Residents' Services SC

Minutes RESIDENTS' SERVICES SELECT COMMITTEE 6 November 2025 Meeting held at Committee Members Present: Councillors Wayne Bridges (Chair), Kishan Bhatt, Darran Davies, Ekta Gohil, Scott Farley, Kamal Preet Kaur (Opposition Lead) and Elizabeth Garelick Officers Present: Steve Austin (Traffic, Parking, Road Safety and School Travel Team Manager) Daniel Ferrer (Licensing Team Manager) Andy Goodwin (Head of Strategic Finance) Julia Johnson (Director of Planning and Strategic Growth) Ian Kavanagh (Head of Business Intelligence) Dan Kennedy (Corporate Director of Residents Services) Freddie Mohammed (Parking Representations and Appeals Manager) Bernard Ofori-Atta (Head of Finance - Residents' Services) Liz Penny (Democratic Services Officer) Jas Rattu (Parking Infrastructure Manager) Andrew Tebbutt (Planning Obligations Team Leader) Richard Webb (Director of Community Safety & Enforcement) 112. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) Apologies were received from Councillor Peter Smallwood with Councillor Kishan Bhatt substituting. 113. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) There were no declarations of interest. 114. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 9 September 2025 be agreed as an accurate record. 115. TO CONFIRM THAT THE ITEMS OF BUSINESS MARKED AS PART I WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC AND THOSE MARKED PART II WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PRIVATE (Agenda Item 4) It was confirmed that all items of business were marked Part I and would be considered in public. 116. BUDGET AND SPENDING REPORT (Agenda Item 5) Dan Kennedy, Corporate Director of Residents’ Services, presented the Month 5 budget monitoring report, noting that the information had been drawn from the Cabinet report which was already in the public domain. It was stated that the Residents’ Services Directorate showed an £8.8 million overspend at Month 5, primarily due to temporary accommodation pressures amounting to £6.5 million. Additional pressures included underachievement of income from p arking charges and the green waste subscription service, where the £2.5 million target was forecasted to achieve £1.6 million. The Housing Revenue Account was reported as breaking even. Councillors queried the underperformance of parking income and whether this could be attributed to post -pandemic behavioural changes or pricing issues, as well as the availability of data to distinguish the causes. It was confirmed that significant work had been undertaken to strengthen data analysis, including detailed mo nitoring of car park payment machine usage. While charges were considered competitive compared to other boroughs, it was noted that it remained too early to confirm the reasons. Patterns of usage were being examined to inform proposals for the forthcoming budget. Councillors enquired whether forecasts had accounted for potential income tax increases referenced in national budget speculation. Officers confirmed that predicting the effect on residents’ spending patterns —and consequently on Council income streams—was challenging. However, cost -of-living and wider socioeconomic impacts were being considered as part of the budget build for Cabinet consultation in December. Councillors questioned why the purchase of 400 houses had not reduced temporary accommodation figures and whether this was linked to arrivals from the Chagos Islands. It was explained that demand had risen sharply, with 40 households presenting as UK nationals in one month, equating to over 150 individuals requiring support. Leased properties intended to reduce costs had either been delayed or offered at unaffordable prices, limiting supply. Negotiations continued, but these properties had been removed from forecasts until viable agreements were secured. Members asked why the Council was not g enerating income from commercial trade waste when private companies were profiting. It was reported that competitors undercut Council prices and exploited published fees by offering special deals. A more agile pricing strategy was under review to ensure co mpetitiveness. It was confirmed that commercial trade waste did generate income for the Council; however, the income was falling short of the target. Councillors sought clarification on whether the report covered data up to September and raised concerns a bout unclear language in reports, noting previous commitments to improve transparency. Officers confirmed that the report covered August and welcomed feedback to enhance clarity in future reports. Councillors queried why Table 1 appeared to add costs unde r “management action.” It was explained that managers reviewed budgets at their level, with subsequent adjustments made by senior officers based on add itional information. These adjustments were aggregated, and detailed breakdowns could be provided if required. The Select Committee questioned the £7.3 million overspend in planning, housing and growth, noting that Heathrow -related pressures could not account for the full variance. Officers responded that arrivals through Heathrow had spiked significantly si nce July 2024. UK nationals arriving without meeting habitual residency requirements required extended support, creating substantial costs. Government funding covered only the first ten days, leaving the Council to fund accommodation and essentials for weeks. In response to questions about unchanged figures between February and March despite reported spikes, it was explained that the data represented net positions, which varied monthly depending on admissions, departures, and alternative housing solutions. Councillors asked about contingency plans if providers exited the market following the introduction of price caps on nightly placements. Officers rep orted successful implementation of the cap by August, with most providers agreeing to reduced rates. It was noted that a few had withdrawn, but others had filled the gap. Negotiations continued to ensure security and quality for both parties. Members sought clarification on the use of £1 million of capital receipts for transformation activity. It was confirmed that capital receipts from asset disposals could be used under government regulations to fund transformation projects that generated savings. Officers explained that the Council drew from a reserve built up over years, rather than linking specific disposals to individual projects. On the subject of trade waste, the Select Committee asked whether the Council was obliged to provide the service and whether it represented value for money. It was clarified that the service generated £1.3 million in 2024/25 a nd remained profitable, though targets were under pressure. Operating costs were marginal, making the service financially beneficial. Councillors aske d about collaborations to reduce housing costs. Officers described lobbying efforts for fair government f unding and collaborative procurement schemes across London to standardise rates and prevent boroughs from competing and inflating prices. Members were informed that the strategy agreed in February had achieved reductions in new placements, averaging 55 pe r month compared to 62 last year, against a target of 50. Progress had been made on increasing private rented sector properties and implementing rate caps. Challenges remained due to persistent demand and difficulties securing affordable leased accommodation. Councillors queried the £0.8 million shortfall in green waste subscription income and whether consultation results had predicted this. It was explained that setting accurate targets for new initiatives was challenging. Benchmarking had been used, and achieving £1.6 million income partway through the year was considered a success. The scheme would remain under review. Members expressed concern that savings appeared to result from vacancies or reduced operational activities such as repairs and caretakin g. In response it was confirmed that vacancy details could be provided, and that underspends in repairs reflected reduced need due to investment in property improvements, such as boiler replacements. It was highlighted that v acancies were managed carefully , with temporary redeployment used to address short-term demand spikes. RESOLVED: That the Select Committee noted the 2025/26 Month 5 budget monitoring position. 117. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT (Agenda Item 6) Ian Kavanagh, Head of Busin ess Intelligence, and Julia Johnson, Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth, were in attendance to respond to Members’ questions and requests for clarification in relation to the information in the report included in the agenda pack. A question was a sked by the Committee about whether the figure of 245 new Council properties represented a net figure after accounting for Right to Buy losses. It was clarified that the figure referred to gross new acquisitions. It was noted that a significant spike in Ri ght to Buy applications had occurred when discounts were reduced, similar to trends experienced by other local authorities. It was explained that it was difficult to determine how many applications would ultimately convert. Concerns were raised by Members about underreporting of fly-tipping incidents and the inability of operatives to record data effectively. A query was made regarding measures to captu re accurate data. In response, it was confirmed that reporting had been promoted through communication ch annels, including social media and newsletters. Officers acknowledged increasing pressure from fly -tipping and outlined actions such as responsive collection services, bulky waste collection, and targeted engagement in hotspot areas. It was emphasised that outreach to residents in flats and provision of accessible disposal sites were part of a blended approach. Further concerns were expressed about recu rring fly-tipping despite action days and about contamination of recycling leading to waste being dispose d of as general refuse. A question was also raised by Councillors regarding the proportion of contaminated recycling within household waste. It was stated that figures would need to be obtained and reported back to the Committee. The Committee enquired ab out audits of resident services datasets, error rates, and remediation plans. Officers explained that specific figures were not available at the meeting, but data quality reporting and processes such as standardisation and normalisation were in place to improve accuracy. Members raised queries regarding the decline in service requests and whether this reflected positive outcomes, as feedback from residents suggested otherwise. It was reported that new sweepers had been introduced to address weed control an d detritus quickly, and positive feedback had been received regarding their deployment. Clarification was sought on the meaning of “refreshing” the lo cal plan and justification for associated costs. It was explained that a statutory review was required ev ery five years, and a full review had commenced. The process involved consultations, evidence gathering, housing need assessments, employment land analysis, site identification, and a green belt review, which accounted for the budget allocation. With regard to the increase in ASB reports, Councillors enquired whether this reflected improved reporting or worsening conditions. It was confirmed that growth was largely due to easier reporting via online tools. It was noted that ASB encompassed a broad range of issues, and approximately half of reported cases were actionable. Further queries were raised by the Committee in relation to engagement with housing associations. It was explained that liaison occurred on a case -by-case basis, with social landlords expected to take the lead in resolving issues. Members sought further clarification regarding IT system readiness for integration and how residents would access information. It was stated that existing systems captured most required data, and no major issues were anticipated. Future changes would depend on finalised metrics. It was confirmed that data would be made freely available and efforts would be made to present information transparently. Councillors queried whether businesses attending the Hillingdon T ake Off conference had been consulted on regeneration plans. It was reported that an investor conference had been held, and programmes funded through t he UK Shared Prosperity Fund had supported local business engagement. Initiatives included town centre pr ojects, an innovation hub, and development of an economic growth plan. Further questions were raised about collaboration with Heathrow. It was confirmed that a roundtable summit had been organised to align resources with local priorities. Members queried how Hillingdon’s recycling rates compared to London averages and strategies for improvement. It was reported that recycling rates had continued to increase, supported by initiatives such as food waste segregation and campaigns to reduce household waste. With regards to fly tipping, a query was raised about plans to enhance enforcement through CCTV and AI. It was confirmed that mobile cameras were deployed in hotspots, but identification challenges remained. It was assured that robust evidence was pursued and enforcement action taken where possible. A question was asked by the Select Committee Members about the cost -benefit analysis of opting for cleani ng services to reduce contamination. It was agreed that further information on contamination rates and mi tigation measures would be provided to the Committee. In response to Members concerns regarding the difficulty for residents to report waste - related ASB accurately , i t was confirmed that a new reporting system with photo upload, geolocation, and AI classi fication was being introduced to improve analytics and ease of reporting. RESOLVED: That the Select Committee: 1. Noted the Annual Performance Report fo r 2024/25, as attached in Appendix 1; and 2. Noted that the report w ould be presented to full Council in No vember alongside the Annual Performance Report. 118. REVIEW OF FOOTWAY PARKING IN PRIORITY AREAS (PHASE 1): WITNESS SESSION 1 (Agenda Item 7) Richard Webb (Director of Community Safety and Enforcement), Steve Austin (Traffic, Parking, Ro ad Safety and School Travel Team Manager), Freddie Mohammed (Parking Representations and Appeals Manager) and Jas Rattu (Parking Infrastructure Manager) were in attendance to present the report and respond to Members’ questions and requests for clarification. The Traffic, Parking, Road Safety and School Travel Team Manager thanked Members for the list of roads identified for phase one review and explained that officers had undertaken initial observations: For Botwell Common Road, Hayes, Members heard tha t most issues appeared to be between Botwell Lane and Badgers Close, where the majority of footway parking occurred. Officers had also observed some fo otway parking in other parts of the road but noted that the lay -bys along Botwell Common Road were genera lly full and were not managed through a permit system. In respect of Clifton Gardens, Hillingdon, it was explained that the road contained numerous dropped kerbs, and from observations, residents tended to park across their own dropped kerbs during the evening due to limited space between them. The Traffic, Parking, Road Safety and School Travel Team Manager noted that formalising a scheme in this road would remove this option and severely reduce capacity, estimating that only six to ten spaces might remain if a footway parking scheme were introduced. Regarding Windsor Avenue, Hillingdon, the Traffic, Parking, Road Safety and School Travel Team Manager referred to a previous consultation, noting that the response rate had been 31%, with 30% of respondents supporting a formalised footway parking scheme and 70% opposing it. He suggested that unless attitudes had changed significantly, similar results would likely be obtained again. For Ryefield Avenue, Hillingdon, Members were informed that, while it might be possible to formalise footway parking near Long Lane, the complexity increased further along the road due to numerous dropped kerbs and the presence of a shopping parade where parking was already managed. Members were informed that Colham Green Road, Brunel, could be removed from the list of roads as controlled parking had been implemented along its length, eliminating footway parking issues. Simil arly, Windsor Close in Northwood had a successful parking management scheme in place, and residents were encouraging the Council to extend its operating times. With regards to Wood End Green Road, Hayes, it was explained that there were significant lengths of single and double yellow lines. The Officer noted that many issues related to illegal parking on foo tways and grass verges behind these lines, which was not permitted, and suggested that some residents knowingly parked unlawfully. Finally, the Traffic, Parking, Road Safety and School Travel Team Manager addressed North Road, West Drayton, stating that officers had developed a parking management scheme for the northern section between Porters Way and Thornton Avenue following a petition from residents. This scheme was ready for implementation once funding was identified. However, south of Thornton Avenue, residents were strongly opposed to any formalisation of parking, whether on the footway or through a management scheme. Members referred to a recen t petition for Clifton Gardens and requested that its progress be monitored. They recalled the Windsor Av enue consultation from approximately ten to twelve years ago, noting that confusion among residents about the difference between formalised parking and permit schemes had likely influenced objections. Councillors suggested reviewing the consultation materi al to ensure clarity that no paid service was proposed. They also queried whether the parking management schemes for Col ham Green Road and Windsor Clos e had been implemented recently. It was confirmed that both had been in place for some years and an amend ed definitive list was included in the agenda. The Committee expressed concern that the previous list had categorised these roads incorrectly, indicating a need for officers to review and update lists regularly. Members suggested that Nine Elms Avenue be considered in place of Col ham Green Road, citing recent pavement resurfacing followed by residents parking on the new surface. The y highlighted that th e last review of Nine Elms Avenue had been in November 1990 and suggested that the Committee consider add ing it to the list. Officers acknowledged the historic nature of the decision and agreed that the matter could be revisited. Councillors raised safety concerns on W ood End Green Road, particularly near the school and allotments, describing dangerous behav iour by parents parking on pavements and even forcing pedestrians to move. The y opposed any formalised footway parking in this area on safety grounds. Officers assured the Select Committee that enforcement applied behind yellow lines and confirmed there wa s no intention to formalise footway parking in hazardous areas. It was explained that some drivers knowingly parked illegally and dangerously, which enforcement teams continued to address. Further questions focused on complaint handling and the Council’s responsiveness. Members asked how many complaints were required before a review was triggered and whether petitions were necessary. The Traffic, Parkin g, Road Safety and School Travel Team Manager clarified that a single complaint would be sufficient if it related to a road safety issue, but wider changes such as introducing formal schemes required evidence of community support to reassure the Cabinet Member. He noted that the Council received between 200 and 250 requests for road safety matters annually, which did not always result in new restrictions but could lead to other measures such as white bar markings across dropped kerbs. The discussion then t urned to suspended enforcement. Councillors asked for clarification of this term and whether vehicles par ked fully on pavements in such roads would receive a penalty. Officers explained that enforcement could be carried out where vehicles were parked outside marked areas or contrary to signage, but informal schemes without signs or lines created exemptions fo r entire roads, making enforcement challenging. In Windsor Avenue, for example, if the location was not exempt, enforcement would apply, but exemptions typically allowed two wheels on the footway. Councillors questioned whether increased enforcement could resolve issues and asked if all calls to the enforcement hotline were logged. Officers confirmed that calls were logged but details of complaints were not routinely recorded, acknowledging a gap in intelligence gathering. They agreed to review processes t o capture more detailed data, including trends in roads where enforcement was limited. Members asked about the impact of changes on bus routes. Office rs confirmed that they held regular liaison meetings with emergency services, bus operators, and Transport for London, and acted promptly when bus routes were affected by parking issues. They cited a recent example on Station Road where temporary measures were introduced to maintain bus flow while legal processes for double yellow lines were completed. Accessibility considerations were raised, with Councillors asking when the Council’s Accessibility Officer would be involved and whether feedback would be r eported to the Committee. Officers agreed to consult the Accessibility Officer and consider site visits where necessary, noting that some roads might not present accessibility issues due to wide footways, but others could require attention. Members suggested that engagement with schools, GP surgeries, and Chambers of Commerce should also be considered, partic ularly for roads near schools such as Windsor Avenue, where Oak Farm School had previously raised concerns about enforcement near zebra crossings. Councillors requested updated ward boundary information to assist with the review. Officers confirmed they w ould work with GIS colleagues to provide this, although it might require manual processes. Officers concluded by reminding members to encourage residents to submit petitions if they wished to see formalised footway parking schemes introduced, whether with permits or without. RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee note d the evidence heard at the witness session and sought clarification as necessary in the context of its review of Footway Parking in Priority Areas. 