accountability was taken earlier in the financial year. Members also sought clarification on what spend control meant in practice in managing the £35m overspend. It was explained that a review process had been introduced to validate all spend requests, particularly in relation to care expenditure, to ensure that spending was necessary, met statutory duties and delivered essential services to residents. A Spend Control Panel, chaired by the Corporate Director of Finance, had been established to review all orders. It was further noted that, with three weeks remaining until year end, expenditure typically increased and that robust controls were in place to manage this. It was noted that significant savings had not always been supported by detailed delivery plans. The Committee agreed that all major savings should be underpinned by clear delivery plans, monitored against defined milestones. It was also agreed that each saving should have a unique reference number and be recorded ... view the full minutes text for item 125.
📄 Budget & Spend Report PDF 435 KB
Read the text of this document (11 pages)
Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 BUDGET & SPENDING REPORT – SELECT COMMITTEE MONITORING Committee name Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee Corporate Director(s) responsible Steve Muldoon – Corporate Director of Finance Matthew Wallbridge – Chief Operating Officer Daniel Kennedy – Corporate Director of Residents Services Papers with report N/A Ward All RECOMMENDATION That the Committee: 1. Note the budget monitoring position as at December 2025 (Month 9) for the Council. 2. Note the budget monitoring position as at December 2025 (Month 9) for the services within the remit of the Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee. HEADLINES 3. This monitoring report provides an update on the Month 9 budget monitoring position for the Council and an update on the Month 9 budget monitoring position for the services relevant to the Select Committee. Corporate Directors, supported by their Head of Finance , will attend the meeting to provide further details and clarifications. 2025/26 MONTH 9 BUDGET MONITORING POSITION (COUNCIL) 4. As at Month 9, the Council is forecasting a net overspend of £ 35.9m on its core operating activities, a favourable movement of £0.1m from Month 7 . This includes overspends of £26.1m across Service Operating Budgets, a £4.2m pressure against the budgeted use of reserves and a £6.5m pressure across centralised and Corporate Bud gets including Corporate Funding. These pressures are partially mitigated by £1.0m of interventions, which are expected to benefit the revenue position through measures such as spend control measures, increased grants, and a rebate from the WLWA. 5. This overall position has remained stable overall since the month 6 (September) report, but with underlying favourable and unfavourable movements. Much of the overspend relates to adverse variances on savings delivery, unbudgeted growth and inflation, assumed use of reserves and reduced application of flexible capital receipts against transformation expenditure, offset by the release of £10.5m of contingency. 6. Within centralised and Corporate Budgets, a pressure of £7.1m is forecast from an under - delivery against unallocated savings (See table 1 below). A further pressure of £1.3m is reported against Corporate Funding due to the Children’s Prevention Grant that was announced as part of Core Spending Power needing to be spent on new initiatives leading to the grant b eing transferred to the Children’s Social Care service. The forecast then includes two mitigations, firstly the remaining £1.8m general contingency and secondly £1.0m of interventions and Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 mitigations as described in paragraph 4 above. The interventions and mitigations forecast has reduced by £1m since period 6 as directorates have found underspends, additional grants or income which have been able to meet this level of mitigation. There are further mitigation opportunities anticipated to arise in the remaining months leading up to year end which will address this residual requirement. Table 1 – General Fund Overview SAVINGS (COUNCIL) 7. The savings requirement identified for 2025/26 was for £34.0m in new or increased savings as set out in the Council’s budget strategy. This position has been supplemented by a further £4.8m of savings carried forward from 2024/25 as set out in the outturn report presented to July Cabinet, resulting in an overall programme of £38.8m savings being targeted and monitored in year. The savings at a whole council level are summarised by directorate and by deliverability RAG rating in the table below: Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 Table 2 – Savings Tracker 8. As of Month 9, £19.0m (48%) of the savings and interventions are being recorded as banked or on track for delivery. A further £4.8m (13%), being tracked above as amber, are in delivery but may not deliver in full this financial year. Of this, £0.5m is currently anticipated to slip but deliver in 2026/27. There are £4.6m (12%) of savings reported as red and having challenges in delivery, with mitigations being sought in -year where feasible. Of these, £4.2m are forecast to slip into 2026/27 but are ultimately expected to be delivered. Thus, a total of £4.7m in savings is forecast to slip into 2026/27 and forms part of the overall forecast overspend. A further £10.4m of savings are considered to be undeliverable and will be written out of the Council’s budget from 2026/27. Of these, £2.3m relate to the brought forward balance from the prior year while £8.1m of savings budgeted for delivery in 2025/26 can no longer be delivered. Where savings are at risk of not being delivered in full during 2025/26, the associat ed pressures have been factored into the monitoring position with compensating actions being implemented where possible to offset the impact. 9. Where savings are at risk of not being delivered in full during 2025/26, the associated pressures have been factored into the monitoring position with compensating actions being implemented where possible to offset the impact. RISKS AND MITIGATIONS 10. As part of the Month 9 review, the Council has continued its analysis of exposure to risks and opportunities. The updated risks total is £5.7m against identified opportunities of £2.6m. The level of risk continues to reduce (M7 was £6.9m) as demand risks fall away , or are embedded into the forecast, as year-end approaches. Risks not able to be quantified include the c ost of redundancies that may arise from any savings implementation (redundancies would precede any savings generated) although this risk for 2025/26 is diminishing also. 11. Opportunities of £2.6m within Residents Services include Waste funding. 12. Additional details regarding the Council’s general fund revenue position are available in the most recent Month 9 budget monitoring report: Final Cabinet Report M9 2025/26 MONTH 9 BUDGET MONITORING POSITION (SELECT COMMITTEE PORTFOLIO) 13. Table 3 summarises the Committee’s Month 9 budget monitoring position by directorate, Blue Green Amber I Amber II Red Write Banked Delivery in progress Early stages of delivery Potential problems in delivery Serious problems in delivery Out £'m £'m £'m £'m £'m £'000 £'m Finance (0.8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.2) (0.1) (1.1) Adult Services & Health (3.2) (0.7) (0.6) (0.1) (2.0) (1.7) (8.3) Children & Young People's Services (3.0) (1.2) 0.0 (0.3) 0.0 0.0 (4.5) Place (2.6) (1.5) 0.0 (0.6) (0.9) (1.1) (6.7) Homes & Communities (1.6) (1.1) (2.9) 0.0 (1.1) (0.3) (7.0) Corporate Services (2.8) (0.3) 0.0 0.0 (0.4) (0.1) (3.6) Chief Executive Office (0.1) (0.1) (0.3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.5) Cross-Cutting 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (7.1) (7.1) (14.1) (4.9) (3.8) (1.0) (4.6) (10.4) (38.8) 36% 13% 10% 3% 12% 27% 100% (14.1) (4.9) (3.8) (1.0) (4.6) (10.4) (38.8) 36% 13% 10% 3% 12% 27% 100% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Prior Month Change Corporate Director Total Total 2025/26 Savings Programme Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 showing a projected overspend of £5.5m for the services within the remit of this Committee. The key reasons for this overspend position are set out in the following paragraphs by directorate. Since Month 7, there has been a £0.8m favourable movement across the directorates. Finance has reported no change to its net overspend, Corporate Services shows a £0.3m improvement due to lower technology costs and reductions in planned staffing and discretionary expenditure, and the Chief Executive’s Office reports a £0.1m improvement f ollowing confirmation of additional legal income from a complex criminal case. Finally, Place has reported a favourable movement of £0.4m due to lower forecast NNDR costs within Corporate Estates. 14. Finance – is forecasting a £5.3m overspend position as at Month 9 against a budget of £34.1m. Since Month 7, the £5.3m net overspend position remains unchanged. 15. The £5.3m overspend position includes a £1.7m overspend against the Council’s Treasury budget. The Council’s in-year revenue overspend and the cumulative DSG deficit have reduced the Council’s usable cash balances. This has forced increased reliance on borrowing to manage liquidity and capital programme requirements, resulting in additional financing costs in the current financial year. The Council’s treasury budget is therefore overspent relative to plan primarily due to the timing and scale of these cashflow pressures. 16. Of the £5.3m forecast overspend within Finance, £2.5m relates to staffing costs. This staffing overspend is predominantly attributable to the use of agency staff to cover vacant posts within the approved establishment, together with additional short-term agency capacity deployed above establishment for defined pieces of work . Agency resource has been deployed in Schools Finance to support DSG deficit recovery activity, in Housing Finance to provide additional budget monitoring capacity during 2025/26, and in the Statutory Accounts team to support delivery of the accounts , suppo rt the audit process and meet statutory reporting requirements. Agency staffing attracts materially higher costs than substantive posts, resulting in expenditure exceeding the approved staffing budget. The Council has recognised resourcing requirements in certain key areas, and these have been addressed as part of the Medium -Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) planning for 2026/27 (MTFS Proposal 2026/27 108). Reducing reliance on agency staff remains a key m anagement focus and is being progressed through targeted permanent recruitment and strengthened workforce planning, with the intention of mitigating this pressure over time whilst ensuring service delivery and statutory responsibilities continue to be met. 17. A further £1.8m of the £5.3m forecast overspend in Finance is attributable to a change in assumptions regarding the use of capital receipts , f ollowing a Council-wide review of all expenditure funded by capital receipts during the year, resulting in a reduced application of capital receipts and a corresponding increase in net revenue expenditure. 18. There is also a £0.4m overspend against the Council’s corporate insurance b udget predominately due to the settlement of historical insurance claims in the current year. In addition, part of the overspend reflects an underlying shortfall in the base budget to cover insurance premium costs. This issue has been addressed through the MTFS, with additional provision built into the budget from 2026/27 (MTFS Proposal 2026/27 226). 19. The main offsetting factor against these overspends is a £ 1.0m underspend within Corporate Budgets, reflecting the 2025/26 final concessionary fares levy charge being £ 1.0m lower than the budget model provided by London Councils. The residual balance reflects a number of Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 smaller compensating variances across the directorate. 20. Corporate Services – is reporting a £0.1m forecast overspend at Month 9 against a budget of £21.2m. Since Month 7, the £0.4m overspend reported has been reduced by £0.3m, mainly due to lower technology contract costs for specific technology contracts, which have been aligned with anticipated usage based on the latest data, and further reductions to staffing and discretionary spending in Procurement. 21. The £0.1m forecast overspend for Corporate Services includes a £ 0.4m shortfall in planned savings within the Resident Hub and Human Resources, where non-delivery of these savings is creating a n overspend, as shown in Table 5 and explained further in paragraph s 32-33. Offsetting this, underspends across other services within the directorate , largely due to vacant posts and reductions in discretionary expenditure wherever possible, total £0.3m, bring ing the overall forecast overspend down to £0.1m. 22. Chief Executive’s Office – is reporting a 0.1m forecast underspend at Month 9 against a budget of £6.4m. This represents a £0.1m improvement from the breakeven position reported in Month 7, predominately due to additional legal income relating to a complex criminal case that has now been reflected in the forecast following confirmation from the Court. 23. Each service within the Chief Executive’s director ate is contributing to the £0.1m forecast underspend reported at Month 9. Legal Services income continues to be under constant review but is currently forecast to meet the increased income target set at the start of the year relating to fees and charges. Democratic Services is on track against income targets set for ceremonies, while Communications is reporting an underspend largely due to a vacant post being held. 24. Place – is reporting a £0.2m overspend against the specific services that fall within the remit of this committee. The overspend reflects the £0.7m of in -year undelivered savings currently reported as Red in Table 5 and as detailed in the savings section of this report. The future deliverability of these savings is being reviewed in line with t he current MTFS process. This overspend is offset by reduced expenditure on repairs required to Corporate Properties. Since Month 7, there has been a favourable movement of £0.3m due to lower forecast NNDR costs within Corporate Estates. 25. Table 4 provides a detailed breakdown o f the budget m onitoring position by service area and shows forecast changes for Earmarked Reserves, Provisions and Transformation Capitalisation. SAVINGS (SELECT COMMITTEE PORTFOLIO) 26. The savings requirement for 2025/26 relating to the services overseen by this Committee is £7.0m, as outlined in the Council’s budget strategy and detailed in Table 5 of this report, which provides a breakdown of the savings position by directorate. Table 5 additionally presents the savings slippage incorporated into the forecast position. 