119. DRAFT COMMUNITY SAFETY STRATEGY (Agenda Item 8) Richard Webb, Director of Community Safety and Enforcement, was in attendance to respond to Members’ questions and requests for clarification in respect of the Draft Community Safety Strategy. Members began b y asking when the Integrated Offender Management (IOM) Coordinator would be appointed and what governance procedures would apply if recruitment were de layed. It was explained that this had been discussed recently and funding for the post was being consider ed. It was confirmed that the role was recognised as essential to enable integrated work with the management board. Probation services were reviewing operational details and practices elsewhere, and a proposal would be brought to the next Safer Hillingdon Partnership meeting alongside other elements of the strategy and delivery plan. The Director of Community Safety and Enforcement noted that funding constraints would limit the ability to deliver some areas, but ambitions were being set where strengthening was required. Councillors then referred to a recent Safer Neighbourhood Team meeting at which suggestions had been made about improving lighting in certain roads and alleyways. They asked whether such measures could be included in the strategy to create s afer spaces. The Director of Community Safety and Enforcement responded that requests for lighting and alleyway improvements were received regularly th rough resident feedback and petitions. However, these were often problematic due to issues such as privacy, light intrusion, and costs associated with maintaining mirrors, which were frequently damaged and required replacement. Barriers to prevent cycling in alleyways could also restrict accessibility. It was explained that the delivery plan included the establishment of the Hillingdon Enforcement Safety Panel, a new group tasked with identifying locations where safety risks existed and improvements could b e made. Resident requests would be referred to this group for consideration. The Officer added that the A nti-Social Behaviour Team currently reviewed such requests, but the new approach would provide a stronger, partnership -based response, although not all requests could be satisfied. The Committee raised a further point regarding green spaces, suggesting th at the possibility of locking them should be reconsidered due to concerns about drug -related issues. The Officer acknowledged this and confirmed that t he matter would be referred back to the Cabinet Member, noting that the decision to unlock green spaces h ad been made earlier in the year for various reasons. Councillors then queried the proposed panels —the Hillingdon Enforcement Safety Panel and the IOM panel —asking what hard targets would apply to each, such as hotspot resolution times, reduction in repea t victimisation, or reoffending rates, and what baseline measures would be used. It was explained that a new performance framework for anti -social beha viour was being developed, partly driven by requirements from the social housing regulator. This framewor k would include indicators such as the speed of risk assessment for cases, satisfaction surveys, and resolution times. It was confirmed that this work was in progress and that the Committee would receive details in the next ASB update, including the indica tors being collected and performance against them, which would represent an improvement on previous arrangements. Regarding the IOM panel, it was stated that targets had not yet been developed because the panel had not commenced, but they would be probatio n- focused and linked to reducing reoffending, which was a statutory duty. The Officer emphasised that success would be measured by the effectiveness of approaches to reducing reoffending. Members referred to recent announcements by the Mayor of London abo ut cutting 1,700 police officer posts and closing front counters across London, leaving only two operating 24 hours a day. They asked what impact these changes might have on the community safety strategy and whether the implications for residents had been considered. In response, it was confirmed that the matter had been discussed at the Safer Hillingdon Partnership. While the changes did not directly affect the strategy, the Partnership aimed to maintain a clear public strategy reflecting resident prioriti es and data. The Officer noted that the police were a key partner and that questions would be asked about the local impact of reductions. Although unab le to speak on behalf of the police, the Director of Community Safety and Enforcement stated that discuss ions indicated efforts were being made to avoid impacts on frontline policing. Any significant changes would be monitored through partnership data and police reports at each meeting to understand practical outcomes. The Select Committee commented on the n eed for clearer performance measures, observing that outputs in the strategy lacked definition and were difficult to measure. Councillors suggested lin king outputs to specific reviews, such as the anti -social behaviour review, to clarify what measurements were being used. In response, it was confirmed that the partnership would have a delivery plan containing specific measures, which would be presented to the Committee as part of six -monthly performance reviews and police updates. These measures would not a ppear in the strategy itself but would be developed and agreed by the partnership and reviewed regularly. Finally, Members asked whether the Anti-Social Behaviour priority in the Strategy could include specific provisions for tower blocks, as these were m ajor locations for such behaviour. They highlighted issues arising when partial closure orders expired, allowing problems to return quickly, and suggested that processes be put in place to enable back-to-back applications for closure orders to prevent recu rrence. Officers agreed that this was an important point and confirmed that tower blocks and similar communal areas would be reflected in the strategy as a particular focus. The Chair concluded by referring members to the recommendation that the Select Committee review the draft community safety strategy and provide comments for consideration before final approval by Cabinet. The Chair proposed liaising with the Labour lead outside the meeting to draft comments through Democratic Services, subject to members’ agreement. RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee: 1. reviewed the draft Community Safety Strategy for the Borough; and 2. delegated the drafting of any comments for the consideration of Cabinet to Democratic Services in conjunction with the Chair and in consultation with the Labour Lead. 120. INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING STATEMENT (Agenda Item 9) Julia Johnson, Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth, and Andrew Tebbutt, Planning Obligations Team Leader, were in attendanc e to respond to Members’ questions and requests for clarification in respect of the Infrastructure Funding Statement. Councillors began by asking whe ther the Council was on target to secure all monies due within the required timeframe, emphasising the im portance of avoiding any lapse and ensuring funds were available when needed. The Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth confirmed that monthly meetings were held with the team to review outstanding payments and that a process was in place with legal services to pursue unpaid monies. It was explained that an annual review was conducted through the starts and completions exercise using Council Tax da ta to identify completed developments, which was then compared against obligations. Monitoring occurred monthly to ensure developers reported commencement and compliance with payment requirements. Members sought reassurance that funds were being spent appropriately and within deadlines to prevent lapses. It was confirmed that a list was maintained for all it ems approaching the 18-month deadline and that a monthly infrastructure meeting reviewed these proactively. It was stated that no funds had lapsed rece ntly, although there had been close cases involving health projects where collaboration with the NHS was required. In some instances, extensions were requested from developers to avoid issues. The Select Committee asked about the proportion of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) receipts transferred to the Greater London Authority or Transport for London, requesting either a percentage or approximate figure. Members also queried whether the Council could retain a greater share locally or whether this was d etermined nationally. It was explained that the Council acted as the charging and collecting authority un der legislation, retaining an administrative fee of 4%, with the remainder remitted to the Mayor for transport infrastructure. The officer undertook to provide precise figures from the report and confirmed that the 4% fee was the maximum permitted under regulations. A further question concerned progress on updating the system for recording Section 106 contributions and expenditure, which had been discu ssed at previous meetings. Councillors asked how far back the review had gone and what remained outstandi ng. It was reported that all current expenditure and receipts were now processed through the system and detailed in the appendix to the Infrastructure Funding Statement. However, historic data was still being migrated from paper files, with progress dependent on team capacity. It was explained that priority was given to securing new monies and spending funds, with backlog reconciliation undertaken as res ources allowed. Most categories had been reconciled, but the system was not yet a single definitive sourc e, as spreadsheets were still used for overall positions. Members expressed disappointment at the lack of significant progress, noting that the Committee had discussed this issue for several years. They stressed the importance of understanding the origin of Section 106 monies, the developments generating them, and the projects funded. Officers responded that the appendix listed receipts and expenditure for the current year, although presented by address rather than scheme. The Committee reiterated that the promised database should enable clear identification of contributions by development and corresponding expenditure. In response it was clarified that data for schemes delivered in the last three to four years could likely be produced, but the statutory re port followed a national standard and did not include that level of detail. Additional data could be provided outside the report if required. Members observed that heavily developed areas did not appear to benefit visibly from CIL or Section 106 expenditu re, leading to perceptions that funds were not reinvested locally. It was explained that CIL spending was determined annually by Cabinet and that the report set out the total receipts and allocations. Officers noted that most CIL expenditure had been direc ted to the West Drayton Leisure Centre and acknowledged the point about demonstrating tangible improvements linked to developments. They agreed to cons ider how presentation could better illustrate the relationship between contributions and local benefits, including whether agreed improvements had been delivered. RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee: 1. Noted the contents of the Infrastructure Funding Statement 2024-2025; and 2. delegated the drafting of any comments for the consideration of Cabinet to Democratic Services in conjunction with the Chair and in consultation with the Labour Lead. 121. STATEMENT OF LICENSING POLICY (Agenda Item 10) Daniel Ferrer, Licensing Team Manager, was in attendance to respond to Members’ questions and requests for clarification in relation to the Statement of Licensing Policy. In response to Members’ requests for an update on the status of the consultation, it was explained that the consultation had closed on Monday after a six -week perio d. Initially, seven comments had been received, but this number had increased to ten. A full report was scheduled to be presented to Cabinet on 18 Dece mber. Among the responses, three had come from responsible authorities: the anti -social behaviour team, t he food health and safety team, and the immigration team. These responses primarily sought clarification on contact details and provided helpful guidance. The remaining seven responses had been submitted through the survey, which had been managed in collaboration with the customer engagement team. It was noted that some comments highlighted unclear information and possible technical issues with accessing details. Resident concerns largely focused on enforcement, echoing themes previously discussed in the Licensing Committee. It was confirmed that the enforcement section of the licensing policy had remained unchanged, as had the provisions on processing and fees. Proactive and risk -weighted inspections continued to be carried out, and complaints or referrals from responsible authorities were addressed promptly. The Committee commended the quality of the report, acknowledging the effort invested and praisin g the inclusion of modern clauses such as the “Ask Angela” initiative. Councillors also welcomed the inco rporation of the agent of change principle, explaining that developers, rather than long -standing pubs, should bear responsibility for soundproofing when new developments were built nearby. The Licensing Team Manager expressed appreciation for these commen ts and explained that the licensing taskforce, established by the government, had encouraged modernisation. Members were informed confirmed that both t he Ask Angela initiative and the agent of change principle were specifically mentioned in national recomm endations, and the Council aimed to remain aligned with best practice and other boroughs undertaking similar reviews. Councillors enquired how the level of response compared to previous consultations. It was stated that engagement appeared slightly better than before, noting that earlier consultations had sometimes attracted only two comments from responsible authorities. The Licensing Team Manager cred ited improvements to the involvement of the customer engagement and web teams, which had enhanced accessi bility and produced charts for inclusion as annexes in the Cabinet report. He emphasised a desire for greater engagement and reiterated that all comments were valued and would inform changes to the licensing policy where appropriate. Councillors observed that efforts to promote the consultation had been visible on social media and queried whether similar promotion had occurred elsewhere. It was confirmed that outreach had extended to stakeholders, responsible authorities, and neighbouring boroughs, stressing that the legal process was an essential component of consultation. Additional detail had been provided in areas such as safeguarding children to ensure clarity for the licensing trade, residents, and Committee Members. It was explained that practical so lutions had been incorporated based on issues encountered over the past five years, including closer consideration of planning matters, which had previously been excluded from licensing discussions. The Select Committee asked whether any collaboration had taken place with the Community Safety department or Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNT), given their operational role. It was confirmed that such engagement had occurred, noting that priorities identified in community safety strategies —such as tackling violen ce against women and girls—had influenced the inclusion of measures addressing spiking and the Ask Angela initiative. The Licensing Team Manager emphas ised that the licensing policy had not been developed in isolation but worked in conjunction with other strategies, including Public Space Protection Orders. Members suggested that engagement could be increased by sharing information at upcoming SNT meetings and encouraging attendees to participate. The Officer welcomed this suggestion and acknowledged that, with a fully staffed team of nine officers, there was scope for greater direct engagement. The Committee concluded by commending the inclusion of new provisions on issues such as drink spiking, third -party contractors, and overrates. The Chair expressed satisfaction with the thoroughness of the report and the positive reception of the consultation, congratulating the officers on their work. RESOLVED: That the Committee consider ed the revisions to the Statement of Licensing Policy. 122. FORWARD PLAN (Agenda Item 11) RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee note d the Cabinet Forward Plan. 123. WORK PROGRAMME (Agenda Item 12) Democratic Services informed Members that a visit with the gritting team over the winter months was planned. Details had yet to be confirmed. Members reiterated their request for a site visit to the Borough’s Civic Amenity Sites. With regard to fly-tipping, the Committee also suggested a visit with the cage vans. RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee considered the Work Programme report and agreed any amendments. . The meeting, which commenced at 7.00 pm, closed at 9.04 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Liz Penny, Democratic Services Officer on epenny@hillingdon.gov.uk. Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, officers, the press and members of the public.

Minutes RESIDENTS' SERVICES SELECT COMMITTEE 27 November 2025 Meeting held at Council Chamber - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW Committee Members Present: Councillors Peter Smallwood (Vice-Chair), Darran Davies, Ekta Gohil, Jas Dhot, Kamal Preet Kaur (Labour Lead), Elizabeth Garelick and Jagjit Singh 124. ELECTION OF CHAIR (Agenda Item 1) Nominations were invited for the role of Chair of the Residents’ Services Select Committee. Proposals for Councillors Peter Smallwood and Kamal Kaur were moved and seconded. When put to a vote, Councillor Smallwood was elected as Chair of the Select Committee with 4 votes in favour and 3 against. RESOLVED: That Councillor Peter Smallwood be elected Chair of the Residents’ Services Select Committee for the remainder of the municipal year 2025/2026. 125. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR (Agenda Item 2) Nominations were invited for the role of Vice-Chair of the Residents’ Services Select Committee. A proposal for Councillor Ekta Gohil was moved and seconded. When put to a vote, Councillor Gohil was elected as Chair of the Committee. RESOLVED: That Councillor Ekta Gohil be elected Vice-Chair of the Residents’ Services Select Committee for the remainder of the municipal year 2025/2026. The meeting, which commenced at 10.30 pm, closed at 10.40 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Liz Penny, Democratic Services Officer on epenny@hillingdon.gov.uk. Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, officers, the press and members of the public.

Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public BUDGET & SPENDING REPORT – SELECT COMMITTEE MONITORING Committee name Residents’ Services Select Committee Corporate Director(s) responsible Daniel Kennedy Papers with report N/A Ward All RECOMMENDATION That the Select Committee: 1. Notes the budget monitoring position as of October 2025 (Month 7) for the Council; and 2. Notes the budget monitoring position as of October 2025 (Month 7) for the services within the remit of the Residents’ Services Select Committee. HEADLINES This monitoring report provides an update on the Month 7 budget monitoring position for the Council and an update on the Month 7 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. GENERAL FUND 2025/26 MONTH 7 BUDGET MONITORING POSITION (COUNCIL) As at Month 7, the Council is forecasting a net overspend of £36.0m on its core operating activities. This includes overspends of £26.8m across Service Operating Budgets, a £4.2m pressure against the budgeted use of reserves and a £6.5m pressure across centralised and Corporate Budgets including Corporate Funding. These pressures are partially mitigated by £1.5m of interventions, which are expected to deliver savings aligned with spend control measures, increased gran t and other income and other mitigations. These interventions have been reduced by £0.5m due to the benefit of improvements in outturn forecasts now being reflected within Service Operating Budgets. The service operating budget pressure of £26.8m, represe nts a £0.3m favourable movement from Month 6. The pressure against Service Operating Budgets is largely being driven by four pressure areas:  c£15.9m relating to further demand pressures above the budget position presented to February Cabinet and Council, with £3.0m being driven by Adult Social Care demand, £6.5m from homelessness support, £7.0m within Children’s Social Care, offset by a £0.6m reduction in the waste forecast.  c£8.0m relates to a shortfall against the savings budgeted in 2025/26 and the £38.8m target to be delivered this year (with a further £7.1m included in unallocated savings budgets), representing 39% slippage.  c£2.2m from the General Fund share of Treasury activities and the interest costs arising Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public from the increase in borrowing resulting from the forecast  Lastly, c£0.7m net overspend relating to a number of other smaller updates, with a shortfall against the capital receipts target leading to some transfor mation activity now being funded from revenue, alongside further pressures from the use of agency staff, offset by underspends across SEND Transport of c£1.6m and staffing within Adult & Children’s Social Care & Health (c£1.5m) and other minor movements. Table 1 – General Fund Overview SAVINGS (COUNCIL) The savings requirement set for 2025/26 was £34.0m 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 in year: Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public Table 2 – Savings Tracker As of Month 7, £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 wher e 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 need to 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 associated pressures have been factored into the monitoring position with compensating actions being implemented where possible to offset the impact. RISKS AND MITIGATIONS As part of the Month 7 review, the Council has carried out an analysis of exposure to risks and where further opportunities exist. This review has identified more risks than opportunities, with risks totalling £5.5m against further opportunities of £1.4m. The identified risks include demand exposure from homelessness (£0.6m), adult social care (£1.0m) and Waste Services (£0.3m) with wider corporate risks linked to the delivery of the interventions (£0.5m). The level of risk has reduced in recent months as demand risks start to come down as we progress through the year. The remaining risks come from a number of smaller updates including funding strategies such as buyer’s premium and potential environmental costs associated with compliance related activities. I t should be noted that risks not able to be quantified include the cost of any redundancies that may arise from any TOM savings implementation (redundancies would precede any savings that ensue), and also the Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public financial impact relating to the amortisation of any EFS that may get agreed in respect of the 2024/25 financial year. Opportunities in this position include £1.4m related to the Council’s ability to positively impact the homelessness support pressure through demand and market management, maximising a vailable funding sources, reducing energy costs and potential upsides from fees and charges. Additional details regarding the Council’s general fund revenue position are available in the most recent Month 7 budget monitoring report: 06 - REPORT Final Cabinet Report M7 1.pdf 2025/26 MONTH 7 BUDGET MONITORING POSITION (SELECT COMMITTEE PORTFOLIO) Table 3 summarises the Committee’s Month 7 budget monitoring position by directorate, showing a projected overspend of £7.8m which represents a £0.02m adverse movement from Month 6. Place has seen a n adverse movement of £0. 03m collectively, due to compensating movements across services. Environment and Leisure services has reported an adverse movement of £0.04m driven by a review of income receivable from the Garden Waste subscription fee. This has been offset by a favourable movement of £0.01m with the Transport and Town Centres team from reduced expenditure delivering the Christmas Lights programme. Homes and Communities is projecting an overspend of £8.5m for 2025/26. This is primarily due to higher-than-expected demand for homelessness support throughout the year. This overspend is an increase of £0.3m from Month 6. The table also reflects adjustments for Earmarked Reserves, Provisions and Transformation Capitalisation Residents Services: Place Resident Services: Place – Are reporting an overspend of £1. 1m at Month 7, representing a £0.03m adverse movement from Month 6 as detailed above . £1. 06m of this variance relates to income, the largest driver for which is the forecast shortfall against the Garden Waste subscription fee (£0.9m), with further pressures across other income streams including the delivery of the Trade Waste income target rolled forward into 2025/26. Expenditure is largely forecast to br eakeven across the directorate. Residents Services: Homes and Communities Resident Services: Homes & Communities – Are reporting a net overspend of £ 6.8m, representing a breakeven position from Month 6. This was driven by gross expenditure pressure of £16.3m offset by additional income of £ 9.6m. The gross pressure is largely driven by temporary accommodation and homelessness support pressures. This reflects a national pressure . However, Hillingdon is particularly impacted by Heathrow having a material effect on local supply and demand economics. The additional income is linked to the same driver whereby the additional demand for temporary accommodation attracts Housing Benefit Subsidy payments and grant funding where applicable. The change in forecast in this area is driven by fire safety concerns in a privately owned residential building in the borough and the need to provide a waking watch service to ensure resident safety. Table 4 provides a detailed breakdown of the budget monitoring position by service area and shows forecast changes for Earmarked Reserves, Provisions and Transformation Capitalisation. SAVINGS (SELECT COMMITTEE PORTFOLIO) The savings requirement for 2025/26 relating to the services overseen by this Committee is £11.7m, as outlined in the Council’s budget strategy and detailed in Table 5 of this report, which provides a Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public breakdown of the savings position by directorate. Table 5 additionally presents the savings slippage incorporated into the forecast position. Of the savings identified within the Residents Services Select Committee, £5. 6m ( 48%) are classified as banked or on track, £3.5m (30%) are marked as amber and currently in delivery but may not be fully delivered this financial year and £1.9m ( 16%) are reported as red and having challenges in delivery, with mitigations being sought in-year where feasible. A further £0.7m (6%) of savings are considered to be undeliverable and will need to be written out of the Council’s budget from 2026/27. Residents Services - Place is on target to achieve £2.82m (62%) of the planned savings. £0.60m (13%) are classified as amber due to delivery challenges this year; however, these are anticipated to be fully delivered next year. An additional £0.78m (17%) is tracking as red and £0.36m (8%) of savings are considered undeliverable and will require removal from the Council’s budget for 2026/27. Of the £7.1m savings in Residents Services – Homes and Communities is on target to deliver 39% (£2.7m) which are banked or on track to be delivered in the year . 41% (£2.9m) are facing problems with delivery and 4% (£0.3m) are considered undeliverable and will be removed from the council’s budget for 2026/27. HRA 2025/26 MONTH 7 BUDGET MONITORING POSITION The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) is currently forecasting a breakeven position, with ongoing market and demand risk being closely monitored throughout the year. The 2025/26 closing HRA General Balance is forecast to be £15.0m, in line with the target level set out in the Council’s budget strategy. The table below presents key variances with a £0. 7m pressure against operating costs being compounded by a £0.4m adverse variance against rental income. This position is kept to breakeven by a reduction in the capital financing costs, with the Council opting to reduce the revenue contribution to capital schemes to maintain the target level of balances, whilst ensuring the HRA remains in a financially sustainable position. Operational budgets in Month 7 position showed no significant change from Month 6. The HRA Operating Costs budget is £44.7m and at Month 7 is forecasting a minor £0.7m overspend against the budget, due to staffing pressures, B&B costs associated with emergency housing and leaseholder insurance premiums. Operational Assets are forecast to breakeven. This incorporates several minor pressures, the most material of which is a reduction in the cost of subsidence surveys, offset by in -year mitigations, predominantly linked to a reduction in boiler rep airs driven by the replacement programme. At Month 7, rent and other income is forecasting a pressure of £0.4m which shows the impact of void levels and the delivery levels of new properties. PERFORMANCE DATA N/A RESIDENT BENEFIT 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 Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public 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. Overa ll, regular monitoring supports safeguarding the Council's finances and the delivery of quality services to residents. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This is primarily a finance report and the implications are set out in the main body of the report above. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct legal implications arising from regular monitoring of the council’s finances by select committees. Democratic Services advise that effective overview and scrutiny arrangements require access to the information unde r 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 NIL APPENDICES 1 – Tables 3-7 Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public Appendix 1 – Tables 3-7 Table 3 – 2025/26 Month 7 Budget Monitoring Position by Directorate Directorate Approved Budget Underlying Forecast Earmarked Reserves Provisions Transformation Capitalisation Management Action Forecast Outturn Final Forecast Variance Forecast Variance Prior Month Change in Variance Expenditure 56,330 56,886 (391) 0 (292) 177 56,380 50 44 6 Income (23,253) (22,045) 55 0 0 (200) (22,190) 1,063 1,039 24 Sub-Total 33,077 34,841 (336) 0 (292) (23) 34,190 1,113 1,083 30 Expenditure 41,603 58,188 (237) 0 (610) 577 57,918 16,315 16,866 (551) Income (33,914) (42,883) 0 0 0 (660) (43,543) (9,629) (10,169) 540 Sub-Total 7,689 15,305 (237) 0 (610) (83) 14,375 6,686 6,697 (11) Expenditure 97,933 115,074 (628) 0 (902) 754 114,298 16,365 16,910 (545) Income (57,167) (64,928) 55 0 0 (860) (65,733) (8,566) (9,130) 564 Total 40,766 50,146 (573) 0 (902) (106) 48,565 7,799 7,780 19 Residents Services Total Residents Services (Place) Residents Services (Homes and Communities) Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public Table 4 – 2025/26 Month 7 Budget Monitoring Position by Service  Service Area Approved Budget Underlying Forecast Earmarked Reserves Provisions Transformation Capitalisation Management Action Forecast Outturn Final Forecast Variance Forecast Variance Prior Month Change in Variance Expenditure 47,420 46,947 (53) 0 (26) 161 47,029 (391) (335) (56) Income (17,923) (16,200) 3 0 0 (200) (16,397) 1,526 1,433 93 Sub-Total 29,497 30,747 (50) 0 (26) (39) 30,632 1,135 1,098 37 Expenditure 2,302 2,001 (113) 0 0 0 1,888 (414) (412) (2) Income (582) (359) 0 0 0 0 (359) 223 228 (5) Sub-Total 1,720 1,642 (113) 0 0 0 1,529 (191) (184) (7) Expenditure 516 989 0 0 (266) 0 723 207 207 0 Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 516 989 0 0 (266) 0 723 207 207 0 Expenditure 6,092 6,949 (225) 0 0 16 6,740 648 584 64 Income (4,748) (5,486) 52 0 0 0 (5,434) (686) (622) (64) Sub-Total 1,344 1,463 (173) 0 0 16 1,306 (38) (38) 0 Expenditure 56,330 56,886 (391) 0 (292) 177 56,380 50 44 6 Income (23,253) (22,045) 55 0 0 (200) (22,190) 1,063 1,039 24 Sub-Total 33,077 34,841 (336) 0 (292) (23) 34,190 1,113 1,083 30 Expenditure 19,634 34,065 (237) 0 (270) 270 33,828 14,194 14,814 (620) Income (11,239) (19,177) 0 0 0 (660) (19,837) (8,598) (9,129) 531 Sub-Total 8,395 14,888 (237) 0 (270) (390) 13,991 5,596 5,685 (89) Expenditure 15,783 17,456 0 0 (310) (170) 16,976 1,193 1,093 100 Income (20,368) (20,645) 0 0 0 0 (20,645) (277) (277) 0 Sub-Total (4,585) (3,189) 0 0 (310) (170) (3,669) 916 816 100 Expenditure 6,355 6,874 0 0 0 0 6,874 519 556 (37) Income (2,307) (3,029) 0 0 0 0 (3,029) (722) (711) (11) Sub-Total 4,048 3,845 0 0 0 0 3,845 (203) (155) (48) Expenditure (319) (452) 0 0 0 452 0 319 319 0 Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total (319) (452) 0 0 0 452 0 319 319 0 Expenditure 150 245 0 0 (30) 25 240 90 84 6 Income 0 (32) 0 0 0 0 (32) (32) (52) 20 Sub-Total 150 213 0 0 (30) 25 208 58 32 26 Expenditure 41,603 58,188 (237) 0 (610) 577 57,918 16,315 16,866 (551) Income (33,914) (42,883) 0 0 0 (660) (43,543) (9,629) (10,169) 540 Sub-Total 7,689 15,305 (237) 0 (610) (83) 14,375 6,686 6,697 (11) Expenditure 97,933 115,074 (628) 0 (902) 754 114,298 16,365 16,910 (545) Income (57,167) (64,928) 55 0 0 (860) (65,733) (8,566) (9,130) 564 Total 40,766 50,146 (573) 0 (902) (106) 48,565 7,799 7,780 19 Residents Services (Place) Total Residents Services (Homes and Communities) Total Health & Safety And Emergency Community Safety And Enforcement Residents Services Total Director Environment And Leisure Residents Head of Transport & Town Centres Projects Corporate Director Place Director Planning Regeneration and Environment Housing R83: Community Services Director Homes and Communities Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public Table 5 – 2025/26 Savings Position by Directorate RAG Rating 2025/26 & B/fwd savings Total Slippage Directorate B/fwd 2025/26 Total B G A1 A2 R W/O £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 R esidents S ervices - P lace Develop C ommercial T rade W aste S ervice (260) (260) (260) (260) 260 R esidents S ervices - P lace R eview of G olf Delivery Model (267) (267) (267) (267) R esidents S ervices - P lace Household recycling centre (100) (100) (100) (100) 100 R esidents S ervices - P lace C harging for G arden W aste (2,500) (2,500) (1,616) (100) (784) (2,500) 784 R esidents S ervices - P lace C hristmas L ighting G rowth (230) (230) (230) (230) R esidents S ervices - P lace F ees & C harges Inflationary Uplifts (58) (58) (58) (58) R esidents S ervices - P lace G reen F lag A ward S cheme (43) (43) (43) (43) R esidents S ervices - P lace Hillingdon in B loom and the A utumn S how. (17) (17) (17) (17) R esidents S ervices - P lace R emove S easonal Hanging B asket Displays (92) (92) (92) (92) R esidents S ervices - P lace R eview of B urial C harges (200) (200) (200) (200) R esidents S ervices - P lace R eview of C rematoria & C emetery C harges (300) (300) (300) (300) R esidents S ervices - P lace P roposal 1: E nvironmental S pecialists S taffing C osts (66) (66) (66) (66) R esidents S ervices - P lace P roposal 2: V acant P ost Deletion (39) (39) (39) (39) R esidents S ervices - P lace P roposal 3: B uilding C ontrol F ee Uplift (16) (16) (16) (16) R esidents S ervices - P lace P roposal 4: Discretionary P lanning F ees Uplift (13) (13) (13) (13) R esidents S ervices - P lace P roposal 5: F ast T rack P lanning S ervice (60) (60) (60) (60) R esidents S ervices - P lace P roposal 6: S tatutory P lanning F ee Increase - Householders (300) (300) (150) (150) (300) Residents S ervices - P lace T otal (627) (3,934) (4,561) (2,329) (488) 0 (600) (784) (360) (4,561) 1,144 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesC ommunity run L ibrary (135) (135) (135) (135) 135 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesB eck T heatre P arking (50) (50) (20) (30) (50) 30 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesDecentralised Operating Model for C orporate P olicy & P rojects (77) (77) (77) (77) 77 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesIncrease MV F by 