27. Of the savings identified within the Corporate Resources and Infrastructure select committee, £5.5m (78%) are classified as banked or on track and £0.6m (9%) are reported as red and having challenges in delivery, with mitigations being sought in -year where feasible. A further £ 0.9m (13%) of savings are considered to be undeliverable and will be written out of the Council’s budget from 2026/27. 28. Finance is on target to achieve £0.9m (70%) of its planned savings. £0.2m (19%) of the savings Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 are facing significant delivery challenges and have been categorised as red and an additional £0.1m (11%) of savings are considered undeliverable and will require removal from the Council’s budget from 2026/27. Further explanation of the £0.2m savings not being achieved this year is set out in paragraphs 29-30 below. 29. Future of Financial Systems - £0.1m of this saving is planned to be delivered in future years but is dependent on a review of council system licen ces with the remainder of this saving considered undeliverable and proposed to be written out of the Council’s budget from 2026/27. 30. Increase MVF by 1% - a total of £0.1m was added to Managed Vacancy Factor (MVF) budgets across services within the finance directorate this year. The MVF budgets assumes a proportion of posts will remain vacant during the year to generate an underspend; however, where these posts are filled or covered by agency staff, the underspends are not realised, meaning the MVF targets cannot be achieved. As explained in paragraph 16, due to the high level of agency staff costs in Finance, the staffing budget (inclusive of MVF) is not being achieved. 31. Of the £3.4m savings in Corporate Services, 87% (£3.0m) are banked or on track, 10% (£0.3m) face potential delivery issues and 3% (£0.1m) are not achievable and will be written out of the Council’s budget from 2026/27. Further explanation on the £0.4m savings not being achieved this year are set out in paragraphs 32-33 below. 32. Reshaping Customer Experience and Business Support; Phase 2 - The anticipated shortfall of £0. 3m in meeting the Resident Hub savings target is attributed to the scheduling of restructuring and technology implementation. 33. Human Resources Service Review - There is a shortfall of £0. 1m against the Human Resources savings target. This shortfall is due to the volume of work in this financial year and the need to restructure to the team. As a result, part of the savings originally planned for this year will no longer be deliverable in 2025/26. 34. Within the Chief Executive’s Office directorate, 36% (£0.2m) of savings are banked or on track for delivery and 64% (£0.3m) are currently marked as amber, indicating a moderate risk of non- delivery this year. Further detail on the £0.3m amber saving is explained in paragraph 35 below. 35. Legal Fees and Charges - The delivery risk for this saving is primarily due to the Legal service’s limited ability to influence specific income sources, such as those related to cost recovery and complex criminal cases. 36. Within the Place directorate services overseen by this Committee, £1.132m (61%) of the savings and interventions are currently classified as banked or on track for delivery, while £0.729m (39%) are reported as facing potential challenges to successful implementation. The £0.729m is related to shortfalls in income. The pressures come from Council Assets (£0.075m), Commercial Leases (£0.200m) and £0.180m is due to delays in the implementation of new systems to support the management of leases and a review of the use of assets. Options to increase lease income from the Civic Centre are continuing to be explored. No movement from Month 7. PERFORMANCE DATA 37. N/A RESIDENT BENEFIT Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 38. Regular monitoring of financial performance is used to assess whether spending and savings targets are being met, thereby supporting the efficient delivery of services to residents. By closely tracking expenditure and identifying variances, the council can take timely corrective actions to address overspending and mitigate risks. This also enhances public transparency and accountability, providing residents with confidence that their Council is managing finances prudently and prioritising their needs. Overall, regular monitoring supports safeguarding the Council's finances and the delivery of quality services to residents. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 39. This is primarily a finance report and the implications are set out in the main body of the report above. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 40. There are no direct legal implications arising from regular monitoring of the council’s finances by select committees. 41. Democratic Services advise that effective overview and scrutiny arrangements require access to the information under the committee’s purview and, in accordance with the 2024 Statutory Scrutiny Guidance, such information includes finance and risk information from the Council, and its partners where relevant. BACKGROUND PAPERS 42. NIL APPENDICES 1 – Tables 3-5 Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 Table 3 – 2025/26 Month 9 Budget Monitoring Position by Directorate Directorate Approved Budget Underlying Forecast Earmarked Reserves Provisions Transformation Capitalisation Management Action Forecast Outturn Forecast Variance Current Month Forecast Variance Prior Month Change in Variance Staffing 12,579 15,651 (87) 0 (477) 0 15,087 2,510 2,134 376 Non-Staffing 101,184 102,833 500 0 0 234 103,567 2,382 1,898 484 Income (79,663) (79,302) 0 0 0 75 (79,227) 437 1,314 (877) Sub-Total 34,100 39,182 413 0 (477) 309 39,427 5,329 5,346 (17) Staffing 12,862 16,080 0 0 (2,677) 0 13,765 835 562 273 Non-Staffing 9,120 9,930 0 0 (609) 0 8,961 (94) 530 (624) Income (744) (1,379) 0 0 0 0 (1,379) (635) (685) 50 Sub-Total 21,238 24,631 0 0 (3,286) 0 21,347 106 407 (301) Staffing 5,951 6,382 0 0 (203) 0 6,179 228 170 58 Non-Staffing 2,087 2,016 42 0 0 (42) 2,016 (70) (43) (28) Income (1,583) (1,727) 0 0 0 (120) (1,847) (264) (96) (168) Sub-Total 6,455 6,672 42 0 (203) (162) 6,349 (106) 31 (138) Staffing 7,257 7,120 0 0 0 0 7,120 (135) (40) (95) Non-Staffing 15,657 15,347 0 0 0 (112) 15,234 (423) 99 (522) Income (11,508) (11,069) 0 0 0 268 (10,801) 706 478 228 Sub-Total 11,407 11,399 0 0 0 156 11,555 148 537 (389) Grand Total 73,200 81,884 455 0 (3,966) 303 78,678 5,477 6,321 (845) Corporate Services Finance Place Chief Executive's Office Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 Table 4 – 2025/26 Month 9 Budget Monitoring Position by Service Service Area Subjective Approved Budget Underlying Forecast Earmarked Reserves Provisions Transformation Capitalisation Management Action Forecast Outturn Forecast Variance Current Month Forecast Variance Prior Month Change in Variance (£'000) (£'000) (£'000) (£'000) (£'000) (£'000) (£'000) (£'000) (£'000) (£'000) Staffing 10,020 12,197 (87) 0 (477) 0 11,633 1,613 1,207 406 Non-Staffing 66,065 66,453 0 0 0 85 66,538 473 (34) 507 Income (66,639) (66,992) 0 0 0 75 (66,917) (278) 0 (278) 9,446 11,658 (87) 0 (477) 160 11,254 1,808 1,212 635 Staffing 997 1,337 0 0 0 0 1,337 340 454 (114) Non-Staffing 15,183 15,106 500 0 0 149 15,755 572 721 (149) Income (11,701) (11,760) 0 0 0 0 (11,760) (58) (62) 4 4,478 4,682 500 0 0 149 5,332 853 1,110 (259) Staffing 1,093 1,777 0 0 0 0 1,777 685 552 133 Non-Staffing 19,911 21,265 0 0 0 0 21,265 1,354 1,227 127 Income (1,323) (550) 0 0 0 0 (550) 773 1,376 (603) 19,680 22,492 0 0 0 0 22,492 2,812 3,155 (343) Staffing 469 340 0 0 0 0 340 (128) (79) (49) Non-Staffing 25 9 0 0 0 0 9 (17) (16) (1) Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 494 349 0 0 0 0 349 (145) (95) (50) Staffing 12,579 15,651 (87) 0 (477) 0 15,087 2,510 2,134 376 Non-Staffing 101,184 102,833 500 0 0 234 103,567 2,382 1,898 484 Income (79,663) (79,302) 0 0 0 75 (79,227) 437 1,314 (877) 34,100 39,182 413 0 (477) 309 39,427 5,329 5,346 (17) Staffing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (65) (65) 0 Non-Staffing 0 65 0 0 (65) 0 0 65 65 0 Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 (65) 0 0 0 0 0 Staffing 1,022 1,328 0 0 (167) 0 1,161 139 134 5 Non-Staffing 6 (33) 0 0 0 0 (33) (39) (34) (5) Income (67) (88) 0 0 0 0 (88) (22) (22) 0 962 1,207 0 0 (167) 0 1,040 78 78 0 Staffing 1,234 1,318 0 0 0 0 1,318 84 43 41 Non-Staffing 192 160 0 0 (55) 0 105 (87) (31) (56) Income (224) (303) 0 0 0 0 (303) (79) (79) 0 1,202 1,175 0 0 (55) 0 1,120 (81) (67) (15) Staffing 236 1,613 0 0 (1,418) 0 196 (40) (31) (9) Non-Staffing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Income 0 (38) 0 0 0 0 (38) (38) (38) 0 236 1,575 0 0 (1,418) 0 158 (78) (69) (9) Staffing 1,898 2,434 0 0 (187) 0 2,248 349 390 (41) Non-Staffing 859 855 0 0 0 0 855 (4) 23 (27) Income (99) (147) 0 0 0 0 (147) (47) (76) 29 2,658 3,143 0 0 (187) 0 2,957 298 337 (39) Staffing 1,197 1,021 0 0 (360) 0 1,021 (176) (513) 337 Non-Staffing 131 385 0 0 0 0 25 (106) 282 (388) Income (102) (102) 0 0 0 0 (102) 0 0 0 1,226 1,304 0 0 (360) 0 944 (282) (231) (51) Staffing 4,520 5,065 0 0 0 0 5,065 545 557 (12) Non-Staffing 273 389 0 0 0 0 389 116 115 1 Income (202) (386) 0 0 0 0 (386) (184) (205) 21 4,591 5,068 0 0 0 0 5,068 477 467 10 Staffing 2,708 2,709 0 0 0 0 2,709 0 48 (48) Non-Staffing 7,659 8,108 0 0 (489) 0 7,619 (40) 109 (149) Income (50) (315) 0 0 0 0 (315) (265) (265) 0 10,317 10,502 0 0 (489) 0 10,013 (304) (108) (197) Staffing 47 592 0 0 (545) 0 47 (1) (1) 0 Non-Staffing 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 592 0 0 (545) 0 47 0 0 0 Staffing 12,862 16,080 0 0 (2,677) 0 13,765 835 562 273 Non-Staffing 9,120 9,930 0 0 (609) 0 8,961 (94) 530 (624) Income (744) (1,379) 0 0 0 0 (1,379) (635) (685) 50 21,238 24,631 0 0 (3,286) 0 21,347 106 407 (301) Staffing 668 644 0 0 0 0 644 (23) (25) 2 Non-Staffing 243 221 0 0 0 0 221 (23) (14) (9) Income (66) (66) 0 0 0 0 (66) 0 3 (3) 845 799 0 0 0 0 799 (46) (36) (10) Staffing 1,653 1,768 0 0 0 0 1,768 115 114 1 Non-Staffing 1,750 1,670 42 0 0 (42) 1,670 (81) (54) (27) Income (735) (801) 0 0 0 0 (801) (67) 0 (67) 2,668 2,637 42 0 0 (42) 2,637 (32) 60 (93) Staffing 3,631 3,970 0 0 (203) 0 3,767 136 81 55 Non-Staffing 93 126 0 0 0 0 126 33 25 8 Income (783) (860) 0 0 0 (120) (980) (197) (99) (98) 2,941 3,236 0 0 (203) (120) 2,913 (28) 7 (35) Staffing 5,951 6,382 0 0 (203) 0 6,179 228 170 58 Non-Staffing 2,087 2,016 42 0 0 (42) 2,016 (70) (43) (28) Income (1,583) (1,727) 0 0 0 (120) (1,847) (264) (96) (168) 6,455 6,672 42 0 (203) (162) 6,349 (106) 31 (138) Staffing 2,783 3,251 0 0 0 0 3,251 468 478 (10) Non-Staffing 5,342 4,933 0 0 0 (26) 4,907 (435) (406) (29) Income (6,061) (5,360) 0 0 0 0 (5,360) 701 701 0 2,065 2,825 0 0 0 (26) 2,799 734 773 (39) Staffing 1,756 1,329 0 0 0 0 1,329 (426) (412) (14) Non-Staffing 6,780 6,831 0 0 0 149 6,980 200 615 (415) Income (1,845) (1,937) 0 0 0 268 (1,669) 176 (116) 292 6,691 6,223 0 0 0 417 6,641 (50) 87 (137) Staffing 2,718 2,540 0 0 0 0 2,540 (177) (106) (71) Non-Staffing 3,535 3,583 0 0 0 (235) 3,347 (188) (110) (78) Income (3,602) (3,772) 0 0 0 0 (3,772) (171) (107) (64) 2,651 2,351 0 0 0 (235) 2,115 (536) (323) (213) Staffing 7,257 7,120 0 0 0 0 7,120 (135) (40) (95) Non-Staffing 15,657 15,347 0 0 0 (112) 15,234 (423) 99 (522) Income (11,508) (11,069) 0 0 0 268 (10,801) 706 478 228 11,407 11,399 0 0 0 156 11,555 148 537 (389) Grand Total 73,200 81,884 455 0 (3,966) 303 78,678 5,477 6,321 (845) Director Digital Data & Technology Director Strategic & Operational Finance Strategic Finance Statutory Accounting Investments and Pensions Internal Audit Finance Total Legal Services Business Intelligence Counter Fraud Digital Human Resources Procurement and Commissioning Resident Hub Technology Transformation Corporate Services Total Communications Democratic Services Chief Executive's Office Total Property Services Operational Assets Highways Place Total Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 Table 5 – 2025/26 Savings Position by Directorate RAG Rating 2025/26 & B/fwd savings Total B G A1 A2 R W/O £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Finance Cashflow Measures (100) (100) (100) Finance Future of Financial Systems - Full Year Effect (234) (100) (134) (234) 234 Finance Increase MVF by 1% (139) (139) (139) Finance Older People's Discount - Latest Demand (200) (200) (200) Finance Pension Payment Cashflow Measures (95) (95) (95) Finance Revenue & Benefits - Automations & Customer Contact (334) (334) (334) Finance ZBB Vacant Post Deletions (69) (69) (69) Finance Internal Audit Staffing Cost Reduction (73) (73) (73) (1,244) (871) 0 0 0 (239) (134) (1,244) 234 Corporate Services Digital & Intelligence Cost Rebasing Review (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) Corporate Services Digital and Technology Contract Review - phase 1 (43) (43) (43) Corporate Services Digital and Technology Contract Review - phase 2 (120) (60) (60) (120) Corporate Services Fees & Charges Inflationary Uplifts 122 122 122 Corporate Services Reshaping Customer Experience and Business Support - phase 1 (1,340) (1,340) (1,340) Corporate Services Reshaping Customer Experience and Business Support - phase 2 (536) (207) (52) (277) (536) 277 Corporate Services Counter Fraud Funding Strategy (72) (72) (72) Corporate Services Counter Fraud: Review of Capability, Capacity and Activity (107) (107) (107) Corporate Services Human Resources Service Review (143) (70) (73) (143) 143 Corporate Services Increase MVF by 1% (217) (217) (217) (3,456) (2,707) (329) 0 0 (347) (73) (3,456) 420 Chief Executive's Office Communications; Outsourcing of the Council's Film Office (60) (31) (29) (60) Chief Executive's Office Democratic Services; Registration Service Income Maximisation (30) (30) (30) Chief Executive's Office Democratic Services; Remove Hard Copy Agendas for Statutory Meetings (15) (15) (15) Chief Executive's Office Legal Fees and Charges Review (326) (326) (326) (431) (76) (29) (326) 0 0 0 (431) 0 Place Review of Civic Centre Operating Costs (274) (274) (274) 274 Place Review of VSLP (50) (50) (50) Place Energy Consumption (928) (928) (928) Place Council Assets (75) (75) (75) 75 Place Garage Voids (260) (80) (180) (260) 180 Place Rateable Savings (65) (65) (65) Place Review of Commercial Leases (200) (200) (200) 200 (1,852) (1,043) (80) 0 0 0 (729) (1,852) 729 (6,984) (4,697) (438) (326) 0 (586) (936) (6,983) 1,383 2025/26 Slippage Corporate Services Total Finance Total Place Total Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Total Directorate Description Chief Executive's Office Total Total 2025/26 Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026