1% (167) (167) (167) (167) R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesF ees & C harges Inflationary Uplifts (488) (488) (200) (288) (488) R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesHillingdon W omen's C entre G rant (30) (30) (30) (30) R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesIncrease in C ar P ark R evenue (50) (50) (20) (30) (50) R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesL ibrary S tock B udget (30) (30) (30) (30) R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesMeeting R oom Hire R evenue in L ibraries (40) (40) (40) (40) R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesOut of Hours Noise Nuisance S ervice (220) (220) (220) (220) 220 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesP arking fine level change – prior MT F F growth (600) (600) (600) (600) R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesP ay and Display Machine C ash C ollection (66) (66) (66) (66) 66 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesP B H -Domestic A buse S upport C ontracts (79) (79) (79) (79) R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesP latinum J ubilee L eisure C entre Management F ee (80) (80) (40) (40) (80) 40 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesP arking F ees & C harges (411) (411) (200) (211) (411) 411 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesR eview of P arking E nforcement C harges C harges (140) (140) (140) (140) R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesS tronger C ommunities S ervice R eductions (79) (79) (79) (79) R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesE nvironmental E nforcement - F ines (110) (110) (110) (110) R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesC ommunity & V oluntary G rants (175) (175) (175) (175) 175 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesUse of s106 F unding for R evenue (500) (500) (500) (500) R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesA dditional L eased temporary accommodation (1,600) (1,600) (1,600) (1,600) 500 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesT emporary A ccommodation - re-negotiate to reduce rates with all B &B / private sector providers (500) (500) (500) (500) R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesT emporary A ccommodation C ommissioning - Z ero / L ow S ubsidy A ccommodation (1,500) (1,500) (503) (997) (1,500) Residents S ervices - Homes & Communites T otal (920) (6,208) (7,128) (1,628) (1,130) (2,885) (30) (1,144) (310) (7,128) 1,654 Residents S ervices T otal (1,547) (10,141) (11,688) (3,957) (1,618) (2,885) (630) (1,928) (670) (11,689) 2,798 Description Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public Table 6 - HRA Table 7 – HRA Savings

Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public CABINET BUDGET PROPOSALS 2026/27 Committee name Residents’ Services Select Committee Corporate Director(s) responsible Daniel Kennedy, Corporate Director Residents’ Services Papers with report N/A Ward All RECOMMENDATION That the Select Committee: 1. Notes 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. Considers and comments on the financial assumptions, savings proposals, growth pressures, service impacts and delivery risks within those proposals. 3. Agrees specific feedback and recommendations to be submitted to Cabinet for consideration as part of the final budget pr oposals to be presented to Council in February 2026. HEADLINES 1. The Council published the Medium-Term Financial Strategy 2026/27 to 2030/31 on Tuesday 23rd December as part of the Cabinet agenda for that evening. This report sets out the growth and saving proposals within the remit of this committee from that report and should be read in conjunction with the Medium-Term Financial Strategy 2026/27 to 2030/31 cabinet paper. General Fund Review Overview 2. Services within the remit of this committee are propose d to see a net budget change for 2026/27 of £15.8m, reducing to £14.0m by 2028/29, driven by savings proposals in 2026/27 of £14.0m and growth proposals of £29.9m. Whilst the revenue budget proposals are set out in the context of a three -year budget strate gy, the Council’s legal requirement is to set a balanced budget for 2026/27. 3. The below table sets out the overview of savings and growth proposals by directorate for the services within the remit of this Committee. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public Table 1: Budget Proposal Overview Residents' Services 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 Annual Annual Annual Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Change Change Change Change Change Change (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) Savings (14,043) (2,096) (2,175) (14,043) (16,139) (18,314) Growth 29,880 1,331 1,182 29,880 31,211 32,393 Residents' Services select committee Total 15,837 (765) (993) 15,837 15,072 14,079 Savings Proposals 4. The below table sets out the line-by-line savings proposals for the services within the remit of this committee as set out in the above overview position. Table 2: Savings Proposals Resident's Services Savings 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 Annual Annual Annual Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Change Change Change Change Change Change (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) Extended Producer Responsibility Grant (2,653) 2,653 - (2,653) - - Grounds Maintenance service review (300) (300) - (300) (600) (600) Increase Garden Waste Subscription fee (189) - - (189) (189) (189) Street Scene (50) (50) - (50) (100) (100) Waste collection efficiencies - (854) (2,038) - (854) (2,892) Service delivery model review (62) (62) - (62) (124) (124) ULEZ expenditure (48) (48) - (48) (96) (96) Fleet management improvements (24) - - (24) (24) (24) NYGL civic amenities site (70) - - (70) (70) (70) Waste disposal management (resource) (48) (44) - (48) (92) (92) Environment Total (3,444) 1,295 (2,038) (3,444) (2,149) (4,187) Review Domestic Support Contracts (80) - - (80) (80) (80) Implementation of Additional Licensing Policy 100 (114) (14) 100 (14) (28) Review of Pest Control discounts (49) - - (49) (49) (49) Proceeds of Crime and POCA Investigations - - (100) - - (100) Parking Services Programme Management Capacity - (95) - - (95) (95) Changes to parking tariffs (1,232) - - (1,232) (1,232) (1,232) Domestic Abuse Support Officer - service growth proposal (76) - - (76) (76) (76) Changes to parking payment options (95) (95) - (95) (190) (190) Removal of Multiple Daily Free HFC Parking Sessions (65) (65) - (65) (130) (130) Community Safety & Enforcement Total (1,497) (369) (114) (1,497) (1,866) (1,980) Platinum Jubilee Leisure Centre Management Fee (70) - - (70) (70) (70) Subsidy removal (100) - - (100) (100) (100) Digital Library Plan Pilot (450) (306) - (450) (756) (756) Digital Library Plan Phase 2 - (1,100) - - (1,100) (1,100) Theatres Operating Model - (482) - - (482) (482) Bunker & Visitor Centre Operating Model - (388) - - (388) (388) Community Services Total (620) (2,276) - (620) (2,896) (2,896) Annual Lettings Plan to allocate 400 social homes to households in B&B (1,055) - - (1,055) (1,055) (1,055) Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public Housing for vulnerable families (144) - - (144) (144) (144) Additional Full Repair and TA Insure Leases (386) - - (386) (386) (386) Additional Leasing Scheme 1 (838) - - (838) (838) (838) Reduced Cost Temporary Accommodation 1 (226) - - (226) (226) (226) PRS accommodation 1 (609) - - (609) (609) (609) Private Management Agreement Leasing Scheme (205) - - (205) (205) (205) Supported Housing (1,388) - - (1,388) (1,388) (1,388) PRS accommodation 2 (867) - - (867) (867) (867) Additional Leasing Scheme 2 (157) - - (157) (157) (157) Rapid PRS Rehousing (231) - - (231) (231) (231) Supported Housing - Rough Sleeper Pathway (318) - - (318) (318) (318) Reconciliation of Resident engagement cost (100) - - (100) (100) (100) Increase Homeless Prevention (850) - - (850) (850) (850) Housing Total (7,374) - - (7,374) (7,374) (7,374) Resident's Services Savings Continued 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 Annual Annual Annual Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Change Change Change Change Change Change (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) Discretionary Planning Fees Uplift (12) (9) (23) (12) (21) (44) Festive Light Residual Budget (150) - - (150) (150) (150) Planning and Sustainable Growth Total (162) (9) (23) (162) (171) (194) Fast Track Planning Service (3) (3) - (3) (6) (6) Building Control Fee Uplift (15) (16) - (15) (31) (31) Discretionary Planning Fees Uplift (16) (17) - (16) (33) (33) Planning, Regeneration and Environment Total (34) (36) - (34) (70) (70) Review of CCTV Service - (365) - - (365) (365) Safer Communities and Vulnerabilities Total - (365) - - (365) (365) Resources for bereavement services - (60) - - (60) (60) Residents Services Total - (60) - - (60) (60) Waste Weekends - Powerday (150) (151) - (150) (301) (301) Reduction in cost of recycling bags (200) - - (200) (200) (200) Weekend provision Cemetery and crematorium (100) - - (100) (100) (100) Street lighting (125) (125) - (125) (250) (250) Street inspections digitally performed (107) - - (107) (107) (107) Efficiency Gain Fleet (230) - - (230) (230) (230) Corporate Director Place Total (912) (276) - (912) (1,188) (1,188) Residents' Services select committee Total (14,043) (2,096) (2,175) (14,043) (16,139) (18,314) Growth Proposals 5. The below table sets out the line-by-line growth proposals for the services within the remit of this Committee as set out in the above overview position. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public Table 3: Growth Proposals Residents' Services Growth 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 Annual Annual Annual Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Change Change Change Change Change Change (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) Extended Producer Responsibility 797 598 448 797 1,395 1,843 Loss of income recharges to HRA - no longer applicable 128 - - 128 128 128 Tree Maintenance - Staff and revenue budget 430 - - 430 430 430 Extra crews for the new food waste vehicles 258 - - 258 258 258 Garden Waste Bag Tags 137 - - 137 137 137 New Term Service Contract 45 - - 45 45 45 Country Park Management staff and maintenance 54 - (54) 54 54 - New Term Service Contract 160 - - 160 160 160 FLEET Maintenance and Repair Contract annual increases 130 217 269 130 347 616 Rebasing of garden waste income budget 610 - - 610 610 610 NYGL civic amenities site Budget pressure savings brought forward 165 - - 165 165 165 NYGL civic amenities site 70 - - 70 70 70 Waste disposal management (resource) 94 - - 94 94 94 Electrical Vehicle Charging (EVC) budget realignment 46 - - 46 46 46 Fleet Insurance 351 - - 351 351 351 Environment Total 3,475 815 663 3,475 4,290 4,953 Residents' Services Growth Continued 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 Annual Annual Annual Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Change Change Change Change Change Change (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) Principal Emergency Planning and Continuity Officer 60 - - 60 60 60 Community Safety and Enforcement Total 60 - - 60 60 60 Domestic Abuse Related Death Review Cost Pressures 20 - - 20 20 20 Community Impacts Officer 60 - - 60 60 60 Parking pay and display income rebasing 600 - - 600 600 600 Counsel and Investigative Costs 150 - - 150 150 150 Domestic Abuse Support Officer 40 - - 40 40 40 Private Sector Housing Growth & Recruitment 180 (100) - 180 80 80 Proceeds of Crime and POCA Investigations 100 - - 100 100 100 Stray Dogs Contract 15 - - 15 15 15 Parking budget rebasing 210 - - 210 210 210 Parking enforcement costs 80 - - 80 80 80 Out of Hours Nuisance Service Review 220 - - 220 220 220 Budget Rebasing - Food Safety Income 488 - - 488 488 488 Domestic Abuse Support Services Contracts 80 - - 80 80 80 Parking Services Programme Management Capacity 95 - - 95 95 95 Rebasing of postal charges 162 - - 162 162 162 Domestic Abuse Support Officer - service growth proposal 76 - - 76 76 76 Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public Community Safety & Enforcement Total 2,636 (100) - 2,636 2,536 2,536 Lake Farm BMX Track 10 - - 10 10 10 Community Services Total 10 - - 10 10 10 Additional management responsibility or Emergency planning manager and correction to Historic budget shortfall 13 - - 13 13 13 Health and Strategic Partnership Total 13 - - 13 13 13 Budget Rebasing - Budget adjustment - Director of Central Services 451 - - 451 451 451 Homes and Communities Total 451 - - 451 451 451 Homelessness Prevention 2,000 - - 2,000 2,000 2,000 Base TA Budget Reset 4,872 - - 4,872 4,872 4,872 TA Rental Inflation 772 - - 772 772 772 Homeless Support Growth 1,500 - - 1,500 1,500 1,500 Unrealised Savings - Temporary Accommodation 3,600 - - 3,600 3,600 3,600 Service Level Agreements 354 - - 354 354 354 TA Mix-Percent larger households in TA 182 - - 182 182 182 Base TA Budget Growth 8,235 - - 8,235 8,235 8,235 Housing Total 21,515 - - 21,515 21,515 21,515 Planning Legal Budget 35 - - 35 35 35 CIL Admin Budget Rebasing 298 - - 298 298 298 Dangerous Structures Out of Hours Service Budget 30 - - 30 30 30 Removal of MVF from Statutory, Demand-Led, Income Generating Posts 172 - - 172 172 172 Potential CIL Income Reduction 50 - - 50 50 50 Funding for Additional Parking Management Schemes 60 - - 60 60 60 Strategic Asset Optimisation Project 160 - (160) 160 160 - Implementation of Additional Licensing Policy 130 - - 130 130 130 Planning and Sustainable Growth Total 935 - (160) 935 935 775 Residents' Services Growth Continued 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 Annual Annual Annual Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Change Change Change Change Change Change (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) (£,000's) Household recycling centre - maintenance 80 (40) - 80 40 40 Resources for bereavement services 60 - - 60 60 60 Transformation Capital Budget Rebasing - Homes & Communities 23 - - 23 23 23 Residents Services Total 163 (40) - 163 123 123 Rebasing of trade waste income budget 300 - - 300 300 300 Street inspections digitally performed 70 - - 70 70 70 Corporate Director Place Total 370 - - 370 370 370 Waste Disposal Levy & Contracts 311 656 679 311 967 1,646 Environment Total 311 656 679 311 967 1,646 Residents' Services select committee Total 29,880 1,331 1,182 29,880 31,211 32,393 Fees & Charges 6. For 2026/27, the Council has proposed to increase all discretionary Fees & Charges by 10% where appropriate and where the Council anticipates this will generate an overall benefit for Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public the Council, taking into account possible elasticity of demand implicati ons. Where fees and charges have been increased outside of this approach, the financial impact has been included as a standalone saving proposal. 7. The saving generated from this approach for the services within this committee are set out in the table below, with the full details of the charges being levied included in Appendix F of the December Cabinet report. Table 4: Fees & Charges Savings Service Charge 2026/27 Forecast Income 2026/27 Saving Community Safety & Enforcement Imported Food Unit (4,035) (21) Community Safety & Enforcement Food, Health & Safety (14) (1) Community Safety & Enforcement Licensing (503) (24) Community Safety & Enforcement Trading Standards (7) (0) Community Safety & Enforcement Environmental Enforcement (707) (271) Community Safety & Enforcement Environmental Protection Unit (16) (2) Community Safety & Enforcement Pest Control (1) (0) Community Services Libraries (250) (2) Community Services Arts Theatres (537) (88) Community Services Battle of Britain Bunker Fees (228) (36) Housing Housing (11,614) 29 Environment And Leisure (Residents) Golf Courses (407) 309 Environment And Leisure (Residents) Breakspear Crematorium (3,706) 164 Environment And Leisure (Residents) Cemeteries (1,370) (124) Environment And Leisure (Residents) Parks and Open Spaces (618) 2 Environment And Leisure (Residents) Trade Refuse (4,677) (92) Planning, Regeneration and Environment Land Charges (451) (41) Total (29,140) (196) HRA Revenue 8. The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) is a ringfenced, self-financing account whereby rental income from the Council’s c10,200 social housing units are reinvested in the management, maintenance and expansion of stock for the benefit for tenants. The budget strategy for the HRA for the 2026/27 financial year in the context of the five-year plan is set out in this report, underpinned by a 30 -Year Business Plan which demonstrates that over the longer term the HRA is financially sustainable and that the proposed capital investment will maintain this position. 9. The HRA budget proposals set total resources for 2026/27 at £89.9m, rising to £108.0m by 2030/31, with the se resources invested into the tenancy management, the maintenance of existing housing stock and the funding for the investment in acquisitions and development. The HRA revenue budget is set out in the table below: Table 5: HRA Budget Strategy   2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31   £m £m £m £m £m £m Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public Total Resources 84.9 89.9 94.3 98.3 103.4 108.0 Total Service Expenditure (60.7) (63.6) (65.4) (67.1) (69.1) (71.1) Contribution to Finance Capital Programme (24.2) (26.3) (29.0) (31.2) (34.3) (37.0) Cumulative Budget Gap 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Closing General Balances 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 10. For full details, please see the December Cabinet Report and Appendix D.

Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public Six Month Performance Monitoring Report Committee name Residents’ Services Select Committee Officer reporting Ian Kavanagh, Head of Business Intelligence Papers with report Appendix 1 – Six-month performance report 2025-26 Ward All HEADLINES This six-monthly performance report monitor s the value the Council provides by benchmarking expenditure against key performance indicator s. The analysis is based entirely on publicly available data to ensure a fair, transparent, and repeatable comparison with other local authorities. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Select Committee: 1. Notes the six-month performance report for 2025/26, as attached in Appendix 1; and 2. Makes any comments which will be presented to full Council in January alongside the six-month performance report for information. Performance management is a critical function in local government, enabling councils to use data- driven insights to improve outcomes for residents. It supports accountability—both internally and externally—by demonstrating how public services respond to local needs and ensure value for money. The Council’s performance framework is aligned with the Hillingdon Council Strategy and incorporates a suite of reports accessible to services, senior management, the Corporate Management Team, and Cabinet – and then reported to select committees. This annual report draws on key performance indicators and monitoring data to assess progress against strategic objectives. Where applicable, it includes the most recent data available, including pre -2024/25 benchmarks. Notably, the report integrates financial benchmarking from the 2024 -25 local authority revenue expenditure and financing outturn report. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. Performance management is about using data to drive evidence -based decision making to challenge current ways of working and service delivery models. It is an important tool for local government to take responsibility for its own p erformance and for the public and national Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public governments to hold local service providers to account, ensuring they respond to local needs and that public money is being spent wisely. 2. Performance management includes a range of processes and methods to identify shared goals and various measurements of progress towards these. Closely aligned to the concept of governance it ensures arrangements are in place so an authority’s objectives can be achieved. 3. Within Hillingdon , performance is aligned to the Council Strategy, where a suite of performance reports is available to services, senior management teams, the Corporate Management Team, and the Leader and Cabinet. Monthly reports are presented to CMT and action logs completed. 4. This report uses key performance indicators and benchmarking data to show performance and value on key services for the financial year 2024/25 (or in some cases, the latest data available as well as pre-financial year 2024/25). 5. The 6 -month performanc e report for 2025/26 presents a detailed and transparent benchmarking picture of how Hillingdon Council is performing across its core service areas, with a clear emphasis on putting residents first. The report reflects a council that is actively responding to significant challenges —rising demand, financial pressures, and evolving community needs—while maintaining a strong commitment to service quality, accountability, and resident wellbeing. 6. Hillingdon had the 4th lowest net expenditure in London per 100,0 00 residents. Heathrow Airport’s presence within the borough creates unique operational and financial pressures that many other London authorities do not face. Despite years of government underfunding and these unique challenges, Hillingdon continues to be recognised as a well- run council, consistently delivering strong value for money and maintaining one of the lowest net expenditure levels in London. Residents Services 7. Hillingdon demonstrates strong value for money across Housing and Homelessness. Resident Services had the 8th lowest expenditure of London boroughs for housing general fund and homelessness expenditure. Hillingdon achieved a C2 (2nd highest) grade from the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) for its registered housing landlord service . Grading ranges from C1 to C4. Only 7 of 66 (10.6%) local authorities assessed achieved the higher C1 grade and most authorities (56%) received a C3 or C4 grade. 8. The proportion of households in Temporary Accommodation (12.5 per 1,000) remains far lower than high-pressure boroughs such as Ealing and Harrow, reflecting effective prevention and case management. 9. However, rough sleeping remains a significant challenge, with rates the highest among comparators. Heathrow Airport continues to drive inflow pressures, alongside recent Home Office evictions contributing to short-term spikes. The council is working closely with partners Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public and the Home Office to support individuals leaving asylum accommodation and reduce repeat homelessness. 10. The Housing Landlord Service co ntinues to perform strongly across safety and asset management. Gas safety compliance is 99.61% and levels of tenant arrears are lower (better) than the London average. Hillingdon’s average re-let time of 30.6 days is the best among all comparators, more than 20 days faster than the London averages. While tenant satisfaction remains below the England average, Hillingdon performs strongly on key activity -based measures such as repairs timeliness. 11. The proportion of “dwellings vacant, but available to let ” in Hillingdon is 87%, which is 16 percentage points higher than London (71%) and 35 percentage points higher than England (52%). Hillingdon has an ambitious housing deliv ery programme, buying new properties for letting. This means a higher-than-average volume of properties are being let at any one time, but it is important to note these continue to be re -let within a faster than average end to end re-let time. 12. Hillingdon’s result on homes that do not meet the Decent Homes Standard is by far the highest at 30.90% (as at March 2024) , and over 14 percentage points higher than the next highest neighbours, Ealing (16.63%). Hillingdon's housing landlord service is investing over £108m to improve homes over the next five years and rapid progress is being made to reduce levels of non-decent homes. Programmes of work include window replacement, new gas boilers, new kitchens and new bathrooms, complementing home energy efficiency im provement works. The Hillingdon Council housing landlord service is on track to reduce levels of non -decent homes to c14% by March 2026. 13. Highways and planning continue to support the borough’s economic and environmental ambitions. Despite one of the lowest net expenditures on planning nationally, Hillingdon meets 100% of major planning application target timescales and continues to outperform on highways maintenance and street works. EV charging availability remains below London averages, and work with regional partners is ongoing to expand charging infrastructure. PERFORMANCE DATA Performance data is included throughout the report. RESIDENT BENEFIT This report enables residents, communities, and service users to understand how well services are performing, ensuring transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement in meeting local needs. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications to the Council associated with the recommendations in this report. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public LEGAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct legal Implications that arise out of the recommendations set out in this report. BACKGROUND PAPERS None APPENDICES Six-Month Performance Report, 2025/26

Hillingdon Council: Residents’Services Select Committee Six-month performance report First half 2025/2026 (April to October) Approach The aim of this performance report is to assess the value the council provides by benchmarking our expenditure against key performance indicators across each directorate. The analysis is based entirely on publicly available data to ensure a fair, transparent, and repeatable comparison with other local authorities. As with all published datasets, the figures are only as accurate as the information submitted by each authority. Because this report relies on published national datasets, it uses the most recent information available. For most measures, this is the 2024/25 financial year, although a small number of datasets cover slightly different periods. These variations are due to the time required for data cleansing and standardisation by both local authorities and the relevant national publishing bodies (e.g. DLUHC, DfE). The report incorporates financial benchmarking from the 2024/25 Local Authority Revenue Expenditure and Financing Outturn to demonstrate how effectively Hillingdon deploys its resources to deliver positive outcomes for residents. To allow meaningful comparisons, expenditure figures have been standardised using published population data relevant to each service area—for example, using the 0 –18 population when analysing Children’s Services. Where available, comparisons are made against statistical neighbour groups, recognising that different services have different socio-demographic comparators, such as Youth Justice having a different statistical neighbour set from Adult Social Care. Where statistical neighbour sets are not published, nearest neighbours have been used instead. Executive Summary  Adult Social Care had the 2nd lowest expenditure of London boroughs per 100,000 residents.  Achieved a ‘Good’ Care Quality Commission (CQC) rating with an overall score of 73%. This score continues to see Hillingdon in the top quartile of inspected authorities.  Assessed across 5 key areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.  Resident Services had the 8th lowest expenditure of London boroughs for housing general fund and homelessness expenditure per 100,000 residents.  Achieved a C2 (2nd highest) grade from the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH).  Grading ranges from C1 to C4. Only 7 of 66 (10.6%) local authorities assessed achieved the higher C1 grade and most authorities (56%) received a lower C3 or C4 grade.  Children’s social care had the 3rd lowest expenditure of London boroughs per 100,000 children.  Achieved an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating in November 2023, the highest grade indicating a high quality, innovative service that consistently exceeds expectations where children achieve excellent outcomes.  Only 15% of Councils Nationally are currently assessed at the highest standard.  Hillingdon had the 4th lowest net expenditure in London per 100,000 residents.  Heathrow Airport’s presence within the borough creates unique operational and financial pressures that many other London authorities do not face.  Despite years of government underfunding and these unique challenges, Hillingdon continues to be recognised as a well-run council, consistently delivering strong value for money and maintaining one of the lowest net expenditure levels in London. Daniel Kennedy Corporate Director of Residents Services Resident Services Summary Hillingdon has the 8th lowest net expenditure across all London councils for general housing and homelessness, indicating a higher level ofcost-efficient service delivery. In addition, Hillingdon's Council Housing Service was awarded the second highest consumer grading of C2 by the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) in July 2025. Grading ranges from C1 to C4. Only 7 of 66 (10.6%) local authorities assessed achieved the higher C1 grade and most authorities (56%) received a lower C3 or C4 grade. Residents Services – Temporary Accommodation (TA) and Homelessness Understanding the data: • Housing Services net expenditure1 - Shows the 2024-25 expenditure. Value is in £000s, per 100,000. • Homelessness net expenditure 1 - Shows the 2024-25 expenditure. Value is in £000s, per 100,000. • Households in TA3 – shows the number of households in temporary accommodation on 31 December 2024, per 1,000 households. • Households in TA with children 3 - shows households in TA with children on 31 December 2024, per 1,000 households. • People sleeping rough3 - shows the number of rough sleepers in June 2025, rate per 100,000 people. • New people sleeping rough 3 – shows the percentage of new rough sleepers in June 2025. Residents Services – Temporary accommodation (TA) and Homelessness Hillingdon’s net housing services expenditure is £9,395,000 per 100,000 people, which is significantly lower than the London average of £14,908,000 and close to the England average of £9,355,000 demonstrating cost-efficient service delivery. Homelessness net expenditure in Hillingdon is £6,250,000 per 100,000 people which is significantly lower than the London average of £11,822,000 and below many neighbouring boroughs, indicating tighter and more efficient homelessness spending. The proportion of households in temporary accommodation (TA) in Hillingdon is 12.50 per 1,000 households, which is substantially lower than boroughs such as Ealing (26.05) and Harrow (15.02), and closely aligned with Bromley (12.82), suggesting lower reliance on TA than other high-pressure councils. Households in TA with children stands at 7.77 per 1,000 households, again well below London’s average of 13.03 and below neighbouring high-demand boroughs like Ealing (19.19), demonstrating better outcomes for families. However, the number of people sleeping rough in Hillingdon is 28.60 per 1,000 households, which is the highest in this comparator group and more than double the England average of 14.90, highlighting a significant concern around street homelessness. The percentage of new people sleeping rough in Hillingdon is 49%, which is above the London average of 35% and indicates that a high proportion of rough sleeping cases are first-time incidents, suggesting rising prevention challenges.Hillingdon has a long history of higher levels of rough sleeping compared to many London boroughs, in part because Heathrow Airport attracts rough sleepers.Proactive working with Heathrow Airport Limited and partner organisations is helping to keep rough sleeping numbers lower, with appropriate engagement and move-on support. During the last year, monitoring suggests higher rates of evictions by the Home Office from theiraccommodation has contributed to an increase in rough sleeping on a short-term basis. The Council is working closely with the Home Office and partner organisations to provide advice to those leaving Home Office accommodation about their housing options and move-on pathways. Residents Services – Housing Landlord Service Understanding the data: • Homes with valid gas safety certificate2 – shows the 2024/25 percentage of properties with a valid landlord gas safety record. • ‘True’ current tenant arrears2 – shows the 2024/25 unpaid accommodation rent and service charges owed by tenants living in benchmarked stock types adjusted for pending benefits payments. • Dwellings vacant but available to let2 – shows the 2024/25 snapshot of the total number of units that were vacant but available for lettings. • Average re-let time in days2 – shows the 2024/25 average time in days it takes for void properties to be let. • Satisfaction with overall service landlord provides2 – shows the 2024/25 perception of satisfaction for residents. Residents Services – Housing Landlord Service Gas safety compliance in Hillingdon is 99.61%, which remains very high but is 0.32 percentage points lower than the London average (99.93%) and 0.28 points lower than the England average (99.89%). Hillingdon’s Landlord Service is proactively working with tenants to ensure timely access to properties to complete safety checks. Current tenant arrears in Hillingdon stand at 3.91%, which is 0.5 percentage points better than the London average (4.41%) and 2.75 points better than London and Arms-Length Management Organisation (ALMO) (6.66%), although still 1.31 points higher than the England average (2.60%). The proportion of dwellings vacant, but available to let in Hillingdon is 87%, which is 16 percentage points higher than London (71%), 31 percentage points higher than London & ALMO (56%), and 35 percentage points higher than England (52%).Hillingdon has an ambitious housing delivery programme, buying new properties for letting. This means a higher-than-average volume of properties are being let at any one time, but it is important to note these continue to be re-let within a faster than average end to end re-let time. Hillingdon’s average re-let time is 30.64 days, which is 14 days faster than the England average (44.44 days), more than 22 days faster than London (52.85 days), and 27 days faster than the London & ALMO group (57.96 days) which makes Hillingdon the best performer ranking 1st compared to the benchmarking group. Tenant satisfaction in Hillingdon is 59%, which matches the London average (59%) but remains 14 percentage points below the England average (73%), indicating further work is required to understand and improve resident experience. An active tenant engagement programme is underway to involve tenants in the scrutiny and running of the service to strength satisfaction scores. Residents Services – Tenancy Satisfaction (Housing Landlord Service) Understanding the data: • Indicators are part of the Tenants Satisfaction Measures statutory return (TSM) and shows figures as of 2023/24. Residents Services – Tenancy Satisfaction (Housing Landlord Service) Hillingdon scores above average for several of the metrics on the Tenancy Satisfaction Measures, such as satisfaction with repairs. Hillingdon is 68.33%, which is above the London average of 63.86%, and one of the strongest results in this comparator group ranked 2nd highest. Hillingdon is also 2nd highest for satisfaction with the time taken to complete the most recent repair (66.99%), which is over five percentage points higher than the London average of 61.76%, demonstrating strong response times. Satisfaction that the home is well maintained is 64.72%, which is more than three points higher than the London average (61.08%), reflecting a positive perception of housing quality and ranks 2nd highest amongst the comparator group. Emergency repairs completed within the landlord’s target timescale are at 93.36%, which is better than the London average of 91.35% however non- emergency repairs completed within target timescales are at 77.21%, which is slightly below the London average of 78.19% ranking 7th highest amongst the comparator group, suggesting slower completion of routine repairs than some peers. Hillingdon is making significant investment to improve the quality of council homes, with more than £108m committed during the next five years, and rapid progress is already underway to reduce the number of non-decent homes. Although Hillingdon’s current proportion of homes that do not meet the Decent Homes Standard is 30.90% (March 2024)—around 14 percentage points higher than the next highest neighbour, Ealing (16.63%) —this is being addressed through major programmes of work including window replacement, new gas boilers, new kitchens and bathrooms, and wider home energy efficiency improvements. Significant and rapid progress is being made to reduce the number of non-decent homes in Hillingdon – performance is on track to reduce the proportion of non-decent homes to c14% by the end of March 2026. Residents Services – Highways and Planning Understanding the data: • Highways and transport net expenditure1 - Shows the 2024-25 expenditure. Value is in £000s, per 100,000. • Planning and development services net expenditure1 - Shows the 2024-25 expenditure. Value is in £000s, per 100,000. • Major planning applications decided in time5 - shows the percentage decided in time for Q1 2025/26. • Minor planning applications decided in time 5 – shows the percentage decided in time for Q1 2025/26. • EV charging devices 6 - shows publicly available electric vehicle charging devices at all speeds per 100,000 people in July 2025 Residents Services – Highways and Planning Hillingdon’s highways and transport net expenditure is £2,159,000 per 100,000 people, which is the 5th lowest among the comparator group but double the London average of £1,038,00. Hillingdon’s net expenditure on planning and development services was the 2nd lowest at only £29,000 per 100,000 people, only higher than Merton who had a negative net expenditure of £1,058,000 per 100,000. Hillingdon secures additional discretionary income from the planning process. Even with low net expenditure, Hillingdon’s major planning applications were all decided within timescales (100%), compared to the London average of 96%. Minor application timeliness was slightly lower at 89% but still above the London average (88%). Hillingdon’s public electric vehicle charging devices was the 4th lowest of all comparators at 79.8 devices per 100,000 people. The London average was significantly higher at 275.4 devices per 100,000 people.Hillingdon is working in partnership with other London boroughs to increase access to charging devices in appropriate locations. Residents Services Data Sources Data Sources: 1. LA revenue expenditure and financing: 2024 - 2025 2. Housemark 2024/25 3. MHCLG Stat. Homelessness tables 2024/25 4. Housemark 2023/24 5. LG Inform 2025/26 Q1 6. Department for Transport 2024/25

Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public PARKING ENFORCEMENT Committee name Residents’ Services Select Committee Officer reporting Richard Webb; Director of Community Safety and Enforcement Papers with report None Ward All HEADLINES This report provides the Committee with background information on the Council’s Parking Enforcement Service, the Parking Enforcement Contract with APCOA and performance under that contract The Council’s Parking Services Team, in partnership with APCOA , is responsible for the enforcement of all parking controls within Hillingdon and the management of Council owned car parks, along with bus lane and other moving traffic enforcement functions. The Parking Services team also provide for parking related services such as the operation, management and maintenance of payment facilities for the council operated car parks and on-street parking bays. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Select Committee: Notes the contents of this repor t which provides background information to support the scheduled question and answer session on parking enforcement in the Borough, and in particular the ongoing work with APCOA through which they have brought forward initiatives to improve facilities for motorists whilst generating an income for the Council. SUPPORTING INFORMATION This report provides background information for Committee Members on the Council’s parking services contract with APCOA, (the Borough’s civil traffic and parking services supplier), performance under that contract and other parking related matters . It is intended to support the Committee with background information for the parking enforcement review scheduled for the Committee’s January 2026 meeting. The Council’s Parking Services team, in partnership with APCOA , is responsible for the monitoring and enforcement of all civil traffic and parking restrictions in the Borough, along with the enforcement of some moving traffic regulations. The team also provide parking related services to residents , including issuing parking permits, and support for highways related functions by facilitating parking suspensions for works on the highway works, events, etc. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public This report highlights the continu al efforts made by officers to ensure that there is effective deployment of Civil Enforcement Officers in accordance with the terms of the enforcement contract, and that the parking contractor is achieving compliance with parking and moving traffic controls in the Borough. Parking Enforcement Contract The parking enforcement contract is managed through the Parking Service and Procurement teams and is based on separate specifications for services which are supported by Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) built into the contract. Scope of Contract The services that are provided by APCOA on behalf of the London Borough of Hillingdon include, but are not limited to the following:  Enforcement of parking controls and the issue of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for on and off-street parking contraventions.  Reviewing the CCTV PCNs for Bus Lanes, School Keep Clear markings and moving traffic contraventions such as yellow box junctions and banned turns.  Suspensions and dispensation of parking bays.  Provision of the parking enforcement and permits IT system.  Provision of a cash collection and counting service from the Civic Centre.  Business processing solutions, i.e., scanning of PCN related correspondence into the back- office Enforcement System. The contract employs in excess of 60 people on the Parking Enforcement Contract and APCOA is committed to providing a diverse workforce, offering opportunities to all. A reflection of this is that 33% of the team working on the Parking Enforcement Contract are Hillingdon residents. Penalty Charge Notices issued by Civil Enforcement Officer (CEOs) and deployment. APCOA are responsible for the recruitment and deployment of all the CEOs in Hillingdon. The role of a CEO is challenging; they are on their beat all day, often patrolling on their own and in all weathers. Although their role is to support the local community and ensure that there are sufficient parking spaces available, they are prone to receiving both verbal and physical abuse from motorists and the general public. The table below shows the number of ‘Code Red’ incidents in the last year. These are incidents where a CEO has been assaulted or has been in genuine fear that an assault is about to occur. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public Code Red Incidents Dec-24 1 Jan-25 2 Feb-25 4 Mar-25 5 Apr-25 2 May-25 1 Jun-25 4 Jul-25 2 Aug-25 2 Sep-25 3 Oct-25 3 Nov-25 2 Total 31 In addition, APCOA encourages CEOs to report incidents of general verbal abuse while on the street. This abuse can often be racist or misogynistic. They recorded 420 of these incidents in the last year. Despite encouragement to report, APCOA believe these remain under reported. The contract requires APCOA to deploy CEOs for (per day):  Monday – Friday: 236.5 hours (approx. 23 CEOs)  Saturday: 208.5 hours (approx. 20 CEOs)  Sunday & Bank Holidays: 70 hours (approx. 7 CEOs) There is a Key Performance Indicator within the contract which is triggered if the required hours are not achieved at a minimum of 94.5% on a daily basis and 98.5% in the course of any month. The graph below shows that APCOA have consistently hit deployment targets. The increase in issue rate per deployed hours shows progress in targeting enforcement to areas of high non - compliance, such as town centre locations in Uxbridge, Hayes, and Ruislip. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public The table below shows all PCNs issued by CEOs since the commencement of the APCOA contract in April 2022. The table demonstrates that there has been an increase in PCNs being issued in recent years, suggesting that there remains a compliance issue in the Borough. Month 2022 2023 2024 2025 Jan 4,503 5,846 5,412 Feb 5,266 5,704 4,922 Mar 5,994 6,022 5,951 Apr 5,876 5,528 5,900 5,064 May 5,696 5,553 5,800 5,844 Jun 5,226 6,206 6,073 6,955 Jul 5,202 5,374 6,460 6,739 Aug 5,032 5,488 6,156 7,444 Sep 4,887 5,618 5,706 7,175 Oct 5,426 5,953 6,322 7,295 Nov 3,806 5,815 5,796 6,382 Dec 3,931 5,917 5,424 Total 47,104 69,238 73,233 71,208 At a monthly average of 6,289 this provides for a full year forecast for 2025 of 75,482 PCNs issued by CEOs, demonstrating a 3% increase on 2024. Whilst officers monitor the number of PCNs being issued, regulations prohibit setting targets or Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public key performance indicators based on the number of PCNs issued. Deployment is based on the number of hours needed for APCOA to be able to cover all necessary areas of enforcement around the Borough. The CEOs are allocated a set beat to enforce to ensure that there is no overlapping of resources . Deployments are determined through a combination of factors, including data on non -compliance and resident or elected member feedback. They are changed on a regular basis through discussion between APCOA and the Parking Services team. CEOs can operate in pairs for a number of reasons, including:  Training - this can be seen by the CEO wearing an arm band to show he/she is undertaking training.  Certain locations (e.g., Hayes Town) require CEOs to work in pairs due to higher frequency of code reds and other safety concerns.  Overlaps in deployment are often necessary to cover lunch breaks and ensure continuous coverage.  In areas like Uxbridge w here there are multiple CEOs patrolling at the same time , the proximity of patrol areas means more than 1 officer may be seen in an area and, given that one of the bases is located in Uxbridge , officers returning to base may crossover patrol routes of other CEOs. In 2024/2025, APCOA consistently exceeded expectations by delivering over 100% of contracted hours for CEOs. The table below shows how many cases (i.e. PCNs issued) have been closed due to CEO error in the last year. These errors are monitored each month, and it is in both the interest of APCOA and the Council to ensure that this number is as low as possible. The contract sets a KPI of less than 1% of PCNs being issued in error. Total PCNs CEO Errors Error % Dec24 - Nov25 74,607 581 0.78% The majority of CEO errors are made by the new staff . CEOs who have been working on the contract for a reasonable period generally have a lower error rate. PCNs Issued Through CCTV Enforcement Cameras APCOA provides cameras to enforce a number of different contraventions throughout the Borough. The Council owns cameras which are coming to the end of life. APCOA and Council officers have worked together to reduce the overall number of cameras from 120 to 75 in the Borough, focusing on those that continue to identify higher levels of non -compliance with traffic regulations. This has helped reduce the cost of replacing this equipment and further reductions are in progress following the implementation of a new camera equipped enforcement car (details of which are provided later in this report) . The table below shows t he PCNs issued via CCTV cameras since the start of the contract. CCTV PCNs in 2025 have reduced as new cameras which Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public were installed in 2024 have corrected driver behaviour reducing non-compliance. Month 2022 2023 2024 2025 January 1,570 3,251 2,176 February 1,109 3,317 2,251 March 1,223 4,046 3,172 April 1,883 1,446 3,353 3,093 May 1,847 1,105 4,711 3,531 June 1,542 1,379 4,675 3,336 July 1,592 1,087 4,393 3,230 August 1,177 953 3,436 2,623 September 1,463 4,713 3,465 3,064 October 1,291 3,481 3,287 2,439 November 2,043 3,211 3,081 2,286 December 1,737 2,970 2,279 Total 14,575 24,247 43,294 31,201 Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and Spotter Vehicle In November 2025, APCOA worked with Council officers to introduce a CCTV vehicle for parking and moving traffic enforcement. This vehicle is equipped with ANPR cameras and will be used to patrol Permit Zones across the Borough. This vehicle can scan, on average, 11,000 vehicles each month, compared to a CEO patrolling on foot, which can scan c.1,200-1,800 vehicles in the same period. This allows APCOA and Council officers to focus foot CEO patrols in areas of higher non- compliance and adopt a more agile approach to compliance with moving traffic offences . The ANPR/spotter vehicle can also be used to monitor School Keep Clear (Zig Zag markings) providing a highly visual deterrence to non-compliance helping to keep the roads around schools safe. Agile Deployment As the CCTV vehicle frees up CEO resource, APCOA are working w ith Council officers to use APCOA Analytics to ensure resources are focused on areas of non-compliance. Effective use of data helps us drive compliance via:  intelligence-led enforcement - keeping deployment plans current and effective helps us improve IPH (issue per hour) and error rates,  reviewing staff performance to identify training needs, reduce error rates and increase IPH. School Deployment APCOA CEOs play a key role in ensuring the roads around schools are safe by driving compliant parking. Between January and November 2025, CEOs visited schools 4,185 times and moved on 16,099 vehicles, issuing 578 PCNs. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public Ruislip Lido APCOA provides additional deployment on a non -contractual basis to Ruislip Lido between Easter and the end of August. In 2025 APCOA provided 1,495 hours of additional deployment during this period on weekends and Bank Holidays. A relocation truck was also provided which relocated 80 vehicles in contravention of parking restrictions . The table below shows PCN issuance over the last year in the Ruislip Lido Area: Dec- 24 Jan- 25 Feb- 25 Mar- 25 Apr- 25 May- 25 Jun- 25 Jul- 25 Aug- 25 Sep- 25 Oct- 25 Nov- 25 Total 66 33 33 71 162 290 356 270 343 51 59 24 1,758 Enforcement Requests APCOA operates an Enforcement Line on behalf of the Borough which has taken 16,607 calls between December 2024 and November 2025. APCOA are tasked with attending to such requests within 2 hours. The number of enforcement requests continues to grow. Despite this , APCOA are still well within the agreed KPI. The shows the number of Enforcement requests per month and the average response time. Month Dec24-Nov25 Average Response Time Dec24-Nov25 Dec 821 00:37:27 Jan 907 00:38:18 Feb 984 00:43:59 Mar 1,172 00:42:29 Apr 1,208 00:40:15 May 1,244 00:49:53 Jun 1,176 00:47:58 Jul 1,182 00:58:50 Aug 1,152 00:41:38 Sep 1,197 00:48:33 Oct 1,356 00:50:13 Nov 1,227 00:57:08 Total 13,626 00:46:23 Other APCOA initiatives Although APCOA’s main role is to carry out civil traffic and parking enforcement across the Borough, they have also approached the Council with a number of other parking initiatives to provide a benefit to both the Council and motorists in the Borough. Some of these initiatives have been put into practice and others are scheduled for implementat ion towards the end of this financial year or early in 2026/2027. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public These initiatives support the Council ’s environmental priorities and can be evidenced by our existing partnership in providing an EV charging network throughout the Borough. APCOA can also support the growth of last-mile delivery hubs through the installation of lockers from multiple providers such as Amazon and In -Post, reducing the level of vehicles on the roads, providing a great service for residents and an additional revenue stream for the Council. Lockers APCOA have worked with officers to propose installation of a number of parcel lockers in car parks across the Borough. The lockers provide a set guaranteed income for the Council as well as providing a service to the public. Electric Vehicle Charging APCOA have worked with the Council to replace 35 old and broken Electric Vehicle chargers across the Borough. This has seen usage increase by 40%. APCOA have also proposed 2 sites where Rapid Electric Charging could be installed which would provide guaranteed income to the Council. Blue Badge Enforcement APCOA CEOs have worked on joint operations with Council officers to challenge Blue Badge fraud. This has led to 4 prosecutions. Wearable Air Quality Monitors for CEOs Three APCOA CEOs wear air quality monitors each day. These devices will provide valuable data on pollution levels in high -traffic areas and school zones, aiding in the identification of hotspots and supporting broader environmental initiatives aimed at improving air quality. APCOA in Hillingdon APCOA UK Head Office is in Uxbridge and in addition to the Parking Enforcement and Environmental Enforcement Contracts with LB Hillingdon they operate parking across Heathrow Airport. In total their UK business provides over 500 jobs in the Borough and their commitment to the area has grown further with the move of their new European Head Office to Uxbridge in September 2025. Their UK Head Office purchases Parking Permits for LB Hillingdon Cedars Car Park at a value of £28,050 per annum to the Council. This may expand further in 2026. Social Value APCOA work with Bishop Ramsey CofE High School and Ruislip High School each year to provide work experience opportunities. They have supported 25 students in the last 2 years providing work experience across multiple head office functions, and time spent in operations at Heathrow Airport. This is an ongoing programme and expects 20 students per year for at least the next 4 years. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public APCOA has also supported Head Start with a donation of £10,000 . Head Sta rt is a charity dedicated to helping children in Hillingdon by enabling the community to get behind the most vulnerable families when the odds are stacked against them, to help them give their children the best possible start in life. APCOA are working on additional ways in which they can support them moving forward, including repurposing used IT equipment. Motorcycle Parking Across the Borough, motorcycles are permitted to park free of charge in the following types of on- street parking bays:  Permit holder’s/ shared use bays - excluding Business Permit Holder bays.  Pay and display bays - for up to the maximum stay permitted.  Motorcycle bays without a time limit - unless otherwise stated on the sign (e.g., Ruislip High Street).  Council Car Parks - without a time limit Officers are aware of issues created when multiple motorcycle delivery riders use parking bays close to food outlets whilst waiting for delivery orders and prev enting the use of those parking bays by other motorists. In response to concerns about the impact of motorcycle delivery rider parking in Ruislip High Street , changes have been proposed and agreed to limit motorcycle parking other than in designated areas. Once the signs in these areas have be en changed, motorcycles will not be permitted to park in the current pay and display bays. As a result of these changes, motorcycles will be able to use the rear of the car park behind McDonald’s to collect orders or the designated motorcycle bay located directly outside McDonald’s. This bay is limited to 20 minutes, with no return within 1 hour, and can be used for short stays. Removal of Unlawfully Parked Vehicles Over the last few summers, the Council has com missioned a tow truck to enable cars to be relocated when parked in hazardous or obstructive locations near Ruislip Lido. Across the Borough, the Council will remove vehicles which are assessed as abandoned. The Council does not currently have a standing arrangement for the removal of illegally parked cars to a car pound. However, this can be commissioned on an ad-hoc basis to address persistent unlawful parking. To facilitate routine removal of unlawfully parked cars, the Council will need access to a dedicated car pound. Considerations for commissioning a car relocation and car pound capability include that the pound needs to be reasonably accessible to motorists who have had their car relocated, with consideration being given to different circumstances that could arise such as a family with young children having their car moved. The cost of the service also needs to be considered, with the Council incurring high costs should the tow truck need to travel some distance to the car pound. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public PERFORMANCE DATA Key performance data relating to parking enforcement service is included in the main body of the report above. RESIDENT BENEFIT The Council’s parking services, including the parking enforcement service, provide many benefits to residents including:  Ensuring the Council secures income from its car park assets.  Reducing traffic congestion.  Protecting disabled parking spaces for people who are eligible to use those spaces.  Improving road safety.  Protecting pavements from damage caused by inappropriate vehicle parking.  Ensuring parking is available for residents through managing parking in residential areas.  Minimising impacts from inconsiderate parking, e.g. parking in-front of driveways. BACKGROUND PAPERS Nil.

Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRESS REPORT Committee name Residents’ Services Select Committee Officer reporting Ian Thynne, Head of Environmental Specialists Papers with report Strategic Climate Action Plan – Progress Report 24/25 Ward All HEADLINES In January 2020 the Council declared: that there is a current global emergency and, as a consequen ce, agrees to extend the Council’s climate change targets beyond those currently set, as follows: To become carbon neutral across the Council services by 2030 and; To achieve 100% clean energy across the Council’s services by 2030. The 2025 Progress Report (covering 2024/25) provides updated performance data and priorities following the full review which was developed in 2024 and adopted in Spring 2025. It evidences continued reductions across the corporate carbon footprint and outlines actions for 2025/26. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Residents’ Services Select Committee: 1. Notes the content of the Progress Report SUPPORTING INFORMATION The Progress Report covers work undertaken in 2024/25 and publishes the latest available carbon data. It also embeds the outcomes of the 2025 Strategic Climate Action Plan Review. Performance Summary (Corporate Carbon Footprint – all static sources): Year tCO2 2019/20 (baseline) 6428 2022/23 4506 2023/24 4363 2024/25 3949 Uxbridge Civic Centre – Carbon Reduction: Emissions decreased from approximately 1,586 tCO2 Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public to 1,042 tCO2 (≈34% reduction) over five years. Further reductions are anticipated through ongoing Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS) works, including heat pump deployment, controls and fabric improvements. Fleet Emissions Monitoring and Reporting Fleet operations remain a significant source of emissions. The Council is establ ishing systems during 2025/26 to capture detailed fleet emissions data across waste collection, grounds maintenance and other services. Total indicative mileage recorded for core categories in 2024/25 was c2.97 million miles. Carbon Offsetting and Non-operational Assets PSDS: Funding secured for priority sites (e.g., Highgrove and Hillingdon Leisure Centres) enabling investment in energy efficiency and low -carbon technologies. Savings at these non - operational assets contribute to borough-wide reductions and can offset residual emissions. Tree Canopy and Sequestration: Borough-wide sequestration is estimated at ~7,342 tCO2 per annum, including ~3,108 tCO2 from Council -owned land. This natural capital significantly exceeds the Council’s current operational footprint and underpins the Borough’s net-positive contribution. PERFORMANCE DATA The Strategic Climate Action Plan is subject to a full annual review with the specific carbon neutral targets linked to data on energy usage. RESIDENT BENEFIT The Progress Report provides for an important analysis of performance against the Strategic Climate Action Plan. It allows for the identification of priorities, or where greater focus is required in order to meet the ambitious climate change objectives all of which are aiming to put residents first. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There is no financial cost in setting out the Progress Report but invariably some of the work and priorities have financial implications either through project delivery or energy savings which result in cost benefits for the public purse. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The production of the Progress Report is a non-statutory function. BACKGROUND PAPERS Nil. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public APPENDICES Strategic Climate Action Plan: Progress Report 2025. Hillingdon Carbon Report for Trees

London Borough of Hillingdon Strategic Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2024 – 2025 September 2025 Contents 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ............ 3 1.1 Hillingdon’s Climate Action: 2025 Update .................................... 3 1.2 The Plan Structure .......................................................................... 3 1.3 2025 Reconciliation and Refocus ................................................... 2 1.4 What is the Progress Report? ........................................................ 2 2 Carbon Footprint – Static Sources ................................ .......... 3 2.2 Carbon Reduction at Uxbridge Civic Centre ................................. 6 3 Carbon Footprint – Fleet ................................ ......................... 7 3.1 Fleet Emissions Monitoring and Reporting ................................... 7 4 Carbon Offsetting ................................ ................................ ... 8 4.1 Background ...................................................................................... 8 4.2 Works in Non-Operational Assets.................................................. 9 5 Carbon Footprint ................................ ................................ ... 10 5.1 Limitations ......................................................................................10 6 Carbon Sequestration ................................ ............................ 11 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 11 6.2 Woodland Sequestration ............................................................... 11 6.3 Tree Canopy Coverage in Hillingdon ............................................. 11 6.4 New Planting ................................................................................. 16 7 Theme 1 Community Leadership ................................ ............ 1 8 Theme 2 The Council’s Own Operations ................................ 3 9 Theme 3 Building better places................................ .............. 4 10 Theme 4 Using and Producing Clean and Green Energy ....... 5 11 Theme 5 Waste Management ................................ ................ 6 12 Theme 6 Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation ........... 8 13 Theme 7 Carbon Offsetting ................................ .................... 9 14 Theme 8 Sustainable Transportation ................................ ... 10 15 Theme 9 Transparency, Communication and Reporting ...... 11 1 Introduction 1.1 Hillingdon’s Climate Action: 2025 Update 1.1.1 In response to the climate emergency declared in 2020, the London Borough of Hillingdon committed to achieving carbon neutrality from its own operations by 2030. This aligns with a growing national movement— over 300 local authorities across the UK have now declared climate emergencies, each setting locally determined targets for carbon neutrality. 1.1.2 Following extensive consultation with residents, businesses, and climate action groups, the Council adopted its Strategic Climate Action Plan in July 2021. The Plan outlines the Council’s corporate commitments and objectives, all underpinned by an ambitious vision. 1.2 The Plan Structure Corporate Climate Commitments To lead and inspire our residents, businesses and schools to reduce their own carbon emissions. To become ‘Carbon-Neutral’ by 2030. To achieve 100% clean electricity across the Council’s services by 2030. To raise awareness and develop the potential of young people to respond to the challenge of the climate emergency. To enhance opportunities for biodiversity across the borough and particularly in urban areas. To remain open to the opportunity to go further, to be innovative and creative to exceed the stated goals wherever possible. To become the greenest London borough, to protect and enhance the environment, and to provide a brighter prospect for future generations. Climate Action Themes Objective Theme C1 Community Leadership C2 The Council’s Own Operations C3 Building better places C4 Using and Producing Clean and Green Energy C5 Waste Management C6 Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation C7 Carbon Offsetting C8 Sustainable Transportation C9 Transparency, Communication and Reporting 1.3 2025 Reconciliation and Refocus 1.3.1 In 2025, the Council undertook a full review of the Strategic Climate Action Plan. This reconciliation process assessed progress to date and identified areas where attention and action are most needed. Priorities were refined with greater focus on a more targeted series of actions. 1.3.2 The review was adopted in Spring 2025 and work is underway to progress actions through the appropriate governance and procurement processes. 1.4 What is the Progress Report? 1.4.1 This Progress Report provides an outline of the work. Included within the report is updated carbon footprint data for the Council, which directly supports the commitment to becoming carbon neutral by 2030. 1.4.2 Importantly, the report reinforces the Council’s commitment to transparency. By openly sharing performance data and priorities, it ensures accountability and helps maintain public trust in the delivery of climate objectives. 2 Carbon Footprint – Static Sources 2538 1976 2052 1725 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Gas Usage (tCO2e) 24/25 23/24 22/23 19/20 3890 2530 2311 2224 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Electricity Usage (tCO2e) 24/25 23/24 22/23 19/20 6428 4506 4363 3949 19/20 22/23 23/24 24/25 Operational Emissions from Statitc Sources (tCO2e) 2.1.1 The top 10 emitters make up more than half of the entire carbon footprint from the static operations. (i.e. not including fleet). The Civic Centre remains the largest contributor at over approximately 25% of the total carbon footprint. 2.1.2 This data informs priority action for interventions for improvements. Each segment represents a contributor to the carbon footprint with the civic centre (no.1) the largest. (nos relate to sites in the graph to the left) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Top 10 Static Operation Carbon Producers (tCO2e) 19/20 24/25 2 3 4 1 2.2 Carbon Reduction at Uxbridge Civic Centre 2.2.1 Over the past five years, the Council has made significant strides in reducing the carbon footprint of Uxbridge Civic Centre. Emissions have decreased from 1,586 tCO₂ to 1,042 tCO2, representing a 34% reduction. This achievement reflects the Council’s ongoing commitment to improving energy efficiency, reducing demand on public funding and optimising building operations. 2.2.2 This reduction is the result of targeted interventions, including upgrades to heating systems, improved insulation, and behavioural changes in energy use across the site. These efforts have not only contributed to the Council’s carbon neutrality target but also delivered operational benefits such as cost savings and improved comfort for building users. 2.2.3 Looking ahead, further reductions are anticipated through the ongoing Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS) works. Planned works under this programme will introduce low-carbon technologies, such as heat pumps, improve thermal performance and enhance building controls. These upgrades will accelerate progress toward net zero, reinforce the Civic Centre’s role as a flagship site for climate action, and demonstrate leadership in public sector operations. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Uxbridge Civic Centre (tCO2e) 19/20 22/23 23/24 24/25 3 Carbon Footprint – Fleet 3.1 Fleet Emissions Monitoring and Reporting 3.1.1 Monitoring carbon emissions from fleet operations is a vital aspect of understanding the Council’s overall environmental impact. Fleet vehicles, used for services such as waste collection, grounds maintenance, and community support, represent a significant source of operational emissions. 3.1.2 Currently, the Council does not have a comprehensive or centralised system for monitoring and recording fleet emissions. This presents a challenge in accurately quantifying the carbon footprint associated with vehicle usage and limits the ability to track progress against the Council’s carbon neutrality target. 3.1.3 Work is underway during the 2025/26 period to establish robust and reliable recording systems. These systems will enable the Council to capture detailed emissions data across its fleet, providing a clearer picture of its environmental performance. This will support more strategic decision-making and enhance transparency in reporting. The development of these systems marks an important step toward embedding sustainability into operational practices and ensuring accountability in the journey to net zero. Description Miles Refuse Collection 376,000 Large Sweepers 60,000 Small Sweepers 400,000 Grab Lorries 36,000 Caged Tippers 363,000 Tippers 365,500 Highways Tippers 52,500 Large Vans 112,000 Medium Vans 416,000 Small Vans 400,000 Pool Cars 90,000 Mini Buses 301,780 Total Mileage 2,972,780 4 Carbon Offsetting 4.1 Background 4.1.1 Carbon offsetting refers to the process of compensating for emissions produced in one area by reducing or removing an equivalent amount of carbon elsewhere. 4.1.2 In the context of the Council’s climate strategy, offsetting is particularly relevant for buildings that fall outside the Council’s direct operational estate. 4.1.3 While these buildings may not be under the Council’s operational control, they still contribute to the borough’s overall carbon footprint. By investing in carbon reduction measures, such as energy efficiency upgrades, renewable energy installations, or low-carbon heating systems, in these sites, the Council can offset emissions that cannot be eliminated within its own estate. 4.1.4 This approach supports borough-wide climate goals and also ensures that energy efficiency can contribute to cost savings and reduce exposure to volatile energy markets. 4.1.5 The Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS) is a UK government initiative designed to help public sector organisations reduce carbon emissions from their buildings. Managed by Salix Finance on behalf of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the scheme provides grant funding to support heat decarbonisation and energy efficiency measures across public estates such as schools, hospitals, and council buildings. 4.1.6 Launched in 2020, the scheme aims to reduce emissions from public sector buildings by 75% by 2037, compared to a 2017 baseline. It encourages a whole-building approach, combining upgrades to heating systems (e.g., replacing gas boilers with heat pumps) with improvements like insulation, LED lighting, and solar PV installations 4.1.7 The Council successfully applied for funding for the assets set out below. 51 475 977 1267 Baseline carbon footprint of assets identified for PSDS works (tCO2e) Winston Churchill Hall Highgrove Leisure Centre Hillingdon Sports and Leisure Centre Uxbridge Civic Centre 4.2 Works in Non-Operational Assets 4.2.1 The Council’s leisure centres are classified as non- operational assets, meaning they are managed by external operators and not directly controlled by the Council on a day-to-day basis. For example, the Council does not have authority over key systems such as temperature regulation within swimming pools, which are among the most energy-intensive components of these facilities. 4.2.2 Nonetheless, these buildings remain part of the corporate asset portfolio and are publicly accessible, making them important contributors to the borough’s overall carbon footprint. Recognising their potential for improvement, the Council has identified Highgrove and Hillingdon Leisure Centres as priority sites for energy and carbon reduction. Both facilities were included within the scope of the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS), enabling investment in energy efficiency and cost saving measures. 4.2.3 Importantly, while the Council may not have full operational control, the carbon savings achieved within these buildings are still eligible for inclusion in the borough’s overall carbon accounting. These savings can be used to offset emissions elsewhere within the Council’s estate, supporting progress toward the 2030 carbon neutrality target. 977 422 555 before after reduction Hillingdon Sports and Leisure Centre Improvement Works (tCO2) 475 202 273 before after reduction Highgrove Leisure Centre Improvement Works (tCO2) 5 Carbon Footprint 5.1 Limitations 5.1.1 The Carbon footprint data remains complex, influenced by multiple factors. Work is ongoing to streamline and standardise reporting across the board. 5.1.2 Fleet usage data is still uncertain, with improvements in tracking and reporting underway. Similarly, updates to the Council’s building stock may lead to revisions in both current and historical data. 5.1.3 Efforts continue to capture the full scope of the Council’s operational carbon footprint. However, in some areas, the absence of reliable recording tools limits accuracy. 5.1.4 As such, all data—past and present—is based on the best available information at the time of collection. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Carbon Emissions from Static Operational Sources (tCO2) 19/20 22/23 23/24 24/25 with Offsetting 4618 tCO2 The total carbon footprint based on all sources with fleet emissions included as previously reported 6 Carbon Sequestration 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 Carbon sequestration in the context of trees refers to the natural process by which trees absorb carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere and store it in their biomass, i.e. trunks, branches, leaves, and roots, as well as in the surrounding soil. 6.1.2 Through photosynthesis, trees convert CO₂ into organic matter, effectively removing it from the atmosphere and helping to mitigate climate change. This makes forests and woodlands one of the most effective and scalable nature-based solutions for carbon removal. 6.2 Woodland Sequestration 6.2.1 A well-established, mixed broadleaf woodland in the UK can sequester approximately 4 to 8 tonnes of CO₂ per hectare per year. Coniferous woodlands may sequester slightly more, up to 10 tonnes per hectare per year, due to faster growth rates. 6.2.2 Over a 50-year period, a hectare of woodland could sequester 200 to 400 tonnes of CO₂, assuming consistent growth and maintenance. Newly planted woodlands sequester less in early years but increase as trees mature. The amount of carbon sequestered by a tree depends on its species, age, size, and growing conditions. Mature trees typically store more carbon than younger ones, and fast-growing species can accumulate carbon more quickly. Forest ecosystems also play a long-term role in carbon storage, as dead plant material and leaf litter contribute to soil carbon over time. Well-managed woodlands can continue to sequester carbon for decades or even centuries, especially when combined with sustainable forestry practices. 6.3 Tree Canopy Coverage in Hillingdon 6.3.1 Hillingdon stands out as one of London’s greenest boroughs, with a strong commitment to tree management and expansion. Compared to other London boroughs, Hillingdon performs impressively in terms of tree canopy coverage. 6.3.2 Hillingdon is consistently recognised for its expansive green spaces and woodland areas. Its canopy cover is bolstered by a mix of mature trees and ongoing planting efforts, placing it well above many boroughs in northeast London, which tend to have lower coverage. The borough has the second highest tree canopy coverage in London behind only Bromley. 6.3.3 Woodlands are vital ecosystems that deliver a wide range of environmental, social, and economic benefits. They support biodiversity by providing habitat for countless species of plants, birds, mammals, and insects, many of which are rare or threatened. Woodlands also play a crucial role in improving air and water quality, regulating local climates, reducing flood risk through natural water absorption, and preventing soil erosion. 6.3.4 Beyond their ecological value, woodlands contribute to human wellbeing by offering spaces for recreation, education, and mental health support, making them essential assets in both rural and urban landscapes. 6.3.5 The Council commissioned a study by Treeconomics in 2025 to determine the extent of carbon sequestration across its own tree canopy coverage including that within in the Council owned land. This reveals that the tree canopy coverage across the borough provides an enormous role in climate change action. 6.3.6 The map to the left and chart overleaf outlines the role trees play within the borough in absorbing carbon. 6.3.7 The data clearly demonstrates that the borough’s annual carbon sequestration from canopy cover (7,342 tCO₂) significantly exceeds the Council’s own operational carbon footprint (4,618 tCO₂). This is a powerful indicator of the borough’s natural capital and demonstrates a substantial environmental asset that positions Hillingdon as a net-positive contributor in the fight against climate change. 