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

126. Digital Strategy PDF 362 KB
The Committee noted progress in delivering the Digital Strategy 2024–2027, including a range of achievements across digital platforms, business intelligence, infrastructure modernisation, digital inclusion and Technology Enabled Care. Key developments highlighted included the launch of the new Council website, the expansion of business intelligence dashboards, the modernisation of ICT infrastructure and continued work to strengthen cyber security. Progress was also reported in relation to digital inclusion and technology enabled care, alongside ongoing work to improve connectivity, develop smart city initiatives and build strategic partnerships. The next steps agreed by Cabinet in December 2025 were noted, including accelerating digital transformation, strengthening inclusion activity and further embedding technology within adult social care services. It was reported that an awareness programme was being delivered through libraries, using data and metrics, such as garden waste participation, to help identify residents who may require additional support. Joint sessions with Microsoft had been held in libraries, and Members noted the importance of access to online services through the Council’s website. Members were advised that the Council’s digital capability was strong, but that the main challenge was ensuring that all staff were able to fully utilise the technology available. Progress had been made in building staff capability through regular internal communications, training delivered via the Digital Academy and the development of digital champions. It was noted that delivery reports and website improvements were supporting colleagues, including housing officers, to better assist residents while working in the field. It was emphasised that cultural change was needed alongside technical solutions. Members sought assurance that back?office systems were sufficiently prepared to support digital delivery and highlighted the need to balance ambition with organisational capacity. It was acknowledged that private sector benchmarks created high expectations around speed and responsiveness. The Clean Streets app was cited as a positive example, having streamlined business processes and provided useful analytics to identify trends, support behaviour change and address issues such as fly?tipping. It was noted that care was being taken to avoid over?promising and under?delivering. Concerns were raised about potential gaps between customer reporting systems and internal council processes, particularly in relation to response times. It was reported that issues had been identified, with highways presenting particular challenges , and that further updates would be provided once timelines had been confirmed. Clarification was provided in relation to laptop provision. It was explained that original numbers had been based on contractual assumptions and that some devices had since been found to be unsuitable due to rapid technological change. As a result, numbers had been reduced and further reviews were planned. It was also reported that a partnership with a charity had been established to provide SIM cards. Members were advised that residents were not required to create an account to access digital services and could do so as guest users. RESOLVED: That the Committee: 1. Noted the progress made in delivering the Digital Strategy 2024–27, including achievements across digital platforms, business intelligence, infrastructure modernisation, inclusion, and Technology Enabled Care. 2. Noted ... view the full minutes text for item 126.
📄 Digital Strategy PDF 362 KB
Read the text of this document (5 pages)
Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 DIGITAL STRATEGY Committee name Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee Officer reporting Matthew Wallbridge, Chief Operating Officer Darren Persaud, Head of Digital, Corporate Services Papers with report None Ward All HEADLINES This report provides a summary of progress in delivering the Digital Strategy 2024–2027, following presentation of the full annual report to Cabinet on 23 December 2025. It highlights key achievements over the past year, progress across the strategy’s five programmes, and the next steps agreed by Cabinet. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Committee: 1. Notes the progress made in delivering the Digital Strategy 2024–27, including achievements across digital platforms, business intelligence, infrastructure modernisation, inclusion, and Technology Enabled Care. 2. Notes the next steps agreed by Cabinet (December 2025), particularly the acceleration of digital transformation, strengthening of digital inclusion activity, embedding of technology into adult care services, and enhancing strategic partnerships. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Over the past year, the Council has made substantial progress in delivering the Digital Strategy 2024–27, achieving significant outcomes across all five programme areas and laying the foundations for further transformation. Work to build servic es online by default has been particularly impactful, marked by the successful launch of the new Council website in November 2025. This redesigned digital front door offers improved accessibility, clearer navigation and a mobile-first approach, enabling re sidents to complete more tasks online with greater ease. The Council is on track to complete the migration of online forms into a single platform and has begun implementing an enhanced “Report It” and “Request It” tool, including a mobile app that uses automated routing and real -time updates to ensure environmental issues are dealt with more efficiently and transparently. Love Clean Streets will be launched in March 2026 as a dedicated free mobile phone app designed to make it simpler and faster to report everything from fly‑tipping and graffiti to damaged play equipment and highway concerns to the council. It provides a single, Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 streamlined service where users can report an issue and it automatically directed to the relevant team, ensuring problems are assessed promptly. Users can also track the progress of their reports in real time and supports reporting across a wide range of services. These include street cleansing issues such as litter and dog fouling; highways concerns like potholes, faulty street lighting or damaged street furniture; problems in parks and open spaces; abandoned vehicles; and issues with overgrown shrubs, grass or trees. Users can also request dry mixed recycling and food waste bag deliveries and bulky waste collections. Significant advancements have also been made in the Council’s use of data, strengthening evidence-based decision -making. The Business Intelligence service has expanded to include more than 140 dashboards across directorates, providing managers with real -time insight into performance, demand, cost and outcomes. Investment in data modelling, warehousing and quality fra meworks has improved the reliability and consistency of datasets, enabling more accurate reporting and earlier intervention. The introduction of a formal Data Quality Assessment approach, aligned to Government standards, has enhanced governance and driven cultural change across the organisation by embedding accountability for data stewardship. These developments have improved strategic planning and supported transformation in key areas, including Adult Social Care, HR and asset management. At the same time, the Council has continued to modernise its technical infrastructure to support a more resilient and secure digital environment. The rollout of the Microsoft Teams telephony system has replaced the legacy Cisco platform, enabling more efficient communicati on and supporting hybrid working. The deployment of new user devices is nearing completion, giving staff modern tools that improve productivity and service delivery. Progress is also being made on the migration from Citrix to Azure Virtual Desktop, which will further enhance operational flexibility. Cyber security has strengthened through new firewall technologies and improved awareness programmes, following positive feedback in the Local Government Association’s Cyber 360 review. The Council has continued to embed automation and AI within its operations, using robotic process automation to streamline repetitive tasks, reduce errors and free up staff capacity. AI-powered solutions have also been introduced to improve enquiry management, automate classification and enhance both staff and resident experiences. Improving digital capability and inclusion remains central to the Council’s mission, and considerable progress has been made in this area. Over 200 laptops and more than 2,000 data SIMs have been distributed to vulnerable residents, enabling them to access education, support and essential services online. The introduction of a dedicated line for vulnerable individuals ensures that those who struggle with digital channels receive personalised assistance wit hout navigating automated systems. Resident feedback has played a meaningful role in shaping digital improvements through panels, surveys and engagement with community groups, including carers and disability forums. Internally, the Digital Excellence Acade my continues to expand, with over 80 active learners and a further intake scheduled. Apprenticeships at multiple levels —ranging from data and digital skills to leadership and master’s -level programmes —are building a digitally-confident workforce and future-proofing organisational capability. Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 The Council has also advanced its ambition to deliver a genuinely digital place, with borough-wide connectivity now at over 79%, up from just 5% five years ago. This rapid expansion in full fibre access is supported by closer engagement with telecoms providers and improvements to internal processes that accelerate wayleave agreements and multi -site access. Innovative Smart City trials have continued, including the use of damp and mould sensors in Council properties and participation in the West London Alliance feasibility study for a LoRaWAN network. These initiatives demonstrate a commitment to data -driven planning, environmental monitoring and more efficient asset management. The Council’s partnership working has streng thened further, with notable collaborations involving Microsoft, central government departments and the Local Government Association. National recognition has followed, including Hillingdon's inclusion as a good practice example in the Government’s Blueprint for Modern Digital Government , and pilot work in planning where AI tools have significantly reduced document processing times. Finally, significant steps forward have been taken in Technology Enabled Care (TEC), which continues to play a crucial role in Adult Social Care. Tools such as AskSARA, Intelligent Lilli and digital monitoring devices have improved independence, reduced reliance on one -to-one care and helped to prevent hospital admissions. Smart home technologies, wearables and robotics funded through the Disabled Facilities Grant have enhanced support for residents with complex needs. The Council’s vision for TEC aims to ensure that digital solutions become a first consideration in all assessments, with plans in place to complete the transition f rom analogue to digital TEC by January 2027. Collectively, these achievements reflect a year of substantial delivery, national recognition and meaningful improvement to both resident and staff experiences, positioning Hillingdon to continue accelerating its transformation journey. PERFORMANCE DATA Since the go -live of Phase 1 of the new Council website, which represents around half of the eventual three thousand pages, we have seen a noticeable increase in digital engagement. Comparing January 2025 web vie ws and the end of January 2026, website page views have doubled, and overall telephone calls to the Council fell by five per cent. During this period we also made improvements to the Contact Us page and made a minor adjustment to the AWS telephony script. The combination of these three changes appears to have contributed to the early reduction in calls. While this suggests that residents may be shiftin g towards digital channels following the redesign, the monitoring period so far has been short and therefore represents a small initial sample. It is also important to recognise that this period aligned with a change to Google’s analytics platform, which is used widely across the public sector to measure website activity. This may account for a proportion of the recorded increase in traffic. For these reasons the early data should be treated with caution and viewed as an early indicator rather than definit ive evidence of long-term behavioural change. A clearer and more stable picture will emerge from April onwards when we have a larger dataset and when the full website and all redesigned online forms are live. At that point we will also begin a deeper servi ce-by-service analysis to understand where the redesign is having the greatest impact and to identify areas where further improvements may be Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 required. RESIDENT BENEFIT Residents are beginning to experience meaningful improvements as a result of the Counc il’s Digital Strategy, although this remains very much a work in progress. The launch of Phase 1 of the new Council website in November marked a significant step forward in modernising the digital experience, but it is intentionally being treated as a public beta. Since launch, resident feedback has been actively gathered and analysed to guide iterative enhancements to navigation, accessibility, content clarity and overall usability. This deliberate approach ensures the website continues to evolve based on real user needs rather than assuming the first version is complete. The same improvement cycle will be used as we introduce new online forms, new service journeys and further phases of the website, embedding a consistent “test–learn–improve” model across all resident-facing digital services. As more services move online, residents benefit from quicker, clearer and more convenient interactions, with the ability to access over 200 services through a single account , with on-street issues soon to also be availa ble via a mobile app , enabling residents to track progress without needing to call the Council. These improvements reduce duplication, shorten response times and offer a more joined-up experience. However, we recognise that achieving a fully end-to-end digital journey across all services will take time. As integrations deepen, data quality strengthens and internal processes evolve, the resident experience will continue to improve incrementally rather than all at once. This evolutionary approach reflects the complexity of modernising legacy systems while ensuring residents consistently receive a reliable and intuitive service. Digital inclusion remains central to how we measure resident benefit, and this too is an ongoing journey. Support for vulnerable resid ents—whether through devices, connectivity, or the dedicated assisted-service line—ensures that improvements do not leave anyone behind. At the same time, residents are increasingly supported by new Technology Enabled Care solutions that help them live mor e independently and safely at home. These solutions, ranging from lifestyle monitoring tools to smart sensors, also follow an iterative improvement cycle as we learn from user feedback and emerging data. Across the strategy as a whole, resident benefit is not seen as a one -off milestone but as a continuous process of refinement, monitoring and improvement, ensuring services evolve responsibly and in direct response to the needs, behaviours and expectations of the borough’s communities. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A LEGAL IMPLICATIONS N/A Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 BACKGROUND PAPERS London Borough of Hillingdon - Agenda for CABINET on Tuesday, 23rd December, 2025, 7.00 pm 11- REPORT Hillingdon Digital Strategy annual report 181225 1.pdf

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

127. Right to Buy Backs PDF 231 KB
The Committee noted an update on residential property acquisitions for 2025/26, covering the performance of both the in ? house acquisitions team and the Madison Brook Residential Property Acquisitions contract. Progress against acquisition targets was reported, with a number of properties completed, under offer or in the approval process. It was noted that the remaining Housing Revenue Account budget had been allocated to other projects. Members were advised that the Madison Brook contract had supported delivery during 2025/26 but that its use would be reduced or brought to a close in 2026/27 following improvements to in ? house processes. It was noted that a key benefit of the Madison Brook programme had been the ability to access a larger and faster pipeline of properties. However, this had been offset by higher refurbishment costs. Concern was expressed that refurbishment costs had not been negotiated as effectively as anticipated, and that analysis had identified a significant difference in repair costs between the different acquisition routes. It was confirmed that these cost differences were being reviewed, with the aim of identifying good practice and implementing a more efficient and streamlined in ? house approach. Members considered the overall value for money achieved through the programme, including both the benefits and the limitations. It was noted that Right to Buy was a long ? standing national policy and that the primary purpose of the acquisitions programme, supported by Cabinet, was to rebuild and expand the Council ’ s social rented housing stock. Members were advised that refurbished properties had been brought up to a high standard, meeting modern and energy efficiency requirements, and that there remained a strong commitment to ensuring homes were fit for the future. Lessons learned were being actively applied to improve and modernise processes, with a continued focus on increasing housing supply. It was reported that approximately 50 properties had been sold through Right to Buy, but that a greater number had been added to the housing stock overall. Members were advised that the acquisition target for 2025/26 had been 80 properties, and that future targets would be influenced by funding availability and location. It was also reported that grant funding had been secured from the Mayor of London and that acquisitions were generally focused on former local authority stock, in order to support value for money and management efficiency. Members further noted that £7m of capital funding had been allocated, with applications for Mayoral grant funding forming part of the acquisition cycle. RESOLVED: That the Committee: Noted the performance of the in-house acquisitions team to date in 25/26. Noted the performance of the Madison Brook Residential Property Acquisitions contract 2025/26.
📄 Right to Buy Backs PDF 231 KB
Read the text of this document (3 pages)
Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 UPDATE ON RIGHT TO BUY BACKS Committee name Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee Officer reporting Gary Penticost / Andrew Low, Assets Papers with report None Ward All HEADLINES This report provides an update on Residential Property Acquisitions for 2025/26. There are two main workstreams, the In-House Acquisition Team and the Madison Brook Residential Property Acquisitions contract. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Committee: 1. Notes the performance of the in-house acquisitions team to date in 25/26 2. Notes the performance of the Madison Brook Residential Property Acquisitions contract 2025/26 SUPPORTING INFORMATION In-House Property Acquisition Team For the year 25/26 the In-House Property Acquisition Team have been targeted with:  80 street acquisitions utilising Right-to-Buy (RTB) receipts  10 street acquisitions utilising The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) Local Authority Housing Fund (LAHF)Round 3 grant funding Activity to Date No. of Bedrooms Total 1 2 3 4 No. of Properties Completed 2 23 28 4 57 Ready to Complete 0 5 5 1 11 In Approval Chain 1 0 7 4 12 Total 3 28 40 9 80 · 18 properties completed in December, with a further 5-11 to complete in January/Feb. Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 · 12 properties are in the approval chain. · Remaining H ousing Revenue Account (H RA) budget of (approx.) £10m has now been allocated to other projects, meaning properties now being viewed are to be completed in next financial year. Madison Brook Residential property Acquisitions Summary Maddison Brooks were appointed to increase the number of properties acquisitions during 2025/26. This has been quite effective during the period, however with improvement s to the “inhouse” acquisitions process and value for money assessments , this contract will be reduced or closed for the 2026/27 financial year. Number of properties under offer/in conveyancing - 29 Number of properties legally complete – 138 Number of properties with LBH ready to let – 5 Number of Properties Let - 73 Number Value/Comment Properties under offer/conveyancing 29 £11.276m Properties purchased in refurb 60 £26.086m Properties complete ready to let 5 (5 received back from refurb in last week with viewings scheduled). Properties Let 73 Total Purchased/Under Offer 167 £70.720m Remaining Budget 11 £4.279m An allocated budget of £75m will enable the purchase of 178 properties. Grant claims have been submitted to the GLA for 136 properties, resulting in the drawdown of £23.165m to date, with further grant claims currently in the process of submission. Of the 78 properties returned as ready to let, 73 have now been let. The remaining five were returned in the last week, and viewings have been arranged. RESIDENT BENEFIT Residential Property Acquisitions provide benefits to residents in terms of improved housing provision in the Borough . The supply of affordable housing for rent in the HRA can be used to reduce the Council’s reliance on high -cost tempor ary accommodation in bed and breakfast accommodation. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Any spend will be need to within approved budgets. Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS N/A BACKGROUND PAPERS None.

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

128. Building Safety Strategy – Fire Safety Policy Update 2026 PDF 394 KB
The Committee noted the updated Fire Safety Policy (2026), which reflects changes in legislation and regulatory requirements relating to housing, operational and commercial buildings. Members noted the Council’s strategic approach to managing and mitigating fire risk, including arrangements for governance, assurance, performance reporting and resident engagement. It was also noted that the policy supports compliance with new statutory duties and strengthens protections for residents through a risk?led and resident?focused approach. Members acknowledged that fire safety remained a critically important area of work. It was reported that residents were being supported to understand the actions being taken by the Council, with regular engagement activity having taken place. Over the previous four months, residents had attended sessions, engaged positively and demonstrated a proactive approach. Assurance was provided that information had been shared with residents across all wards and tenures. It was confirmed that fire risks were assessed and risk?rated according to severity, with mitigation managed through regular inspections, including checks of communal areas and walkways. It was noted that leasehold properties were subject to a red?rated risk process where applicable. Members noted that new regulations would increase the level of scrutiny and were likely to result in additional capital expenditure for some properties. It was confirmed that no additional grant funding had been identified at this stage. Members were further advised that work was underway with the Finance team to quantify the potential additional financial impact. RESOLVED: That the Committee: 1. Noted the content and purpose of the updated Fire Safety Policy (2026). 2. Supported the strategic approach adopted by the Council to manage and mitigate fire risk in line with new legislative requirements. 3. Endorsed the continued development of performance reporting and resident engagement arrangements arising from the policy.
📄 Building Safety Strategy – Fire Safety Policy Update 2026 PDF 394 KB
Read the text of this document (5 pages)
Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 Building Safety Strategy – Fire Safety Policy Update 2026 Committee name Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee Officer reporting Gary Penticost – Residents Services Glen Martin – Residents Services Papers with report Appendix A: London Borough of Hillingdon Fire Safety Policy – 2026 Update Appendix B: Q3 Update on the 'Delivery Plan for Occupied Higher Risk Buildings Ward All HEADLINES This report presents the London Borough of Hillingdon’s updated Fire Safety Policy (2026) for Housing, operational and commercial buildings. The policy reflects significant legislative and regulatory changes since 2024, including new duties arising from the Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025, Awaab’s Law, and the ongoing implementation of the Building Safety Act 2022. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Committee: 1. Notes the content and purpose of the updated Fire Safety Policy (2026); 2. Supports the strategic approach adopted by the Council to manage and mitigate fire risk in line with new legislative requirements; and 3. Endorses the continued development of performance reporting and resident engagement arrangements arising from the policy. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. Background The London Borough of Hillingdon has statutory responsibilities for fire safety under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (as amended) and related legislation. The Council is the Responsible Person for premises within its ownership or management. The Fire Safety Policy was last substantively updated in 2024. Since that time, there have been Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 material changes in legislation, regulatory expectations and guidance, requiring a comprehensive policy update. The Landlord Service continues to strengthen its fire safety arrangements across the Council’s managed housing portfolio through a deliberate twin ‑ tracking of people and property ‑ based interventions. This approach aligns with the requirements and intent of the Building Safety Act 2022, Fire Safety Act 2021, and the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, alongside the enhanced consumer and safety expectations introduced by the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023. Recognising the interdepe ndence between the built environment, resident behavior and the management of communal spaces has been fundamental to shaping the Council’s fire safety framework. This has enabled the development of integrated strategic and operational measures that address both physical building risks and human factors, ensur ing a proportionate, resident‑ focused and risk‑ led approach to fire safety across the housing stock. The Landlord Service has embedded a whole‑ organisation approach to the management of fire safety risk, ensuring that both people and property are e ffectively managed and that resident safety remains paramount. Twin ‑ tracking operational practices across people and property necessitates proactive management that takes account of how communal spaces are used, what is introduced into buildings, and how residents behave within them. This approach strengthens strategic and operational fire safety arrangements by recognising that behavioral risks cannot always be fully controlled. Accordingly, compliant and well ‑ managed buildings are treated as the critical safety net that protects residents where behavioral mitigation Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 alone is insufficient. 2. Purpose of the 2026 Update The revised policy:  Provides a clear and defensible framework for fire safety compliance;  Reflects updates to national legislation, standards and guidance between November 2024 and January 2026;  Clarifies governance, assurance and escalation arrangements; and  Aligns fire safety management with wider building safety and resident safety objectives. 3. Key Legislative and Regulatory Changes The 2026 policy incorporates:  The Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025, effective from 6 April 2026, introducing duties to identify residents requiring evacuation assistance, undertake person ‑centred fire risk assessments, and prepare emergency evacuation information where applicable.  Awaab’s Law (Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025), introducing statutory response times for emergency hazards and damp and mould, with phased expansion to other serious hazards, including fire‑related risks.  Ongoing obligations under the Fire Safety Act 2021, Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022, and the Building Safety Act 2022, alongside compliance with updated national guidance and British Standards. 4. Scope and Application The policy applies to:  Housing Revenue Account properties and associated communal areas;  Sheltered and supported housing schemes;  Council‑owned commercial and operational buildings; and  Depots and offices managed by the Council. Adherence to the policy is mandatory for all relevant staff, contractors and stakeholders. 5. Governance and Assurance Fire safety governance is overseen through:  Monthly performance reporting to Senior Management Team;  Monthly reporting into the Landlord Service governance structure, which includes reporting to and engagement with tenants who are members of the Building & Fire Safety Panel [Added by RS]  Quarterly reporting to Cabinet; and  Independent audit and quality as surance arrangements, including external audits of fire risk assessments. Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 The policy confirms roles and responsibilities across Cabinet, SMT, the Director of Place and operational fire safety management. PERFORMANCE DATA Headline performance information relating to fire safety is monitored and reported, including:  Percentage of applicable buildings with a current Fire Risk Assessment;  Completion of fire risk assessment actions by priority;  Compliance with statutory fire door inspection and servicing regimes;  Incidents, enforcement activity and emerging trends; and  From April 2026, compliance metrics relating to Residential Evacuation Plans where applicable. Select Committees receive performance reporting covering their remit. RESIDENT BENEFIT The updated Fire Safety Policy:  Strengthens protection for residents in Council‑owned and managed buildings;  Improves identification and support for residents who may require assistance to evacuate safely;  Enhances transparency and access to fire safety information; and  Supports safer homes through proactive risk management, faster response to serious hazards, and increased regulatory oversight. As a regulated service, the Council is required, in its capacity as a landlord, to demonstrate to the Regulator of Social Housing that it is complying with the Regulator’s Consumer Standards, which have statutory force. In this context, the most relevant standards are the Safety and Quality Standard, which focuses on ensuring that tenants are fire safe and fire aware, a nd the Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard, which requires that tenants are treated fairly, can meaningfully influence services, and are able to hold their landlord to account in relation to fire safety. The Council’s twin ‑tracked focus on both people and property is therefore directly aligned with the Regulator’s expectations. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This is a non ‑decision report. The policy sets out how the Council will fulfil existing and new statutory duties. Associated delivery costs are managed through existing housing, compliance and capital programmes and are monitored as part of routine budget and performance reporting. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The policy reflects and supports compliance with relevant legislation, including but not limited to: Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026  Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (as amended);  Fire Safety Act 2021.  Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022.  Building Safety Act 2022.  Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025; and  Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. As a non‑decision report, no specific legal decision is required BACKGROUND PAPERS NIL APPENDICES Appendix A: London Borough of Hillingdon Fire Safety Policy – 2026 Update Classification: Public Appendix B: Q3 Update on the 'Delivery Plan for Occupied Higher Risk Buildings

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

📄 260305 - Appendix A , item 128. PDF 655 KB
Read the text of this document (12 pages)
1 Directorate of Place Fire Safety Policy Name: Fire Safety Policy Owner: Director of Place Next Review: April 2028 Resident Consultation: N/A Equality Impact Assessment: N/A Senior Management Team: Approved Cabinet Approval: Version control: V3 – ME –21/02/2026 2 Contents Introduction and Objectives .................................................................................................... 2 2.0 Scope ..................................................................................................................................2 3.0 Roles and Responsibilities ..................................................................................................3 4.0 Legislation, Guidance and Regulatory Standards ...............................................................3 5.0 Obligations .........................................................................................................................5 6.0 Statement of Intent ............................................................................................................6 7.0 Programmes .......................................................................................................................9 8.0 Follow-up Work ................................................................................................................ 11 9.0 Data and Records ............................................................................................................. 12 10.0 Resident Engagement .................................................................................................... 13 11.0 Competent Persons ........................................................................................................14 12.0 Training ...........................................................................................................................15 13.0 Performance Reporting ..................................................................................................16 14.0 Quality Assurance ...........................................................................................................17 15.0 Significant Non-Compliance and Escalation ....................................................................18 16.0 Glossary ...........................................................................................................................19 Appendix 1 – Additional Legislation, Guidance and Policy Direction .......................................21 Version History ........................................................................................................................ 24 Introduction and Objectives 1.1 London Borough of Hillingdon (LBH) is responsible for carrying out fire risk assessments (FRAs) and taking action to identify, manage and mitigate risks associated with fire within the communal areas we own and manage. 1.2 We have a duty to take general fire precaution measures to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of the people on our premises and in the immediate vicinity. 1.3 The objective of this policy is to ensure that Cabinet, Senior Management Team (SMT), employees, partners, tenants and leaseholders are clear on our legal and regulatory fire safety 3 obligations. This policy provides the framework our staff and partners will operate within to meet these obligations. 1.4 This policy forms part of our wider organisational commitment to a strong health and safety culture (see our General Health and Safety Policy and Fire Standards). It will be saved on our shared drive and distributed to all relevant members of staff. 2.0 Scope • The housing assets which are owned by the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and any which are leased by the Council and managed as social housing stock. This includes domestic properties (houses and flats), communal areas of any blocks containing such properties, and sheltered and supported housing schemes and associated offices/communal spaces. • Any commercial premises which are owned by LBH. • Any depots, operational and commercial buildings owned and/or managed by LBH. 2.2 This policy is relevant to all employees, tenants, contractors, stakeholders, and other persons who may work on, occupy, visit, or use our premises, or who may be affected by our activities or services. 2.3 The policy should be used by all to understand the obligations placed upon LBH to maintain a safe environment for tenants and employees, within the home of each resident, and within all communal areas of buildings and other properties we own and manage. Adherence to this policy is mandatory. 3.0 Roles and Responsibilities The key legislation is the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO). LBH is the Responsible Person. Under the Building Safety Act 2022, the Director of Place is the Principal Accountable Person (PAP). 3.1 LBH is the Responsible Person for the purposes of the FSO because we own and manage homes and buildings where tenants and leaseholders live. 3.2 LBH Cabinet has overall governance responsibility for ensuring this policy is fully implemented and compliant with legislation and regulatory standards. The Director of Place will approve this policy and review it every two years (or sooner if legislation/regulation changes). 3.3 For assurance that this policy is operating effectively in practice, Cabinet will receive regular updates on implementation, performance and any non-compliance. 3.4 SMT will receive monthly performance reports and ensure compliance is being achieved. They will be notified of any non-compliance issues identified. 4 3.5 The Director of Place (PAP) has strategic responsibility for the management of fire safety and ensuring compliance is achieved and maintained, and will oversee the implementation of this policy. 3.6 The Building Safety Fire Manager has operational responsibility for the management of fire safety and will oversee programme delivery. 3.7 Housing teams will provide support where gaining access to properties is difficult. 4.0 Legislation, Guidance and Regulatory Standards 4.1 Legislation - The principal legislation applicable to this policy includes: • Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO). • Fire Safety Act 2021 (in force from 16 May 2022) – clarifies scope of the FSO to structure, external walls and flat entrance doors. • Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 (in force from 23 January 2023). • Building Safety Act 2022 (phased implementation from April 2023 onwards). • Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (in force from 1 October 2022). 4.1A Legislative updates (last 12 months) incorporated into this policy: • Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 – in force 6 April 2026. Introduces statutory requirements for identifying relevant residents, conducting Person-Centred Fire Risk Assessments (PCFRA), preparing PEEPs and Emergency Evacuation Statements for specified residential buildings (≥18m or ≥7 storeys, or >11m with simultaneous evacuation). • Approved Document B (Fire Safety) – 2026 amendments effective 30 September 2026, including second staircases for new residential buildings above 18m and provisions for evacuation lifts (plus 2025 amendments confirming sprinklers in all new care homes and the withdrawal of BS 476 national classes in favour of BS EN 13501). • Transition to EN standards – accelerated move away from BS 476 to BS EN 13501 (reaction to fire) and BS EN 1634-1 (fire resistance of doorsets). • Competency – strengthened competence expectations for fire risk assessors (clearer qualification/competency criteria and enforcement). • Digital records – move to digital fire safety information and resident access for multi-occupied residential buildings (golden thread alignment). • Environmental – phase out of AFFF foam extinguishers by July 2025. 4.2 This policy also operates within the context of additional legislation, industry guidance and government policy direction (see Appendix 1). 5 4.3 Regulatory Standards – We will comply with the Regulator of Social Housing’s regulatory framework and consumer standards (updated April 2024). 4.4 Sanctions – Failure to discharge responsibilities may lead to enforcement by the Health and Safety Executive, Fire and Rescue Service or the Regulator of Social Housing, and potential criminal or civil sanctions. 5.0 Obligations 5.1 Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO) – As the Responsible Person, LBH will: • Carry out and keep up to date suitable and sufficient FRAs for premises in scope, considering the whole building context (including residential units where relevant to common parts). • Identify people especially at risk. • Implement all necessary general fire precautions and measures identified by FRAs to remove or reduce risks. • Maintain a suitable system of maintenance and appoint competent persons to carry out procedures. • Review FRAs periodically and following triggers such as incidents, significant changes or refurbishment. 5.2 Fire Safety Act 2021 – We recognise the clarified scope covering structure/external walls and flat entrance doors and ensure our FRAs address these. 5.3 Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 – We will: provide tenants with fire safety instructions and information on fire doors; complete quarterly communal fire door checks and annual flat entrance door checks for buildings over 11m; and comply with all other applicable duties. 5.4 Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 (in force 6 April 2026) – For specified residential buildings (≥18m or ≥7 storeys, or >11m with simultaneous evacuation): we will identify relevant residents; offer and conduct PCFRAs; prepare PEEPs and Emergency Evacuation Statements; maintain secure information; and share necessary information with the Fire & Rescue Service. 5.5 Building Safety Act 2022 – We will record FRAs and fire safety arrangements in full; appoint competent assessors and record their identity; coordinate duties with other Accountable Persons; and provide relevant fire safety information to residents of multi-occupied buildings. 5.6 Approved Document B (2026/2025) – For new LBH developments and major refurbishments we will plan for second staircases where applicable (>18m), evacuation lifts in tall buildings, sprinklers in all new care homes, and adopt EN classification for products and systems. 5.7 Product & environmental obligations – We will specify, procure and maintain products to EN 13501/EN 1634-1 as relevant and ensure legacy AFFF extinguishers are removed/replaced. 6 5.8 Competency and digital information – We will only appoint demonstrably competent assessors and maintain digital records forming part of the golden thread of safety information. 6.0 Statement of Intent 6.1 We acknowledge and accept our responsibilities under the FSO (as amended) and will maintain demonstrable compliance, as outlined in section 5 6.2 While LBH has no occupied higher-risk buildings (HRBs) >18m, we will apply PAP principles from the Building Safety Act to our highest risk stock, i.e. sheltered and specialised housing, and to any building >11m where simultaneous evacuation is in place. 6.3 All FRAs were reviewed in 2024 and are maintained within risk-based cycles. We will ensure FRAs remain compliant with PAS 79-1/79-2:2020 and reflect ADB 2026/2025 changes, fire door EN standards and external wall considerations. 6.4 We will maintain robust processes to implement control measures arising from FRAs and other inspections. 6.5 Evacuation strategies will be set building-by-building by competent assessors, with London Fire Brigade (LFB) consultation as appropriate. Where full evacuation is in place we will implement risk-reduction programmes aiming for safer, proportionate strategies. 6.6 We will comply with the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022 via planned programmes and at annual gas safety checks and at void stage. 6.7 Where residents have impairments, we will complete PCFRAs (with consent) and implement reasonable measures. For specified buildings, we will implement statutory PEEPs and Emergency Evacuation Statements (from April 2026) and make information available to LFB. 6.8 We will consider suitability of homes offered at letting with regard to fire safety and evacuation needs. 6.9 We will collaborate with LFB, including information sharing, FRA review and staff training where appropriate, and promote Home Fire Safety visits to eligible tenants. 6.10 We will operate robust access processes to complete essential inspections, servicing and remedial works, including escalation and legal remedies where necessary, while safeguarding residents (e.g., hoarding, vulnerability). 6.11 We will maintain strong contract management arrangements, including SLAs, performance meetings and annual insurance evidence. 6.12 We will manage immediately dangerous situations through a defined escalation and make- safe process. 6.13 We will adopt a sterile communal area approach in general needs blocks and a managed approach in sheltered accommodation. 7 6.14 We will prohibit storage/charging of mobility scooters, e‑ scooters and e‑ bikes in internal communal areas; provide managed charging/parking solutions where feasible and safe. 6.15 We will prohibit barbeques on balconies, in internal communal areas and within two metres of boundary fences or flammable structures; external communal barbeques must be raised off the ground and attended at all times. 6.16 We will maintain a corporate fire safety risk assessment for management and operations, setting out key risks and mitigations. 6.17 We will ensure Construction Phase Plans (CDM 2015) for repairs, voids, component replacement and refurbishments are in place and reviewed annually. 6.18 We will complete DSEAR risk assessments for workplaces/plant/boiler rooms within scope. 6.19 We will record and act upon fire safety near misses and manage all RIDDOR notifications with lessons learned to prevent recurrence. 6.20 We will ensure removal of legacy AFFF foam extinguishers from LBH premises and replace with compliant alternatives as part of our environmental stewardship. 7.0 Programmes 7.1 FRAs – All communal blocks and other properties with communal areas that we own/manage will have an FRA where legally required. 7.2 FRA review cycles – Risk-based and building-specific, between 1 and 4 years. Higher- risk/sheltered buildings reviewed annually. Triggers include fire incidents, changes in use/occupancy, refurbishments, legislative changes or independent audit findings. 7.3 FRA types – All buildings will have a Type 1 FRA as standard. Compartmentation surveys will be carried out for all sheltered housing units (SHUs) and general needs blocks with communal spaces. 7.4 New build/acquisitions – Pre-occupation FRA prior to first occupation; post-occupation FRA within 3 months of first resident moving in. 7.5 Third-party managed stock – We will obtain FRAs and evidence of completed actions. Where not provided, we will commission the FRA, recharge costs and require completion of actions. 7.6 Fire door checks – Quarterly communal fire door checks and annual flat entrance door checks for buildings ≥11m. For low/medium-rise blocks, we will complete annual fire door inspections. We will align inspection and product standards to EN 1634-1 and related guidance. 7.7 External Wall Fire Risk Appraisals (EWFRA) – For other blocks/properties with two or more dwellings but no communal areas, we will complete a one-off FRA/EWFRA as appropriate. 7.8 Servicing, maintenance and testing – We will service and test fire detection, prevention and firefighting systems/equipment in accordance with British/EN Standards and manufacturer 8 recommendations, including alarms, emergency lighting, AOVs, sprinklers (where present), dry/wet risers, smoke control and extinguishers (AFFF removed). 7.9 Risk-based inspections – We operate a risk-based property inspection approach (implemented August 2024) and review methodology annually. Inspections will audit that required management actions are taking place, that evacuation information is current, and that digital records are up to date. 7.10 Residential evacuation planning (from April 2026) – For specified buildings we will maintain registers of relevant residents, PCFRAs, PEEPs, Emergency Evacuation Statements and information sharing with LFB. 8.0 Follow-up Work 8.1 We will implement all general fire precaution measures identified by FRAs in accordance with the following priorities and timescales: • Intolerable risk – within 24 hours. • High risk – within 1 month. • Medium risk – within 3 months. • Low risk – within 6 months or via planned programme within 12 months. 8.2 We will manage follow-up works from fire door audits and servicing/maintenance checks and maintain digital evidence trails of completion. 9.0 Data and Records 9.1 We will maintain a core asset register of all properties we own or manage (within scope) setting out which properties require an FRA and which require servicing/maintenance (e.g., alarms, emergency lighting, detection). 9.2 We will operate robust change control for acquisitions/disposals to ensure properties are not omitted from programmes. 9.3 We will hold inspection dates, FRAs, FRA actions and servicing records against all properties on each programme within LBH’s compliance system and maintain a digital safety file (golden thread). 9.4 We will keep records and data for the duration we own/manage the property/in line with our retention policy, with appropriate security and data protection controls. Residents will be provided with online access to resident-friendly FRA summaries and, upon request, full FRAs subject to data protection considerations. 9 10.0 Resident Engagement 10.1 We will maintain a resident engagement strategy to support understanding of fire safety, advise on keeping safe, and encourage reporting of concerns. 10.2 We will engage proactively with vulnerable and hard-to-reach tenants and provide clear, transparent information via publications and our website. 10.3 Residents will have online access to resident-friendly FRA summaries. For specified buildings from April 2026, we will engage residents in PCFRAs and PEEPs, provide emergency evacuation statements and explain information sharing with LFB. 11.0 Competent Persons 11.1 The Building Safety Advisor will hold the NEBOSH National Certificate in Fire Safety and Risk Management (or equivalent) or Level 4 VRQ Diploma in Asset and Building Management (or equivalent). If not already held, it will be obtained within 12 months of policy approval. 11.2 Only suitably competent contractors, fire risk assessors and fire engineers will undertake FRAs or works to fire safety equipment, systems and installations. We expect third-party certification (e.g., BAFE), professional membership (e.g., IFSM/IFE), and qualifications meeting current competency frameworks. Those carrying out FRAs must have demonstrable skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours commensurate with scope and complexity. 11.3 Only suitably competent fire safety consultants and contractors will provide third-party technical quality assurance checks. 11.4 We will check contractors’ qualifications/accreditations at procurement and annually thereafter, and evidence checks appropriately. Contractors working on fire doors must be accredited under BM TRADA (or equivalent). 12.0 Training 12.1 We will deliver training on this policy and supporting procedures, including team briefings; basic fire safety awareness for all relevant staff; and role-specific training for those delivering FRAs, fire safety programmes, planned maintenance and repairs. All training will be recorded. 12.2 Annual refresher training will be completed. Contractors will complete induction and ongoing competence training relevant to their tasks. 13.0 Performance Reporting We will report key performance indicator (KPI) measures for fire safety monthly to SMT and quarterly to Cabinet. As a minimum, we will report: 10 Data – totals of: communal properties; properties on the FRA programme; properties with/without valid FRAs; those due within 30 days; completed/in-time/overdue actions (split by priority). Narrative – explanation of current position, corrective action required, anticipated impact and progress with follow-up works. In addition: compliance with servicing/maintenance programmes; number of RIDDOR notifications; enforcement notices from Fire & Rescue or other bodies; property fire incidents/trends to target awareness campaigns. 14.0 Quality Assurance 14.1 We will ensure a programme of external quality assurance audits of FRAs (field and desktop) on a five per cent sample basis. 14.2 We will carry out regular property inspections to audit completion of required management actions. 14.3 We will carry out an independent audit of fire safety at least every two years to test compliance with legal/regulatory obligations and identify non-compliance for correction. 15.0 Significant Non-Compliance and Escalation 15.1 Significant non-compliance is any incident which could result in a material breach of legislation or regulatory standard, or which causes a risk to health or safety. All non-compliance issues will be reported/escalated as soon as possible and no later than 24 hours after the incident or awareness. 15.2 Operational non-compliance will be reported to the Building Fire Safety Manager in the first instance, who will agree corrective action with the Director of Place. The Director of Place will report details to SMT. 15.3 In serious cases, SMT will consider notifications to the Regulator of Social Housing or HSE as required. In such instances, the issue will also be reported to Cabinet. 16.0 Glossary BAFE: Independent register of third-party certified fire safety service providers. BM TRADA: UKAS-accredited certification body for manufacturing, installation and maintenance services for fire doors and fire stopping. FRA: Fire Risk Assessment – systematic evaluation of fire hazards, likelihood and consequences. 11 FRA types: Type 1 (common parts, non-destructive); Type 2 (common parts, destructive sample); Type 3 (common parts and sample flats, non-destructive); Type 4 (common parts and flats, destructive). IFSM: Institute of Fire Safety Managers. PAS 79: BSI specifications for FRA recording (PAS 79-1:2020 non-domestic; PAS 79-2:2020 housing). PCFRA: Person-Centred Fire Risk Assessment – identifies residents at higher risk in their own accommodation. PEEP: Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan – bespoke escape plan for individuals who may not self-evacuate unaided or in time. UKAS: National Accreditation Body for the United Kingdom. ADB: Approved Document B (Fire Safety) statutory guidance to Building Regulations for England. EN 13501 / EN 1634-1: European standards for reaction to fire and fire resistance of doorsets respectively. AFFF: Aqueous Film Forming Foam – foam extinguishant being phased out for environmental reasons. Appendix 1 – Additional Legislation, Guidance and Policy Direction Legislation: • Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 • Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 • Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 • Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 • Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 • Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 • Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 (DSEAR) • Defective Premises Act 1972 • Housing Act 2004 • Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 • Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 • Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 12 • Building Act 1984 • Building Regulations 2010 and Approved Document B (including 2025 and 2026 amendments) • Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR) • Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 • Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 • Data Protection Act 2018 • Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) • Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 (in force 6 April 2026) Guidance: • Housing – Fire Safety (LACORS), 2008 • Fire safety in purpose-built blocks of flats (Home Office/NFCC) – pending revision; still contains relevant information • Fire Safety in Specialised Housing (NFCC), 2017 • HHSRS Operating Guidance (MHCLG), 2006 and Addendum on fire/cladding (2018) • Simultaneous Evacuation Guidance (NFCC), 2020 • Residential PEEPs guidance and toolkit (GOV.UK, 2025) Policy direction / Competence: • Fire Sector Federation – A National Framework for Fire Risk Assessor Competency (2020) • Fire Sector Federation – Guide to Choosing a Competent Fire Risk Assessor (2020) • Setting the Bar: A new competence regime for building a safer future (2020) • Building a Safer Future reports and Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommendations Version History Version Date Author Rationale 1.0 16/04/2024 M.Emmett Sign-off 2.0 06/05/2025 M.Emmett Update 3.0 21/02/2026 M.Emmett 2026 refresh; integration of 2025–2026 legislative updates; depth and formatting improvements