6.3.8 Furthermore, 42% of the borough’s total tree canopy sits on Council-owned land. The data shows that 3108 tCO2 is sequestered annually from Council owned land. 6.3.9 The Council’s tree estate is therefore not just a passive landscape feature; it’s an active climate tool. Maintaining and enhancing this canopy coverage is essential to reducing carbon emissions. Land Category Total Size (Ha) Canopy Cover (Ha) Canopy Cover (%) Carbon Storage (t) Carbon Sequestration (t/yr) Green Spaces 1245 662 53.2 50874 2026 Corporate 791 90 11.4 8345 332 Housing 348 55 15.8 6918 275 Highways & Transport 281 50 17.7 4241 169 Culture 262 109 41.5 3822 152 Education 181 44 24.4 3386 135 Cemeteries 26 6 23.4 472 19 Total 3134 1016 32.4 78058 3108 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Carbon Sequestration (tCO2/y) per land owernship type in the London Borough of Hillingdon Other Land Council Owned Land Total 6.4 New Planting 6.4.1 New tree planting plays a critical role in enhancing carbon sequestration, especially over the long term. In the early years, young trees absorb relatively small amounts of carbon, typically just a few kilograms of CO₂ annually. 6.4.2 However, as trees mature, their sequestration capacity increases significantly. By around 10–20 years of age, many species begin to sequester tens of kilograms of CO₂ per year, and large, mature trees can absorb over 20–30 kg annually, depending on species and growing conditions. 6.4.3 Over time, the cumulative impact becomes substantial. A well-managed woodland planted today could sequester 200 to 400 tonnes of CO₂ per hectare over a 50-year period. This long-term benefit is amplified when planting is done at scale, with mixed species and in areas where trees can thrive. Additionally, trees contribute to soil carbon storage through leaf litter and root systems, further increasing the total sequestration potential. 6.4.4 Beyond carbon, new tree planting also improves biodiversity, reduces urban heat, enhances flood resilience, and contributes to public health and wellbeing. When integrated into strategic land use planning, tree planting becomes a powerful, multi-benefit climate solution. Year Trees Planted 2020/21 14,288 2021/22 11,655 2022/23 17,295 2023/24 8,378 2024/25 5,247 2025/26 4,045 (proposed) 6.4.5 Work is now underway to quantify the direct impact of new tree planting on the Council’s carbon footprint. Tree planting will be targeted and considered in the context of multiple benefits. 6.4.6 As the new trees grow, their carbon sequestration capacity will increase year-on-year, contributing to a steadily rising offset against Council emissions. 7 Theme 1 Community Leadership Ref Action Progress Expeceted Output R1.1 To provide a dedicated online resource to provide information on how to record your carbon footprint alongside actions that can help reduce it. The resource will also outline options for external funding and how to improve an individual’s environmental footprint. Procurement processes underway for carbon and energy reduction campaign 2026 R1.2 To promote and support volunteer groups with dedicated climate and environmental objectives. Ongoing support of Hillingdon Friends of the Earth. More groups to be identified through the ‘2026 Campaign’ Ongoing R1.3 To bring together community and business groups, along with other interested parties as part of a ‘people’s assembly’ to discuss and shape revisions to the review of the Climate Action Plan in 2 years time. Procurement processes underway 2026 R1.4 To use our unique access to communities through, for example, residents' associations, to support and promote climate action. Engagement with groups relating to waste, flood risk, planning, transport, green spaces are routinely engaged on actions required by the plan. These are addressed in the relevant sections. Ongoing R1.5 During 25/26, the Council will engage all schools within the borough and support them in the publication of a climate action plan reflecting the objectives of this Strategy, with annual progress reports to be provided thereafter. Procurement processes underway for carbon and energy reduction campaign 2026 R1.6 We will prioritise actions for vulnerable residents when considering climate adaptation and resillience Future action 26/27 R1.7 During 25/26, the Council will undertake a ‘Cleaner Greener’ public engagement campaign, which raises awareness and promotes climate action. Hillingdon Friends of the Earth to be supported with a Cleaner Greener festival in September 2025. This will inform a wider body of work planned through the 2026 Campaign 25/26 7.1.1 This theme was identified as requiring development in the previous annual review. Consequently, work identified in the previous report is being actively progressed this year, with several key initiatives to be wrapped into a campaign for 2026. 7.1.2 Procurement activities are ongoing to support the campaign which aims to raise awareness and drive action to reduce carbon and energy as well as informing of wider climate action. Community engagement efforts will be strengthened, including preparations for a Climate Assembly to ensure inclusive participation and informed decision- making. 7.1.3 Schools will be at the heart of the campaign with workstreams to help identify existing carbon footprints and action to make year on year improvements. Importantly, the identified actions will also prioritise reduction on energy bill. 2026 Community Leadership Workstreams 1. Website Improvements 2. Improved information for communities 3. Increased community group engagement 4. ‘Cleaner greener’ festival 5. Increased support for climate action groups 6. Schools campaign to reduce carbon and save money on bills 8 Theme 2 The Council’s Own Operations Ref Action Commentary Timeframe R2.1 All our operational assets under our direct operational control and financial management will be accredited as carbon neutral by 2030. Other assets we own but not under our control will be decarbonised in line with prevailing legislation and, with the availability of additional funding, go even further. Further progress made as set out in this report. Trend analysis to be undertaken following compilation of 24./25 data Ongoing R2.2 By 2030, our fleet will be powered by the cleanest available technology available within budget constraints and suitable for the operational requirement. Work underway to better capture and report on fleet emissions with prioritiy action to then be identified Ongoing R2.3 Ensure all corporate plans and strategies, particularly regarding estate management and property disposal, evaluate and mitigate for climate impacts. Ongoing Ongoing R2.4 Undertake feasibility studies and act to install small-scale low and zero carbon technologies in our own building stock. Ongoing. Civic centre and other assets priortised through the public sector decarbonisation scheme. Further work underway to identify solar generation projects. Ongoing R2.5 To ensure procurement practices align with the objectives of this Plan Ongoing. A climate action brief was provided as part of the large scale highways tendering contract. Ongoing R2.6 To ensure our streetlighting assets are targeted for further carbon reductions, using new low energy and renewable technologies. Ongoing and to be considered further as part of the new highways contract commencing in April 2026. Ongoing 9 Theme 3 Building better places Ref Action Commentary Timeframe C3.1 To use the development plan system to ensure all new major developments will be zero carbon. Ongoing Ongoing C3.2 Consider new planning policies to ensure all non-major new development is also zero carbon. Policies are currently under development ahead of a review of the Local Plan in 2026. These are intended to better reflect the current aspirations within the Strategic Climate Action Plan Ongoing C3.3 To ensure no new development is built in high-and medium-risk flood risk areas unless absolutely necessary and only when flood risk management is properly understood and mitigated in accordance with council flood policy. Ongoing Ongoing C3.4 To ensure all new development is environmentally responsible, including protecting existing designations and sites of interest. Ongoing Ongoing C3.5 To ensure that all new major development contributes to and supports the goal of sustainable transportation, such as the promotion of public transport, cycling, or EV charging. Ongoing Ongoing C3.6 To ensure that wherever possible during development, existing trees are retained. Where they cannot be retained, new trees should be planted to facilitate carbon gain. Ongoing Ongoing 10 Theme 4 Using and Producing Clean and Green Energy Ref Action Commentary Timeframe R4.1 To ensure and certify that the Council secures energy supplies from low or clean forms of generation by 2030 where feasible. Ongoing Ongoing R4.2 To investigate opportunities for large scale electricity generation from Council owned land (e.g. solar farms). Ongoing Ongoing 10.1.1 By 2030, the Council is expected to carry a residual carbon footprint that will require offsetting to meet net-zero targets. One of the most viable and scalable solutions is the deployment of renewable energy generation, particularly solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. Solar PV offers a clean, reliable source of electricity that directly displaces fossil fuel use. 10.1.2 The benefits of solar PV are substantial. Each megawatt (MW) of solar installed can power hundreds of homes and save approximately 400tCO2 annually. 10.1.3 Solar farms can be integrated with biodiversity initiatives, such as wildflower meadows or grazing land, making them environmentally multifunctional. 10.1.4 Offsetting through solar PV works by generating clean electricity that replaces grid power derived from fossil fuels. This reduces the Council’s Scope 2. Economically, solar farms offer long-term savings on energy bills, reduce exposure to volatile energy markets, and can generate revenue through feed-in tariffs or power purchase agreements. New Solar Farm Somerset: Once built and energised, the 25MW site will generate enough electricity to power 6,420 homes in the local area per year, whilst saving 5,300 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually. 11 Theme 5 Waste Management Ref Action Commentary Timeframe R5.1 Lead by example with a clear waste collection and sorting strategy for the Council’s own operations with year on year targets for improvements. Awaiting data for 24/25 Ongoing R5.2 Support the West London Waste Authority on waste reduction campaigns. Ongoing Ongoing R5.3 Work with businesses to reduce waste productivity and to provide more opportunities to customers to reduce and recycle their waste. Commercial Food Waste Service Expansion • Food waste collections introduced to 100+ commercial sites following legislative changes in April 2025. • There is a waiting list of businesses for food waste service, pending fleet expansion. • Survey indicates that by 2027, over 800 commercial sites serviced for refuse/DMR will also require food waste collections; about 100 eligible customers have not yet signed up. Business Engagement & Service Improvements • Targeted email campaign to businesses about new recycling requirements led to 70+ sign-ups in April 2025. • Switched commercial food waste bins from 240L to 140L for better handling and customer convenience. Ongoing R5.4 Encourage and support residents and communities to avoid, reduce, reuse, and • The Council holds two annual reuse and repair events: one in March (Repair Week) and one in September/October Ongoing recycle waste in that order. (Recycle Week), with one event in the South and one in the North of the borough. • Events are hosted by the LBH recycling team in partnership with reuse and repair partners and Adult Learning, who promote sustainable living courses. • In 2025, an additional cross-departmental event was held at the Battle of Britain Bunker. • The Council holds two annual reuse and repair events: one in March (Repair Week) and one in September/October (Recycle Week), with one event in the South and one in the North of the borough. R5.5 To ensure all waste is managed sustainably and there is transparency and information on processes the Council utilises data on the destination of waste. Ongoing. Data reported through the West London Waste Authority Ongoing 12 Theme 6 Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Ref Action Commentary Timeframe R6.1 To develop a climate change adaptation and mitigation action plan. 2026/27 action 2026/27 R6.2 To review the Council’s water consumption for its operations (such as green space watering, depot operations and corporate buildings) and put in place measures to reduce consumption Analysis underway Ongoing R6.3 To ensure the Council’s flood resilience and management work incorporates a changing climate and that the Council’s own land and property decisions consider the need to make space for water. See table below Project dependent 12.1.1 Climate-resilient spaces are environments that are designed or adapted to withstand and recover from the impacts of climate change. These spaces aim to protect people, ecosystems, and infrastructure from climate-related hazards like extreme heat, flooding and drought. 12.1.2 The Council has completed a number of flood risk related project with several more underway and at various stages. These aim to use Council land to protect residents from flooding as well as contributing to more climate resilient spaces and improving opportunities for No. Name of Flood Risk Project Stage 1 Park Wood SSSi NFM* Phase 1 and 2 Commencement due 2 Pinn Meadows NFM Commencement due 3 Kings College Road Rain Gardens Completed 4 Property Level Protection (50+ properties) (Environment Agency Project) Completed 5 Eastcote Rain Gardens Completed 6 Bessingby Park Flood Attenuation Completed 7 A40 Infrastructure Flood Alleviation Feasibility Stage underway 8 Elephant Park Flood Attenuation Completed 9 Court Park Flood Attenuation Completed 10 Kingshill Flood Alleviation Feasibility Stage underway 11 Colham Green Flood Alleviation Feasibility Stage underway 12 West Drayton Feasibility Stage underway 13 Frogs Ditch Catchment Commencement due 14 Croyde Avenue Estate Completed *NFM: Natural Flood Management 13 Theme 7 Carbon Offsetting R7 Action Commentary Timeframe R7.1 To develop an offset strategy to develop local solutions to any remaining residual carbon emissions from council operations. 2026/27 Objective 26/27 R7.2 To develop a tree and green space management strategy that supports and accounts for the offsetting objectives and commitments. Underway for 2025/26 with a particular focus on Ruislip Woods management and rewilding collaboration with the GLA 25/26 R7.3 Understand and increase current carbon sequestration through increased planting and changes to green space management. 25/26 R7.4 Increase the number of trees, particularly in urban areas to complement objectives to improve air quality and promote urban wildlife. Ongoing – see carbon offsetting chapter Ongoing R7.5 To exploit opportunities to increase carbon sequestration to maximise opportunities for biodiversity and flood risk management Ongoing and embedded within projects where feasible Ongoing 14 Theme 8 Sustainable Transportation Ref Action Commentary Resources R8.1 Produce a sustainable transportation strategy that reflects the objectives and commitments in this strategy. 2026/27 Objective 26/27 R8.2 Work with TFL to improve bus connectivity and services. Ongoing Ongoing R8.3 Identify opportunities for improved cycleways, cycle paths and public rights of way. Ongoing Ongoing R8.4 To promote cycling opportunities through campaigns and awareness events. Ongoing Ongoing R8.5 To secure improved cycling facilities across the borough. Ongoing Ongoing R8.6 Review the electric charging vehicle action plan in line with changing demand and data. We have adopted an EV charging strategy that needs to be reviewed to ensure it aligns with demands. 26/27 R8.7 To ensure the Council’s Air Quality Action Plan aligns with the objectives in this plan to ensure a safe transition to increased levels of cycling and walking in urban areas. Air Quality action plan due for consultation in 2025/26 (Oct/Nov) 25/26 Council joins partnership to procure new on-street charging points Friday 22 August 2025: Hillingdon Council has joined a partnership of London boroughs for the collaborative procurement of new electric vehicle (EV) charging points, as part of its drive to improve air quality and increase sustainable travel. “The council has joined forces with Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham, Haringey, and Harrow to successfully secure £7.5 million from the government's Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (LEVI) fund. The partnership is in the process of procuring a supplier to install and manage the new EV charge points across all five boroughs, with 1,673 new EV charging points set to be installed across Hillingdon. Most of the new charge points will be standard speed (3.7 to 8 kW), ideal for overnight charging. These will be installed on existing lampposts where possible, helping to reduce street clutter and make walking and cycling easier and safer for residents.” 15 Theme 9 Transparency, Communication and Reporting Ref Action Commentary Timeframe R9.1 To ensure transparency in the Council’s measuring of carbon footprints with clear details on methodologies as well as the outputs. All details will be available online. Work underway to improve website and reporting transparency 25/26 R9.2 To publish an annual progress report of the objectives of this plan This report Annual (Sept/Oct) R9.3 To establish a People’s Assembly to consider review of the Actions necessary to meet the Corporate Climate Commitments. End of 2026 Objective. Procurement processes underway to secure support to deliver the People’s Assembly 2026 (Oct/Nov)

Carbon Figures for Hillingdon’s Trees A Report into Hillingdon Council’s Tree Canopy Cover and relative Carbon Values Prepared by Treeconomics March 2025 Contents Authors John Rose - Treeconomics Katie Screech - Treeconomics Canopy Cover 3 Tree Canopy Cover by Ward 4 Street Canopy Cover by Ward 5 Tree Canopy Cover of Council Land 7 Methodology 9 Bibliography 10 2 Authors: Canopy Cover Canopy cover is a basic metric for measuring the extent to which we share our space with trees. Canopy cover can be defined as the area of leaves, branches, and stems of trees covering the ground when viewed from above. It is a two-dimensional metric indicating the spread of tree canopy across an area, and it can be used to gain a basic understanding of the ecosystem services provided by the urban forest. Using this report Canopy cover is a simple way to compare the distribution of trees and woodland across a geographical area. Understanding existing levels sets a benchmark against which future gains/losses can be measured. This exercise should capture the extent of the majority of trees, but would exclude the vast majority of hedgerows. In urban areas, the canopy is built up of three main elements: trees in private gardens, trees in parks, and street trees. These match approximately to recognisable land use designations giving a good indication of which policy options offer the greatest opportunity for canopy growth. Carbon storage: The total amount of carbon bound up in the above ground and below-ground parts of woody vegetation. Carbon sequestration: The annual removal of carbon from the air by trees in the form of carbon dioxide. This amount is sequestered annually, and adds to the amount of carbon stored. 3 Headline Figures Total tree Canopy Cover 20.7% Council Land tree Canopy Cover 32.4% Annual Carbon Storage (t) 184,000 £182 million Annual Carbon Sequestration (t/yr) 7,300 £7.24 million Table 1. Headline Figures for Hillingdon’s Urban Forest Ecosystem Services are high level estimates based on national averages linked to local valuation bands. Tree Canopy Cover by Ward
 4 LB Hillingdon England* South Ruislip Heathrow Villages Ruislip Manor Belmore Pinkwell Hayes Town Wood End Charville Uxbridge Northwood Hills Yeading Colham & Cowley Eastcote Hillingdon West West Drayton Hillingdon East Yiewsley Ickenham & South Harefield Harefield Village Northwood Ruislip Percentage Canopy Cover 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 46.5% 31.3% 27.6% 27.2% 25.9% 21.8% 21.7% 21.6% 21.6% 21.1% 20.2% 20.7% 20% 19.6% 17.7% 16.5% 14.2% 13.9% 11.9% 11.1% 10.5% 10.1% 8.5% Figure 1. Canopy cover by ward *Doick et al, 2017. England Canopy cover measured over 283 towns and cities by Forest Research Street Canopy Cover by Ward 5 X Figure 2. Street Canopy Cover by Ward. NB. Canopy cover measures tree presence but may not reflect street-level reality for residents. Ward boundaries, influenced by large woodlands, can skew figures. To address this, Street Canopy Cover focuses on trees overlapping roads and pavements, offering a more accurate tool for street tree decisions. LB Hillingdon England* Ruislip Manor Wood End Belmore Pinkwell South Ruislip Hillingdon East Charville Hayes Town Eastcote Yeading West Drayton Heathrow Villages Northwood Hills Uxbridge Colham & Cowley Hillingdon West Yiewsley Ruislip Ickenham & South Harefield Northwood Harefield Village Percentage Canopy Cover 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 34.2% 26.9% 23.8% 19.1% 15.1% 14.5% 13.2% 11.8% 11.3% 11.0