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

📄 260305 - Appendix B , item 128. PDF 420 KB
Read the text of this document (14 pages)
HOUSING MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR OCCUPIED HIGHER RISK BUILDINGS – DELIVERY PLAN 2025/26 – 2026/27 The Housing Management Strategy for Occupied Higher Risk Buildings sets out the approach by the Housing Management Service to make an effective and compliant contribution to the Council’s Building Safety Policy in the context of occupied higher risk buildings within its ownership and management. This Strategy, and the Delivery Plan, has been developed to ensure that the Council is fully compliant with the Building Safety Act 2022, the Social Housing Regulation Act 2023 and other legislative and regulatory obligations which at their heart are designed to ensure that our residents are ‘fire safe’ and ‘fire aware’. The Housing Management Service, in conjunction with residents, will carry out a review of the Strategy and delivery plan every three years to make sure that it remains properly aligned to regulatory requirements and the needs of residents. In the event of any material secondary legislation being introduced, a review will take place in advance of the stated review period. The review process will also enable us to assess how well we have delivered against the priorities and targets set and identify areas for improvement. It will also enable us to use feedback received from residents and the latest best practice to ensure that our Strategy for occupied higher risk buildings and associated Delivery Plan remains fit for purpose. Version 1- March 2025 Date completed / Approved Rod Smith – Housing Landlord Programme Manager / Accountable Person 18 March 2025 Gary Penticost, Director of Operational Assets - Principal Accountable Person 20 March 2025 Sam Strong – Assistant Director – Homes & Neighbourhoods 20 March 2025 Quarterly Control Update Date Rod Smith – Housing Landlord Programme Manager / Accountable Person Q1 – 27 June 2025 Rod Smith – Housing Project Delivery Manager / Accountable Person Q2 – 29 September 25 Rod Smith – Housing Project Delivery Manager / Accountable Person Q3 – 16 January 26 Actions to deliver objective Lead By Comments/ status / evidence RAG 1. Improve levels and quality of data to ensure a ‘single source of the truth’ associated with all forms of occupation arrangeme nt to effectively contribute towards the ‘golden thread’ of information and to improve outcomes for residents. 1.0 Achieve a ‘single view of the tenant’ and household members which supports the effective management of higher risk buildings, and which can be used to improve decision making and bring forward better outcomes for residents Scope the extent of household information needed for tower block residents over and above that needed for the general needs portfolio. SN Q1 SN briefed – 6.5.25 No further action required. Data on Tower block tenants / households to be captured as part of ‘tenant census’ workstream. Tenancy Management to focus on; leaseholders / subtenants and keeping data up to date ‘post census’. Welfare checks and PEP/PEEP being amended by DDT [18.06] to capture household members too G Where data is not forthcoming for any household, ensure action is taken outside of the project to achieve 100% coverage. SB Q4 ‘Tenant census’ commencement estimated to be July 25 and completion December 25. Introduce operational practices to capture relevant household data across leasehold properties [including those which are sub-let] as an integral part of delivering the ‘housing management offer’ for occupied higher risk buildings. BG Q2 Practical use to be made of the template used for the ‘tenant census’. Update requested from BG 27.8 R Introduce operational practices which supports the adopted standard for refreshing household data across the higher-risk buildings portfolio making effective use of ‘touch points’ set out in the ‘housing management offer’ for occupied higher risk buildings. SB Q4 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Practical use to be made of the template used for the ‘tenant census’. Task put back from Q2 to Q4 to move forward from recently uploaded tenant census data. 1.1 Ensure data held within premises information boxes [PIBs] meets the current requirements of the ‘Code of Practice for the Provision of Premises Information Boxes in Residential Buildings’ Document procedural guidance / standards for the population and maintenance of data supplied to PIBs by Housing Management SB Q2 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Simple ‘Standard’ to reflect who does what and when and to ensure the content of the PIBs match back-office records, the reality of residents living in the block and any ‘flags’ on NEC. Update and evidence from SN 16.9 – PIB Management standard documented. G Ensure accurate and up to date digital records are in place to ‘back-up’ hard copy records held within PIBs which can be made available to the Fire & Rescue services on demand. SB Q1 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Completed – High-rise Living ‘working plan’ stored centrally as Excel doc. G Use NEC to extract system-based reports on households who are flagged as being category 1 or category 2 residents and / or residents who are receiving oxygen therapy. SN Q4 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Task put back from Q4 linked to ongoing census work.SN has met with TC and KS to scope ‘person attributes’ element in NEC to record this data captured via census, welfare checks and self- referrals. Once this is in place it will be possible to extract and report. A Introduce and promote approaches, including digital approaches, to support residents across higher-risk buildings in self-identifying and reporting physical, sensory and mental impairments which could impact their ability to appropriately respond and react to a real fire situation. SN Q2 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Simple online form to be developed with supporting text on the high-rise section for the website. Need to ensure wording encourage residents to self-refer only where they are not the subject of a current PEEP. Online form uploaded – awaiting conversion to a Microsoft form with direct link to Tenancy mailbox. G Demonstrate a robust approach to evidencing that all residents who are recorded as categories 1 & 2 are the subject of a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan and a live ‘Management Transfer’. SN Q1 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Completed: High-rise ‘live working plan’ document supported by QAF in place. All live cases are allocated to a named TMO. G Objective Actions to deliver objective Lead By Comments/ status / evidence RAG 2. Ensure staff do the right thing at the right time to the right quality standard. 2.0 Co-develop and implement a ‘Quality Assurance Framework’ [QAF] which supports the management role in monitoring the qualitative and quantitative aspects of delivering the ‘housing management offer’ for occupied higher risk buildings. As part of the Housing Management restructure, bring forward a named manager to act as ‘service lead’ for Fire Safety with responsibility for operating the QAF. SS Q4 Housing Management Restructure consultation launched September 25. A IA Scope and document the quantitative and qualitative aspects of service delivery set out within the offer. RS Q2 ‘Housing Management Offer for Occupied Higher-Risk Buildings – Quantitative & Qualitative aspects of Service delivery [QAF]’ drafted and circulated 1.9.25 G IA Document a QAF which includes but is not limited to: RS Q2 See above – combined draft circulated 1.9.25. G  Coverage of the core PEEP process including completion, storage, review and sign-off  Civica case-file audits  Exception reporting where standards are not meet, to include feedback to the team Develop and implement a rolling programme of transactional surveys as an integral part of the QAF which includes perceptions on engagement and information sharing and tests the understanding of key fire safety messages and how to raise a complaint or MOR. SN Q3 SN briefed – 6.5.25 To include awareness of fire escape route from their own flat. Support required from Customer Engagement Team Surveys to be rolled forward into 26/27 commencement as part of Engagement forward plan. R Incorporate performance measures as an integral part of the QAF to drive improvements in outcomes and behavioural change. RS Q2 See above – incorporated into ‘Housing Management Offer for Occupied Higher-Risk Buildings – Quantitative & Qualitative aspects of Service delivery [QAF]’ G Scope mandatory induction and refresher training for all Housing Management staff who have a direct responsibility for delivering the housing management offer for occupied higher risk buildings. SN Q1 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Completed:  High Rise overview training delivered by HM on 19.5.25 and 24.6.25. Included in ‘training pack’ for all new High- Rise staff.  PEEP minimum standards training delivered 8.5.25. Staff briefings on new Evac Regulations delivered December 25. Business case submitted to AD 19.1.26 regarding accredited training for 44 staff across the Service. G Ensure relevant housing management staff are competent to undertake fire door checks. SN Q1 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Completed: Fire door inspection training delivered 19th June for all staff managing higher-risk buildings. G Make effective use of QAF outcomes to identify and document additional staff training needs. SN Q1 Q4 SN briefed – 6.5.25 QA ‘Fire Safety Blocks’ document introduced June ‘25. See above – training Business Case – Jan 26. G Report quantitative and qualitative outcomes from the QAF on a rolling quarterly basis to residents and the Landlord Governance structure. SN Q4 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Suggest ‘year-end report’ for 25/26, followed by quarterly reporting from 26/27. A Objective Actions to deliver objective Lead By Comments/ status / evidence RAG 3. Improve levels of resident empowerment, engagement and communication as part of improving the landlord tenant relationship, building trust, treating residents with respect and ensuring residents are ‘fire safe’ and ‘fire aware’. 3.0 In conjunction with residents, review and refresh the current Resident Engagement Strategies for all in-scope buildings and bring forward a new Resident Engagement Strategy for Cavenham Court, 18 Millington Road. Undertake a self-assessment exercise of existing strategies using ‘BSR Building Assessment Certificate Application Assessment Record: Residents’ Engagement Strategy’ to identify potential gaps and areas for improvement. MF Q1 Completed 29.5.25 and signed off by PAP following Fire Safety Board on 12.6.25 G Ensure reviewed and refreshed engagement strategies are comprehensive and cover all areas reflected in; Preparing a resident engagement strategy - GOV.UK RS Q2 Draft engagement Strategy [High Rise] approved by Fire Safety Board 11.9.25 – to proceed with - resident engagement G Include the 5 principles of ‘How to engage with residents’ as set out by the BSR – within revised strategies: 1. Understand who lives in each building 2. Engage via multiple channels 3. Communicate information effectively 4. Listen to residents 5. Be inclusive RS Q2 Principles adopted and incorporated into Draft engagement Strategy [High Rise] to go to Fire Safety Board 11.9.25 prior to resident engagement G With each strategy, ensure residents are clear about:  the information the Council provide to residents  building safety decisions residents will be asked about  how residents can make a complaint MF Q2 Consultation / engagement on draft strategy completed Jan 26. Further engagement planned via Building 7 Fire Safety Panel – 21.1.26. A As part of refreshing and reviewing the current Engagement Strategies with reference to published good practice and the BAC assessment criteria [see objective 7] opportunities need to be explored to raise the profile of online reporting of ‘safety related concerns’ to residents living across the tower block portfolio RS Q2 Opportunities incorporated and Draft engagement Strategy [High Rise] approved for resident consultation by Fire Safety Board on 11.9.25. G Evidence that revised and refreshed strategies are tailored to the needs of residents within each in-scope building. MF Q2 See above – consultation on draft Engagement Strategies. A Publicise each strategy and ensure it can be evidenced that a copy is provided to all residents aged 16 years and over occupying a flat within a higher-risk building. SN Q4 Note requirement to deliver to all household members aged 16 years and over. 3.1 Introduce and make effective use of digital notice boards across the higher- risk building portfolio Document the business case for the extended roll out of digital notice boards across all higher-risk buildings SN Q3 See below on pilot – task reset to Q3. G using feedback from residents involved in the pilot approach. Feedback considered by Fire Safety Board Jan 26 – approval to proceed based on resident feedback and available new burdens capital funding. Establish an editorial board of residents to co-design a standard for use of digital notice boards, including processes to approve core messages. MF Q2 Pilot on-going in 2 blocks, due to end in October. Feeback so far has been positive with a few recommendations from residents on how to improve its functionality. Building & Fire Safety Panel acting as ‘Editorial Board’. G Document operational practices to upload, amend and review information displayed on digital notice boards. SB Q4 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Pilot ongoing and extended to Rabbs Mill House to broaden scope for business case – this second screen is larger than the Melbourne House screen and engagement is more positive. screen. Task put back to Q4 to allow for pilot review and roll-out. A 3.2 Ensure all residents occupying a flat within a higher risk building has a Fire Safety information pack tailored to the flat and building in which they live. Document processes to ensure and evidence that all new tenants, leaseholders and their subtenants receive a tailored copy of a Fire Safety Information Pack relevant to their flat and building. SB Q2 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Standard to reflect one side of A4 on what we do across, Tenancy Leasehold and Lettings. Documented process completed by SN and evidenced. G Document processes to ensure that effective use is made of solicitor’s enquiries to ensure that, ahead of any planned assignment of a leasehold interest, the prospective leaseholders is made aware of and receives a copy of; the Housing Management Offer, the Resident Engagement Strategy and any relevant Standards and Regulations. BG Q1 Process document in place. G 3.3 In conjunction with residents, review and refresh the current ‘Housing Management Offer’ to residents living in Council owned and managed ‘higher risk buildings’. Establish a mixed tenure working group of residents to review, amend and agree a refreshed Housing Management Offer which reflects the housing management contribution to ensuring that residents remain safe and fire aware. MF Q2 Building and Fire Safety Panel established. Agenda item for second planned meeting ser for November. G Ensure all commitments within the Housing Management Strategy for Occupied Higher Risk Buildings are appropriately referenced within the refreshed Housing Management Offer. RS Q2 Documents to be cross- referenced to ensure consistency of content and message. G Leasehold charges are referenced in the offer but lack clarity associated with post-Building Safety Act 2022 Regulation. Update the Housing Management Offer to BG Q2 Housing Management Offer updated. Charging arrangements for safety related work to be rolled R reflect a clear approach to the extent of safety related charges which can be passed onto leaseholders and the statutory safeguards which are in place. forward to 26/27 as part of a larger income workstream. Update the ‘Leaseholder Handbook’ to reflect the approach to safety related charges within higher risk buildings. BG Q2 See above and linkage to section 8.0 below. R Publish and make available a refreshed version of the Housing Management Offer, including a summary version. SN Q4 Consultation nearing completion. A 3.4 Introduce, publish and promote a Mandatory Occurrence Reporting System [MOR] in accordance with the Building Safety Act 2022 Draft, consult and seek approval to introduce a MOR Policy and Procedure. RS Q1 Documented Policy & Procedure in place G Update the website to include guidance on MOR and introduce an on-line reporting form. RS Q1 Approach to MOR on LBH website, including online form. G Draft and issue a briefing note for staff to raise the awareness of MOR and support for residents in completing appropriate on-line reports. RS Q1 Staff briefing note [including roles and responsibilities] issued and cascaded 23.5.25 G Update the Terms of Reference for Fire Safety Board to reflect monthly reporting of MOR. RS Q1 Refreshed ToR adopted by Fire Safety Board 24.4.25 G 3.5 Introduce and publish a suite of communication posters for use across the tower block portfolio which convey core fire safety and related messages to residents via notice boards, digital notice boards and via the website. Scope core requirements and good practice in relation to communication posters. RS Q1 Camden LBC approach / templates recognised and shared as good practice via London Councils. G Fire Safety Board to approve scope and content and issue design brief to Corporate Communications RS Q1 Scope and brief approved at May 2025 Fire Safety Board. G Seek and incorporate feedback from residents on draft designs MF Q2 Draft designs due July ’25. To be reviewed by Fire Safety Board 10.7.25 prior to seeking input from tenants. Inaugural meeting of Building & Fire Safety Panel set for 20.8.25 – feedback awaited. A Introduce and publish communication posters RS Q3 Re-worked designs from Corporate Communications signed off for use / roll-out by Fire Safety Board – December 25 G 3.6 Introduce and publish an ‘Acceptable Standard for Fire Escape Routes in Council Housing’ to support improved understanding by residents and staff, to make an effective contribution to compliant escape routes, to improve levels of fire safety and to proactively reduce the number of [housekeeping] fire risk assessment actions presenting. Scope core requirements of an acceptable standard linked to statutory obligations, contractual obligations [tenancy and lease conditions] and good practice. RS Q1 Draft reviewed May 25 Fire Safety Board – Customer Engagement to seek tenant input to draft standard as part of emerging engagement & empowerment structure. Inaugural meeting of Building & Fire Safety Panel set for 20.8.25. G Co-create an ‘Acceptable Standard for Fire Escape Routes in Council Housing’ with residents RS Q2 See above Inaugural meeting of Building & Fire Safety Panel set for 20.8.25. Final updates to be incorporated post Building & Fire Safety Panel prior to formal adoption. G Consult with staff and submit to Fire Safety Board for approval and publication. RS Q3 See above G 3.7 Develop an effective response to the increasing and ongoing risk associated with the presence of e-bikes within occupied higher risk buildings. Scope and deliver a targeted [safety] campaign to residents living across the higher risk portfolio in connection with the fire safety risks associated with e- bike ownership, storage, charging and modification. MF/ SJ Q2 The campaign has been launched and promoted through the T&L newsletter, the B&FS Panel meeting, rent statement and at estate-based events. During resident visits, a standard conversation is now included to raise awareness and highlight the risks of non-compliance. The Communications team has also designed a poster to further reinforce the message G Ensure awareness training is delivered to visiting staff groups linked to the risks presented by e-bikes within the managed housing portfolio, to include the role of social landlords in mitigating the risks. RS Q4 Task put back to Q4 following decision to deliver training ‘in- house’ due to operational difficulties engaging the LFB and capacity / availability linked to the Annual Tenant & Leaseholder conference in September. A Update the ‘welfare check’ template to incorporate e- bike ownership and oxygen therapy associated with any specific flat to better manage high risk factors. SN Q2 Work underway with DDT to amend welfare check template. Confirmation and evidence received 16.9 from SN – welfare check templated updated to reflect e-bike and O2 risks. G Objective Actions to deliver objective Lead By Comments/ status / evidence RAG 4. Develop a sector leading and compliant approach to residential PEEPs across the Council’s higher risk buildings which places vulnerable residents at the centre of a process that ensures they are safe, effectively supported and any presenting needs are regularly reviewed. 4.0 Identify and record [‘relevant persons’] vulnerable households / household members occupying flats within higher risk buildings. Document processes which capture physical, sensory or mental health issues impacting residents living in higher risk buildings in the context of:  Increased risk of fire  Ability to react to a fire alarm  Ability to escape from a fire RS Q3 Operational Procedure note drafted and circulated for comments – December 25. Link to CAT 1 and 2 definitions. G Identify and record on NEC, as part of the ‘single view of the resident’, any ‘reasonable adjustments’ which may be necessary in the context of ensuring vulnerable residents are ‘fire safe’ and ‘fire aware’. SB Q3 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Incorporate within above process document. See 1 above - linked to ongoing census work.SN has met with TC and KS to scope ‘person attributes’ element in NEC to record this data captured via census, welfare checks and self- referrals. Once this is in place it will be possible to extract and report. Ahead of Phase 1 NEC Housing, by April 2026 we will have created a person profile element to record health, medical conditions and PCFRA outcomes such as Cat 1/2, Oxygen use & adaptations. This includes 360 dashboard visible alerts and the ability to extract data. A Identify and flag on NEC any resident who is unable to self-evacuate the building unaided [other than via the passenger lift] within a reasonable period of time if directed by the fire and rescue services. SN Q4 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Suitable fields in NEC to be scoped. A Evidence that all residents unable to self-evacuate are the subject of an approved Management Transfer [and are being actively supported and monitored to move to suitable alternative accommodation] or, by exception, have appropriate mitigations in place. SB Q1 Q4 SN briefed – 6.5.25 QAF in place showing 25% of Cat 1 & 2 cases are checked for a live MT or Buy back submitted [unless tenant refuses] on a rolling monthly basis. [Circa 90 cases as at June 25] Linkage to development of new QAF for management of HRBs A Ensure data on residents unable to self-evacuate unaided is recoded within Premises Information Boxes [PIBs] as a Cat 1 / 2 case and is also available in a digital format which can be shared with the Fire & Rescue Service on demand. SB Q1 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Completed: QAF in place And Digital Excel back up in place. Linkage to development of new QAF for management of HRBs G Ensure evidence is available to demonstrate reasonable endeavours to identify vulnerable residents who require a PEEP and Emergency Evacuation Statement RS Q3 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Document and define our position on the meaning of ‘reasonable endeavours’ as part of documenting the process to bring forward a ‘Residential G Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan’. Incorporated into Operating Procedure. 4.1 Develop standard documentation and processes to comply with the Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025. In conjunction with residents, document a template for conducting a person-centred fire risk assessment [PCFRA] to support a structured conversation between the Neighbourhood Housing Officer and the resident to better understand their unique risks and identify how their fire safety and evacuation can be improved RS Q4 Existing process and documentation to be reviewed / refreshed and documented in the light of any mandatory requirements and guidance issued by Government. Template shared with Fire & Building Safety Panel, LL Board and Fire Safety Board. G In conjunction with residents, document a template for:  Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans [PEEPs] and  A summary ‘emergency evacuation statement’ setting out what the resident should do in the event of a fire.  Ensure clear reference to consent and withdrawing consent RS Q4 Approved template incorporated into Operational Practice note and rolled out via staff training sessions. G Update Housing Management Privacy Policy to make explicit reference to obtaining consent as an integral part of complying with the Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 RS Q4 Privacy Policy updated, signed off by AD and published in December 25. G Engage with the LFB to determine and agree the format of information required [in the PIB and or electronically] to help inform an operational response and /or undertake evacuation [to include the new Emergency Evacuation Statements] RS / ME Q3 Mike E requested on 3.9.25 to engage with the LFB and seek documented guidance / definitive response on PIB content linked to Regulation 10 – ‘Provision of information to the local fire and rescue service’. Awaiting LFB feedback linked to a pan-London approach. Operational Practice note includes interim arrangements - to be updated following LFB decision. G g Document the process to guide and support staff in completing [and reviewing] a person-centred fire risk assessment [PCFRA], bringing forward a ‘Residential Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan’ [PEEP], an Emergency Evacuation Statemen that records what residents should do in the event of a fire and required information for the LFB to help their operational response. RS Q4 Operational Practice note drafted and circulated for comments December 25. Final version circulated to Fire Safety Board January 26. G Following the Internal Audit of ‘Emergency Evacuation Plans’ during Q4 2024/25, develop a management plan to address and respond to all risks identified as medium and high and report progress quarterly. RS Q1 Management Actions and associated targets incorporated into delivery plan 19.6.25 following issue of final IA Report G IA Develop and implement a QAF for the PEEP process as an integral part of the broader / overarching Higher-Risk Building QAF RS Q4 Action put back from Q2 to Q4 to accommodate the Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 introduced on 4.7.25 and effective from 6.4.26 A IA Produce a slide deck resource and Deliver PEEP refresher training to relevant staff and update the training delivered following the issue of government guidance SN Q1 and Q4 SN briefed – 6.5.25 PEEP minimum standards training delivered 8.5.25. SN to convert training material into a slide dec for evidence / future use. G IA Work with DDT to bring forward workflow processes in connection with:  PCFRAs, PEEP development / Emergency Evacuation Statements  Welfare checks  Annual [or earlier] reviews of the above SN Q4 A fully functioning Customer Services and Document Management workflow is being completed under Phase 1 of NEC project with a delivery target date of Nov 26. We expect by April 2026 to have set up a PCFRA and Welfare Check form in NEC Housing for staff to use. It will be prepopulated with person and property data and allow for case allocation and pend actions. A IA Integrate this workflow data within power BI dashboards to enable effective monitoring and analysis of new data insights SN Q1 26/2 7 Quality Assurance Framework. IA Demonstrate the use of digital workflows to improve process tracking and completeness of relevant resident checks. SN Q1 26/2 7 4.2 Ensure new CAT 1 and CAT 2 tenants are not permitted to take up occupation within tower blocks in line with the Council’s Approved Social Housing Policy. Document guidance for staff responsible for general needs lettings and short-life placements which introduces an enhanced level of verification associated with prospective tenants and household members. Ensure guidance is aligned to the definition of CAT 1 and 2 persons as set out in the NFCC Code of Practice for the Provision of Premises Information Boxes in Residential Buildings. RS Q2 Written instructions issued to managers and staff in June ’25. Simple A4 Standard to be documented for use by staff undertaking general needs lettings and short-life placements. G 4.3 Ensure staff are clear on the approach to delivering ‘reasonable adjustments’ linked to mitigations documented in PEEPs. Document guidance for staff responsible for identifying and requesting the installation of ‘reasonable adjustments’ [adaptations] to tenanted and leasehold flats and communal areas arising from the formal outcomes recorded in Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans [PEEPS] and Emergency Evacuation Statements. Ensure sign-off by Fire Safey Board prior to implementation. SB Q4 Integrated into Operational Practice note. Linkage to published ‘Vulnerable Persons & Reasonable Adjustments Policy’. G Objective Actions to deliver objective Lead By Comments/ status / evidence RAG 5. Maximise the potential for complaints to positively contribute to a culture of learning, improving outcomes for residents and shaping the way housing management services are delivered across higher risk buildings. 5.0 Demonstrate that a variety of channels and approaches are being used to facilitate access to the complaints handing process. Scope all communication and engagement opportunities and ‘touch points’ with residents where accessing complaints can be promoted. RS Q1 Scoping work complete and includes refresh of Housing Management Offer and Engagement Strategies, piloting / rollout of Digital notice boards, new tenant visits / welfare checks, refresh of tailored fire safety information packs. Now engaging DDT to promote tailored complaints process into Welfare Check process /checklist. G Document an approach to generate higher levels of formal complaints from residents residing within higher risk buildings. RS Q2 Standard paragraph introduced on all template documentation used in relation to the management of tenancies and leases in higher-risk buildings which promotes the definition of complaints and how to access the process. Introduced August 25. G Within the documented approach, make effective use of digital notice boards in relation to promoting the role of complaints and access to the complaints handling process. SN Q3 Pilot on-going in 2 blocks, due to end in October. Feeback so far has been positive with a few recommendations from residents on how to improve its functionality Q1 task reset to Q3 – pilot end date 27.9. See above – roll out agreed and fully funded by new burdens grant. To be completed Q4 G Objective Actions to deliver objective Lead By Comments/ status / evidence RAG 6. Residents, irrespective of tenure, are required to meet the same standards of behaviour and levels of compliance with safety obligations in order to make our tower blocks better places to live. 6.0 Explore the potential for ‘Estate Regulations’ to support the management role in ‘levelling up’ obligations between tenures to support a more uniform and robust approach to compliance and enforcement. Using engagement structures for the tower block portfolio, seek resident views / Leaseholder Association views on formally introducing ‘estate regulations’ into all long leases across the higher risk building portfolio which introduces a ‘level playing field’ associated with contractual issues which support the safety of all residents in higher-risk buildings. MF Q4 To be forward planned for Building & Fire Safety Panel and engagement with LH Association. Subject to resident views and legal advice, develop a plan to introduce ‘estate regulations’ across the higher risk building leasehold portfolio in 2026/27 which would be enforceable as if they were express terms of the lease. RS Q4 Ensure all communications and documentation makes explicit reference to the Regulations, their role and use. BG 26/ 27 6.2 Sect 38 Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) gives Accountable Persons (APs) the power to issue contravention notices to residents and owners of residential units who breach their building safety duties. APs can also request access to premises to carry out their duties. If necessary, a County Court can grant an order for access. APs can issue contravention notices if they believe a resident or owner is:  Causing a building safety risk  Interfering with a safety item  Failing to comply with a request for information  The notice requires the recipient to remedy the breach or pay a sum within a specified period  If the recipient is not the owner, the AP must provide a copy of the notice to the owner Document operational practices to support staff in effectively enforcing rights and obligations via the use of Contravention Notices. SN Q4 Scoping work has commenced. Potential to make request via London Councils associated with other Boroughs who are using the powers linked to BCNs. A Bring forward template documentation to underpin formal use of Sect 38 powers. SN Q4 Ensure appropriate updates are incorporated into all communications and documentation making explicit reference to Sect 38 powers in the event of any breakdown in the ‘social contract’ between the Council and residents occupying higher risk buildings. SN Q4 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Objective Actions to deliver objective Lead By Comments/ status / evidence RAG 7. When invited to apply for a Building Assessment Certificate by the Building Safety Regulator, ensure that the housing managem ent contribution is comprehensive and can be evidenced in the form of up-to-date Resident Engagement Strategies and Safety Case Reports 7.0 In line with the Housing Management Strategy for occupied higher risk buildings, ensure the housing management contribution to Building Assessment Certificates [BAC] is compliant and makes a positive contribution to the overall safety of the building and the mitigation of identified risks. [The BSR will assess; the resident engagement strategy, the mandatory occurrence reporting system and the safety case report as an integral part of assessment BAC applications. Current advice is that the BSR will invite Landlords to apply for a BAC on a ‘risk-based approach’ every 5 years]. Undertake a self-assessment of the resident engagement strategy against the published Assessment Criteria used by the BSR. The resultant gap analysis to be used to ensure that all revised and published engagement strategies reflect the documented expectations of the BSR. All published documents should set out what the Council can do if someone needs information in a different language or in an alternative format. For example, large text, easy read, braille, or audio. RS Q2 Self-assessment completed 29.5.25 and signed off by PAP following Fire Safety Board on 12.6.25 G Undertake a self-assessment of the Mandatory Occurrence Reporting System [MoR] against the published Assessment Criteria used by the BSR. Using the resultant gap analysis, ensure that all expectations for the MOR associated with residents is compliant including:  Involving and consulting with residents when establishing the MoR system  Referencing the MoR system in the engagement strategy  Ensuring residents understand the meaning of a ‘building safety incident’  Documenting how residents can submit reports  Documenting the various channels through which reports can be made i.e. online, email, telephone.  How residents can report a ‘building safety incident’ via the established complaints system  How incident reports via the complaints system are reviewed, identified and processed as ‘building safety incidents’.  Consider and document what to do if residents find it difficult to describe an incident and whether they could submit, for example, photo or video evidence that helps communicate what happened.  How you will make information about your MoR system easily available and accessible to residents.  When necessary, promoting that residents can appoint a representative to report an incident for them  Documenting joint reviews of the system with residents to ensure it remains ‘fit for purpose’ All published documents should set out what the Council can do if someone needs information in a different language or in an alternative format. For example, large text, easy read, braille, or audio. RS Q4 7.1 Demonstrate how the Housing Management Service is making a proactive and positive contribution to the review and content of Safety Case Reports in line with commitments set out in the Housing Management Strategy for occupied higher risk buildings. [ A ‘Safety Case Report’ demonstrates how occupied residential buildings’ safety risks are being identified, mitigated and managed on an ongoing basis] Demonstrate the interrelationships of managing property and people related risks in the context of fire safety by ensuring that the review and amendment of Safety Case Reports properly capture all material behavioral risks and related mitigations and interventions and do not overly rely upon building structure to prevent or minimise the risk of harm. RS Q1 Interrelationships documented and referenced in the [approved] Housing Management Strategy for occupied higher risk buildings’. G Co-create and document a ‘Higher risk building trigger’ which sets out a clear threshold for new or increased behavioural risks which, if triggered, would lead to a:  formal review of the individual Safety Case Report  multi-agency response  documented management interventions to reduce or eliminate the presenting risk Ensure the trigger document includes an ‘appeals process’ where a resident has raised a ‘higher risk building trigger’ which has been rejected for not exceeding the agreed threshold. All published documents should set out what the Council can do if someone needs information in a different language or in an alternative format. For example, large text, easy read, braille, or audio. BC Q2 First draft reviewed 26.6.25. Final draft considered by Fire Safety Board and the Building & Fire Safety Panel 20.8.25. ‘Higher risk building trigger’ published on Higher-risk building web page. . G Publish the ‘Higher Risk Building Trigger’ and promote with residents and key partners. Ensure residents and partners are aware of the process to initiate a ‘higher risk building trigger’ if they believe the agreed threshold has been exceeded. RS Q3 Published on LBH website and incorporated into updated Housing Management Offer. G Ensure comprehensive and up to date data is available on the resident profile of each higher risk building as part of the Safety Case Report. This will include for example any residents needing help to evacuate or have additional needs. [This data should be the same as that reflected in the related resident engagement strategy ] SN Q4 SN briefed – 6.5.25 Linkage to ‘tenant census’ [commenced July 25 and due to complete December 25] and approach to capture data relating to leaseholders and sub-tenants. A Objective Actions to deliver objective Lead By Comments/ status / evidence RAG 8. Provide clarity and transparency to leaseholders in the context of building safety costs associated with delivering safe and compliant higher risk buildings 8.0 Ensure ‘building safety costs’ applicable to higher risk buildings are comprehensively identified and that the Council’s reasonable costs associated with its legal duties are passed onto leaseholders. In conjunction with Compliance leads and Finance, scope and document a summary of ‘building safety costs’ which can legitimately and automatically be passed onto leaseholders via their service charge. TC Q2 Agreed to be rolled into 26/27 as part of a larger workstream on Income. R Include the statutory protections which are in place generally regarding service charges and specifically in relation to ‘building safety costs’ applicable to higher risk buildings. Engage with leaseholders and the Leasehold Association in relation to the introduction of ‘building safety costs’ to service charge demands across the higher risk building portfolio from 2026 BG Q4 See above - Agreed to be rolled into 26/27 as part of a larger workstream on Income. Engage with Legal Services and bring forward revised templates for leaseholds in higher risk buildings to ensure that service charge demands linked to ‘building safety costs’ are compliant. BG Q4 See above - Agreed to be rolled into 26/27 as part of a larger workstream on Income. Brief CMT and Cabinet Member leads on the introduction of ‘building safety charges’. TC Q4 See above - Agreed to be rolled into 26/27 as part of a larger workstream on Income. Publish a summary of chargeable ‘building safety costs’ and update the Leasehold Handbook. BG Q1 2026 / 27 See above - Agreed to be rolled into 26/27 as part of a larger workstream on Income.

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

129. Building Safety Programme - fire safety in private sector mid and high-rise blocks of flats PDF 336 KB
The Committee received an update on the Building Safety Programme relating to fire safety in private sector mid? and high?rise blocks of flats. It was noted that the programme had been established in response to national requirements introduced following the Grenfell tragedy. Progress to date was reported in relation to data collection, risk prioritisation, investigations and enforcement activity. High?rise buildings had been assessed and categorised using a risk?based approach, with enforcement action taken where required. Work on mid?rise buildings had been deferred due to funding and resource constraints. Members were advised that the programme remained ongoing and was currently funded until April 2026. It was noted that the programme was contributing to improved fire safety standards and living conditions for residents living in affected buildings across the Borough. Members discussed this matter further in Part as it related to live enforcement cases. RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the update on the Fire Safety Programme.
📄 Building Safety Programme - fire safety in private sector mid and high-rise blocks of flats PDF 336 KB
Read the text of this document (6 pages)
Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 BUILDING SAFETY PROGRAMME – FIRE SAFETY IN PRIVATE SECTOR MID AND HIGH-RISE BLOCKS OF FLATS Committee name Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Officer reporting Michelle Greenidge, Resident Services Papers with report Appendix 1 – Legislative Context Appendix 2 – List of high-rise buildings under investigation (Part II) Ward All HEADLINES Following the Grenfell tragedy, the Government, through the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) now the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) , requested that Local Authorities collect data on privately owned residential high -rise buildings. This requirement has since been extended to include mid -rise blocks and social housing blocks, whether purpose -built or converted. The information sought covered a range of matters, including the materials used in the construction of external wall systems (EWS). RECOMMENDATIONS That the Committee notes the update on the Fire Safety Programme. SUPPORTING INFORMATION BACKGROUND 1. Following the Grenfell tragedy, the Government, via the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), now the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) asked Local Authorities to gather data on privately owned residential high-rise blocks (now includes mid -rise blocks and social housing blocks) of flats (either converted or purpose built). A variety of information was required, including the materials used in the make-up of external wall systems (EWS). 2. Following on from this data gathering exercise MHCLG called upon Local Authorities to use their powers under the Housing Act 2004 to investigate, inspect and where necessary take enforcement action to rectify fire safety in these buildings. This has been extended to include the provisions under the Building Safety Act 2022. 3. The Council responded to this by establishing a building safety programme to investigate these high-rise buildings, which now includes mid-rise developments. MHCLG have also required LAs to look at blo cks in control of social landlords that have issues with Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 remediation. As this is a specialised area of work, a suitably qualified professional was engaged to lead on the project (one day a week). This includes data management, case investigation, administration, enforcement, reporting and ongoing case management. 4. High-rise is where a building is over 18m in height (there is a specific methodology for establishing height). This definition has now been extended by the Building Safety Act 2022 to include buildings that are 7 or more storeys in height (with 2 or more dwellings). Mid-rise relates to a building that is 11m in height and again this definition has been extended by the Building Safety Act 2022 to include buildings that are 5 or more storeys in height (with 2 or more dwellings). 5. The Council has received New Burdens 25/26 funding for this essential work. It was hoped that there would be consideration of multi-year funding for this work, so as to remove the uncertainty of continued funding. However, that has yet to be confirmed by MHCLG. 6. The London Remediation Acceleration Plan (LRAP) 1 has yet to be published by the Greater London Authority (GLA). However, this is imminent 2. This may provide further opportunities for the Council in terms of access to resources and possibly funding. Current Position 7. The Council’s prioritisation list of buildings has been updated to account for the unknown buildings that were provided via the ‘missing buildings’ exercise carried out by Homes England on behalf of the government. 8. There are 79 (previously 82) high -rise blocks in the borough. Of these 13 are hotels, leaving 66 privately/socially owned or high -rise developments that require investigation. The Council works closely with colleagues in the LFB on these buildings and it is the LFB that have jurisdiction over the hotels. 9. The buildings have been subject to a risk prioritisation assessment and ranked accordingly. A RAG system is used. Prioritisation is based on height, the possible combustibility of the EWS and the information held on the property (e.g. if the b uilding owners fail to engage and provide survey data). This means that as information is established, this could result in the movement of a building into a different risk prioritisation category. This has resulted in the following (of the 66 blocks requiring direct investigation): a) 7 high-risk buildings b) 21 (up from 16) medium-risk buildings c) 39 (up from 30) low-risk buildings d) 0 unclassified buildings 10. Following investigations, 19 cases have been closed. This is for a variety of reasons, such as: a) They are commercial and have therefore been referred to the LFB, b) Works have been completed or there are no works to be complete, or 1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/remediation-acceleration-plan-update-july-2025 2 The Council’s expert resource is also advising the GLA on the LRAP. Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 c) They have been confirmed as low-rise or out of borough. Mid-Rise 11. The mid-rise list currently has 103 developments on it. 12. Although some of these developments have had some preliminary investigations carried out, this was because it was initially believed that these were high -rise. They have subsequently been confirmed as mid-rise and therefore transferred to the mid-rise list. 13. This is because the expert resource available to the Council is currently focused on high- rise interventions. The Council doesn’t have sufficient funding to expand the Building Safety Programme to mid-rise developments. The intention remains that that the mid-rise programme will be taken forward once the high-rise programme has been finalised. Investigation Status 14. Significant work has been carried out on the programme to see developments improved. Some of the significant activity is highlighted here: a) Formal and informal enforcement action has been taken against all the high -risk buildings. All cases remain open, and the Council’s expert resource continues to investigate and take cases forward as required. b) Work at Union House has not progressed as expecte d. Therefore, the Council have taken formal action against the freeholder by way of the imposition of an Improvement Notice. This Notice hasn’t yet been appealed, though the freeholders’ agents have made representations that are being reviewed. c) The Council continues to defend appeals lodged with the First Tier Tribunal (property chamber) against 3 Improvement Notices. At this point it is likely that all of these will go to a hearing as there are issues that do not appear to be resolvable via informal talks. d) The Council is currently working with MHCLG on carrying out a data cleansing exercise on the Governments data portal (DELTA Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 Conclusions 15. There are approximately, 5,033 households, an increase of roughly 2,000 due to the inclusion of the ‘missing building’ data, living in high -rise developments (not Council homes). This represents a significant number of people affected by possible fire s afety issues in the borough. 16. The dedicated resource is unable to work on the mid -rise buildings as the high -rise programme remains open and these generally are higher risk. 17. Since the last briefing paper submitted on progress with the programme (August 2025), the dedicated expert resource has provided around 22 days of activity for the Council. Even given this relatively small amount of time significant progress continues to be made with the programme. This has already resulted in improved standards of living for many households across the borough. 18. The one day a week resource matches the funding available to the Council via New Burdens funding received from Central Government. 19. These cases are habitually complex, involving convoluted ownership structure s. Almost every case investigated has involved other fire safety issues, beyond the issues with the EWS. 20. The case management can often be measured in years due to the challenges of remediation. The Council’s requirements are often challenged and there is a high degree of technicality and expertise to this field of work. 21. This work is ongoing and the MHCLG are very content with the progress being made at the Council and recognise the significant work being done. PERFORMANCE DATA 22. Each year the MHCLG ask for an update on the B uilding Safety Plan (BSP) at the LBH and ask about how funding has been used and proposals for how it will be used going forward. The latest exercise was completed and submitted in September 2024. Performance is measured by the level of intervention. Informal and formal interventions are published by MHCLG on an ongoing basis - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-safety-remediation-monthly-data- release-december-2024/building-safety-remediation-monthly-data-release-december- 2024#enforcement RESIDENT BENEFIT The BSP will see the safety of 1,000’s of residents of the Borough improved through the work to improve fire safety in mid and high-rise blocks of flats. Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Funding is in place until April 2026 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Collectively, legislative frameworks impose statutory duties on responsible persons and landlords to ensure fire safety, building safety, and housing standards are properly assessed, managed, and maintained, with potential enforcement action and legal liability arising where those obligations are not met. BACKGROUND PAPERS The Building Safety Regulator - https://www.hse.gov.uk/building-safety/regulator.htm The Remediation Acceleration Programme - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accelerating-remediation- a-plan-for-increasing-the-pace-of-remediation-of-buildings-with-unsafe-cladding-in-england/remediation- acceleration-plan Building Safety Remediation: monthly data release - December 2025 - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-safety-remediation-monthly-data-release-december- 2025/building-safety-remediation-monthly-data-release-december-2025#enforcement APPENDICES - Appendix one - Legislative Context Classification: Public Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 Appendix One - Legislative Context 1. There is a variety of legislation that applies to fire safety in residential high and medium-rise blocks and there are different enforcing authorities depending on the legislation. a. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1541/contents. This is enforced by the Fire and Rescue Service (the London Fire Brigade (LFB) in London). This applies to all buildings (commercial and residential common parts) but excludes individual dwellings. b. The Fire Safety Act 2001 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/24/contents. This is enforced by the LFB. This amended the Fire Safety Order and was an enabling act for further statutes. c. The Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire- safety-england-regulations-2022. These are enforced by the LFB. These were introduced in in January 2023. These place specific requirements on operators of medium and high-rise blocks of flats in relation to fire safety. d. The Housing Act 2004 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/contents. This is enforced by Local Authorities (LAs). This is the basis of housing standards in all forms of residential accommodation. It is primarily used by LAs to enforce housing standards in rented accommodation. Traditionally most LAs did not enforce fire safety in common parts of blocks of flats, this being left to the Fire and Rescue Services due to the complex nature of fire safety in these buildings but is and remains available to LAs to enforce fire safety in common parts and the flats. e. The Building Safety Act 2002 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/contents and subordinate Orders and Regulations has introduced a new regime for building safety in primarily high-rise (commercial and residential) and to a lesser degree medium-rise. This covers a variety of issues but introduces a new Building Regulator (overseen by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)) for high-rise, changes the Building Regulation regime, introduces protections for leaseholders and provides a process for several bodies, including LAs, to apply for Orders to remediate historic fire safety and structural defects in residential medium and high-rise. i. The new Regulator is operating - https://www.hse.gov.uk/building-safety/regulator.htm) and performing some of its functions, such as building registration and Building Regulation compliance. f. The Remediation Acceleration Programme - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accelerating-remediation-a-plan-for-increasing-the- pace-of-remediation-of-buildings-with-unsafe-cladding-in-england/remediation-acceleration-plan This was published in December 2024. This sets out a raft of measures, including proposed legislative measures with the aim of accelerating the remediation of mid and high-rise buildings with EWS issues, ensuring all relevant buildings are identified as well as extending protections and support for residents and leaseholders.

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

130. Forward Plan PDF 236 KB
RESOLVED: That the Forward Plan be noted.
📄 Forward Plan PDF 236 KB
Read the text of this document (2 pages)
Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 Part I – Public CABINET FORWARD PLAN Committee name Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Select Committee Officer reporting Anisha Teji, Democratic Services Papers with report Appendix A – Latest Forward Plan Ward As shown on the Forward Plan HEADLINES To monitor the Cabinet’s latest Forward Plan which sets out key decisions and other decisions to be taken by the Cabinet collectively and Cabinet Members individually over the coming year. The report sets out the actions available to the Committee. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee considers the Cabinet Forward Plan. SUPPORTING INFORMATION The Cabinet Forward Plan is published monthly, usually around the first or second week of each month. It is a rolling document giving the required public notice of future key decisions to be taken. Should a later edition of the Forward Plan be published after this agenda has been circulated, Democratic Services will update the Committee on any new items or changes at the meeting. As part of its Terms of Reference, each Select Committee should consider the Forward Plan and, if it deems necessary, comment as appropriate to the decision -maker on the items listed which relate to services within its remit. For reference, the Forward Plan helpfully details which Select Committee’s remit covers the relevant future decision item listed. The Select Committee’s monitoring role of the Forward Plan can be undertaken in a variety of ways, including both pre-decision and post-decision scrutiny of the items listed. The provision of advance information on future items listed (potentially also draft reports) to the Committee in advance will often depend upon a variety of factors including timing or feasibility, and ultimately any such request would rest with the relevant Cabinet Member to decide. However, the 2019 Protocol on Overview & Scrutiny and Cabinet Relations (part of the Hillingdon Constitution) does provide guidance to Cabinet Members to:  Actively support the provision of relevant Council information and other requests from the Committee as part of their work programme;  Where feasible, provide opportunities for committees to provide their input on forthcoming executive reports as set out in the Forward Plan to enable wider pre -decision scrutiny (in addition to those statutorily required to come before committees, i.e. policy framework documents – see para. below). As mentioned above, there is both a constitutional and statutory requirement for Select Committees to provide comments on the Cabinet’s draft budget and policy framework proposals after publication. These are automatically scheduled in advance to multi-year work programmes. Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 Part I – Public Therefore, in general, the Committee may consider the following actions on specific items listed on the Forward Plan: Committee action When How 1 To provide specific comments to be included in a future Cabinet or Cabinet Member report on matters within its remit. As part of its pre-decision scrutiny role, this would be where the Committee wishes to provide its influence and views on a particular matter within the formal report to the Cabinet or Cabinet Member before the decision is made. This would usually be where the Committee has previously considered a draft report or the topic in detail, or where it considers it has sufficient information already to provide relevant comments to the decision-maker. These would go within the standard section in every Cabinet or Cabinet Member report called “Select Committee comments”. The Cabinet or Cabinet Member would then consider these as part of any decision they make. 2 To request further information on future reports listed under its remit. As part of its pre-decision scrutiny role, this would be where the Committee wishes to discover more about a matter within its remit that is listed on the Forward Plan. Whilst such advance information can be requested from officers, the Committee should note that information may or may not be available in advance due to various factors, including timescales or the status of the drafting of the report itself and the formulation of final recommendation(s). Ultimately, the provision of any information in advance would be a matter for the Cabinet Member to decide. This would be considered at a subsequent Select Committee meeting. Alternatively, information could be circulated outside the meeting if reporting timescales require this. Upon the provision of any information, the Select Committee may then decide to provide specific comments (as per 1 above). 3 To request the Cabinet Member considers providing a draft of the report, if feasible, for the Select Committee to consider prior to it being considered formally for decision. As part of its pre-decision scrutiny role, this would be where the Committee wishes to provide an early steer or help shape a future report to Cabinet, e.g., on a policy matter. Whilst not the default position, Select Committees do occasionally receive draft versions of Cabinet reports prior to their formal consideration. The provision of such draft reports in advance may depend upon different factors, e.g., the timings required for that decision. Ultimately any request to see a draft report early would need the approval of the relevant Cabinet Member. Democratic Services would contact the relevant Cabinet Member and Officer upon any such request. If agreed, the draft report would be considered at a subsequent Select Committee meeting to provide views and feedback to officers before they finalise it for the Cabinet or Cabinet Member. An opportunity to provide specific comments (as per 1 above) is also possible. 4 To identify a forthcoming report that may merit a post- decision review at a later Select Committee meeting As part of its post-decision scrutiny and broader reviewing role, this would be where the Select Committee may wish to monitor the implementation of a certain Cabinet or Cabinet Member decision listed/taken at a later stage, i.e., to review its effectiveness after a period of 6 months. The Committee should note that this is different to the use of the post-decision scrutiny ‘call-in’ power which seeks to ask the Cabinet or Cabinet Member to formally re-consider a decision up to 5 working days after the decision notice has been issued. This is undertaken via the new Scrutiny Call-in App members of the relevant Select Committee. The Committee would add the matter to its multi- year work programme after a suitable time has elapsed upon the decision expected to be made by the Cabinet or Cabinet Member. Relevant service areas may be best to advise on the most appropriate time to review the matter once the decision is made. BACKGROUND PAPERS  Protocol on Overview & Scrutiny and Cabinet relations adopted by Council 12 September 2019  Scrutiny Call-in App

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

📄 260305 - Forward Plan , item 130. PDF 147 KB
Read the text of this document (5 pages)
Status Ref Business Item Further information Ward(s) NEW ITEM CABINET meeting Cabinet Member Shareholder Committee Full COUNCIL Cabinet Member(s) Responsible Relevant Select Committee Report Author Corporate Director Responsible Public or Private (with reason) 117 Proposal for a West London Alliance Joint Committee It is proposed to replace the Joint Committee known as the “West London Economic Prosperity Board” (which Hillingdon joined in 2025) with the establishment of a new Joint Committee known as the “West London Alliance Joint Committee” exercising more strategic executive authority across West London Alliance London boroughs. Cabinet will consider whether or not to progress Hillingdon's membership and the adoption of the Joint Committees functions and procedure rules to give effect to this. All NEW ITEM 19 March Cllr Ian Edwards - Leader of the Council Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Mark Braddock Tony Zaman Public 95 Fleet Maintenance & Repair – Contract Extension This report to Cabinet proposes an extension of the current fleet maintenance and repair contract for the Council's fleet of vehicles providing daily services to residents. All 19 March Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing & Growth Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Stephen Gunter / Trudie Eldriny / Michelle Kenyon / S Begum Dan Kennedy Private (3) 79 Contract for the Council's Fleet Fuel The Council still has an ongoing need for fuel, primarily Diesel, to power its vehicles, as it transitions to more environmentally friendly vehicles. Whilst the price of this is set on global markets there is a small margin accounting for delivery, admin and profit, which is subject to this tender to achieve value for money in fuel purchasing. N/A 19 March Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing Growth Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Stephen Gunter / Trudie Eldriny / Michelle Kenyon Dan Kennedy Private (3) 105 Commercial Gas Contract Tender Cabinet will consider a report relating to the Council's commercial Gas Servicing and Maintenance Contract Renewal for Housing and Corporate sites. N/A 19 March Cllr Jonathan Bianco - Corporate Services & Property Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Paul Hart / Nick Green Dan Kennedy Private (3) 75 Mobile Solution Contract & Wide Area Network Cabinet will consider procurement decisions in respect of mobile device solutions and the Council’s WAN infrastructure, which is the backbone that connects different Council sites and services. N/A 19 March Cllr Eddie Lavery - Finance & Transformation Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Dale Gordon Matthew Wallbridge Private (3) Decision-Maker Cabinet Member Lead & Officers MARCH 2026 1 Status Ref Business Item Further information Ward(s) NEW ITEM CABINET meeting Cabinet Member Shareholder Committee Full COUNCIL Cabinet Member(s) Responsible Relevant Select Committee Report Author Corporate Director Responsible Public or Private (with reason) Decision-Maker Cabinet Member Lead & Officers SI Housing Forward Investment Programme 2026/27 (and 2025/26 review) This annual report will agree the forward programme of specific Housing Revenue Account works for the ensuing financial year and provide suitable delegated authority to the Director to implement the programme over the period. The report will also include a look-back at delivering the past year's programme and the investment being made by the Council to upgrade the Council's housing stock. All 19 March Cllr Jonathan Bianco - Corporate Services & Property Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Gary Penticost Dan Kennedy Public SI Corporate Disposals Programme 2025/26 As part of the Corporate Disposal programme, Cabinet will consider recommendations on property and land disposals for the financial year 2025-2026 and make the necessary decisions on sites to be declared surplus and provide delegated authority to enable the implementation of any decisions made. Various 19 March Cllr Jonathan Bianco - Corporate Services & Property Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Andrew Low / Richard Mortimer Dan Kennedy Private (3) SI Minor Property Transactions This monthly standing report to Cabinet covers operational property matters requiring approval. These may include: granting discounted leases to voluntary organisations; approving easements, wayleaves, or utility leases supporting capital projects; authorising academy school property issues; and agreeing leases for temporary housing or other service-related property needs. Various 19 March Cllr Jonathan Bianco - Corporate Services & Property Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Andrew Low Dan Kennedy Private (3) SI Monthly Council Budget - monitoring report The Cabinet receives a monthly report setting out in detail the Council’s revenue and capital position. All 19 March Cllr Eddie Lavery - Finance & Transformation Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Andy Goodwin Steve Muldoon Public 96b Hillingdon First Ltd. reporting The Shareholder Committee, comprising relevant Cabinet Members, will receive relevant reports on the Council's property and trading company. N/A 19 March Shareholder Committee Members Corporate Resources & Infrastructure TBC TBC Private (3) 119 Highways contractual arrangements Following a competitive tendering process, this report seeks approval to award a term contract for the provision of Surfacing and Civil Engineering Works within the Borough, commencing 1st July 2026. All NEW ITEM 23 April Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing Growth Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Chris Wheeler / Gurmeet Matharu / Isaac Kwakye Dan Kennedy Private (3) APRIL 2026 2 Status Ref Business Item Further information Ward(s) NEW ITEM CABINET meeting Cabinet Member Shareholder Committee Full COUNCIL Cabinet Member(s) Responsible Relevant Select Committee Report Author Corporate Director Responsible Public or Private (with reason) Decision-Maker Cabinet Member Lead & Officers SI Highways Improvement Programme 2026/27 Cabinet will agree the strategic programme of road, footway and highways works for the 2026/27 period, along with the relevant release of funding and any delegations required for subsequent efficient decision-making on such maintenance and improvement schemes. N/A NEW ITEM 23 April Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing Growth Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Chris Wheeler / Gurmeet Matharu Dan Kennedy Private (3) 111 Provision of Furniture for Short Term Let properties Cabinet will consider a contract for the provision and installation of furnishings for void properties designated for short term lets. N/A 23 April Cllr Jonathan Bianco - Corporate Services & Property Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Liam Bentley Dan Kennedy Private (3) SI Corporate Disposals Programme 2026/27 As part of the Corporate Disposal programme, Cabinet will consider recommendations on property and land disposals for the financial year 2026-2027 and make the necessary decisions on sites to be declared surplus and provide delegated authority to enable the implementation of any decisions made. Various 23 April Cllr Jonathan Bianco - Corporate Services & Property Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Andrew Low / Richard Mortimer Dan Kennedy Private (3) SI Minor Property Transactions This monthly standing report to Cabinet covers operational property matters requiring approval. These may include: granting discounted leases to voluntary organisations; approving easements, wayleaves, or utility leases supporting capital projects; authorising academy school property issues; and agreeing leases for temporary housing or other service-related property needs. Various 23 April Cllr Jonathan Bianco - Corporate Services & Property Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Andrew Low Dan Kennedy Private (3) SI Monthly Council Budget - monitoring report The Cabinet receives a monthly report setting out in detail the Council’s revenue and capital position. All 23 April Cllr Eddie Lavery - Finance & Transformation Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Andy Goodwin Public Schedule of Individual Cabinet Member Decisions that may be taken each month (standard items non key-decisions) 3 Status Ref Business Item Further information Ward(s) NEW ITEM CABINET meeting Cabinet Member Shareholder Committee Full COUNCIL Cabinet Member(s) Responsible Relevant Select Committee Report Author Corporate Director Responsible Public or Private (with reason) Decision-Maker Cabinet Member Lead & Officers SI Ward Budget Initiative To approve the spending of Ward Budgets following applications from Ward Councillors - this will be done on a monthly or regular cycle. All Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC Cllr Wayne Bridges (Cabinet Member for Community & Environment) - Leader of the Council (if in Hillingdon East ward) Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Natasha Norton Public SI Business, shops and commercial rents, leases, surrenders and renewals To approve various rents, leases, surrenders and lease renewals for a variety of businesses, organisations, properties or via commercial transactions, as per thresholds for decision-making set out in the Procurement and Contract Standing Orders. Various Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC Cllr Jonathan Bianco - Corporate Services & Property Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Andrew Low / Julia Thompson Private (3) SI To consider rent reviews To consider rent reviews of commercial and other premises. tbc Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC Cllr Jonathan Bianco - Corporate Services & Property Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Andrew Low / Julia Thompson Private (1,2,3) SI Housing Buy-Back / The purchase of ex Council properties or new private properties for the Council's housing supply Cabinet Member may determine, as and when required, the purchase and aquisition of new properties as part of the Housing Buy-back Scheme or using HRA funds to increase the affordable housing stock within the Borough. TBC Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC Relevant Portfolio Cabinet Members Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Ben Sargent Private (1,2,3) SI Local Safety Schemes and Parking Revenue Account funded schemes To consider petitions received and decide on future action TBC Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC Cllr Jonathan Bianco - Corporate Services & Property Corporate Resources & Infrastructure David Knowles / Steve Austin Public SI Pedestrian Crossings To approve schemes to provide crossing facilities TBC Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC Cllr Jonathan Bianco - Corporate Services & Property Corporate Resources & Infrastructure David Knowles / Steve Austin Public SI To approve debt / write offs To approve individual case of debt / write offs that are in excess of £5000 but under £50,000. n/a Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC Cllr Eddie Lavery - Finance & Transformation Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Tiffany Boreham Private (1,2,3) 4 Status Ref Business Item Further information Ward(s) NEW ITEM CABINET meeting Cabinet Member Shareholder Committee Full COUNCIL Cabinet Member(s) Responsible Relevant Select Committee Report Author Corporate Director Responsible Public or Private (with reason) Decision-Maker Cabinet Member Lead & Officers SI Transport - Local Implementation Programme Local Implementation Programme including schemes for the public realm, parking, road safety, school travel, walking, cycling, air quality improvement and Traffic Regulation Orders. TBC Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC Cllr Jonathan Bianco - Corporate Services & Property Corporate Resources & Infrastructure David Knowles / Steve Austin / Alan Tilly Public SI Sale, and conversion, of loft space to leaseholders and also extension of Leasehold Interests of flats under the 1993 Act To consider any issues in relation to loft space and also consider an extension of the leasehold interests for several flats where the Council as freeholder has received an application under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The report will recommend grant of the extensions in each case where the Notice is valid and in accordance with legislation. TBC Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC Cllr Jonathan Bianco - Corporate Services & Property Corporate Resources & Infrastructure TBC Private (1,2,3) SI Appeals in relation to business rates (NNDR) To determine appeals in relation to business rates following a decision by the Council. TBC Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC Cllr Eddie Lavery - Finance & Transformation Corporate Resources & Infrastructure Tiffany Boreham Private (1,2,3) SI = Standard Item that may be considered each month/regularly The Cabinet's Forward Plan is an official document by the London Borough of Hillingdon, UK 5

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

131. Work Programme PDF 140 KB
RESOLVED: That the Work Programme be noted.
📄 Work Programme PDF 140 KB
Read the text of this document (1 page)
Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee – 5 March 2026 Part I – Public WORK PROGRAMME Committee name Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee Officer reporting Anisha Teji – Democratic Services Papers with report Appendix A – Work Programme Ward All HEADLINES To enable the Committee to note future meeting dates and to forward plan its work for the current municipal year. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Committee considers the Multi -Year Work Programme attached and agrees any amendments. SUPPORTING INFORMATION The Committee's meetings will start at 7pm and the witnesses attending each of the meetings may include representatives from external organisations, some of whom travel from outside of the Borough. Forthcoming meeting dates are as follows: Meeting Date Room 7 April 2026 CR5 17 June 2026 CR5 29 July 2026 CR5 16 September 2026 CR5 24 November 2026 CR5 20 January 2027 CR5 17 February 2027 CR5 17 March 2027 CR5 15 April 2027 CR5 Implications on related Council policies The role of the Select Committees is to make recommendations on service changes and improvements to the Cabinet, who are responsible for the Council’s policy and direction. How this report benefits Hillingdon residents Select Committees directly engage residents in shaping policy and recommendations and the Committees seek to improve the way the Council provides services to residents.

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

📄 260305 - Work Programme , item 131. PDF 95 KB
Read the text of this document (1 page)
Multi Year Work Programme 2022 - 2026 2026/27 April May June July September November Janaury 21 No meeting 17 29 16 24 20 Democratic Services + relevant service(s) Major Review: Maximising Council Spaces: A Review of Business and Private Hire Opportunities Topic selection / scoping stage Witness / evidence / consultation stage Findings, conclusions and recommendations Final review report agreement Target Cabinet reporting Regular service & performance monitoring and scrutiny Business Intelligence Annual Performance Monitoring (twice a year) X Highways Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy - annual update X Assets Building Safety Strategy - Annual Monitoring Report Democratic Services Cabinet Member attendance Digital Digital & Transformation Update Business Intelligence Annual complaints & service update report Finance Cabinet budget proposals 26/27 Finance Budget & Spending Report X X X X X X Democratic Services Cabinet Forward Plan Monthly Monitoring X X X X X X One-off information / service update and scrutiny Democratic Services Remit of new Select Committee / Changes to ToR / Scrutiny updates/news Corporate Services Corporate Debt Human Resources Staff skills, learning and development TBC Technology Cyber Security Update Planning and Regeneration Hayes Estate Regeneration Progress Finance Council tax banding Assets Update on Council's Fleet X Transportation Hillingdon Cycling Strategy - implementation Health Safety/ Emergency Response Emergency Response Service (Grenfell Town Inquiry recommendations) Assets Ensuring Fire Safety in Private Residential Properties (request from full Council) Counter Fraud Counter Fraud Update Assets Right to buys backs Cross-cutting topics for wider scrutiny Council wide Resident experience CEO Strategic Partnerships (Brunel, SNP, Businesses etc...) External Utility company scrutiny (broadband, water, electricity, gas, mobile operators) Past review delivery - implementation of recommendations to Cabinet Procurement and Commissioning Procurement Review 2023/24 X Transportation Road Safety Review 2023/24 X Highways Highways Resurfacing 2023/24 X Committee Site Visits + reporting back to subsequent meeting Assets Civic Centre Tour / New Library etc... Capital Programme (Date TBC) Adult Social Care Mortuary (Date TBC) Assets / Capital Programme Platinum Jubilee Leisure Centre (Date TBC) Internal use only Agenda 13-Apr-26 13-Apr-26 13-Apr-26 13-Apr-26 13-Apr-26 13-Apr-26 Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select CommitteeService Area

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

132. Building Safety Programme - fire safety in private sector mid and high-rise blocks of flats
That this report be declared as exempt from publication as it involves the disclosure of information in accordance with Section 100(A) and paragraphs 6a and 6b of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), in that the report contains information which reveals that the authority proposes (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person and (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment and that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. It was noted that the report included supporting information outlining the buildings under investigation and their current status. RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the update.
Page Updated: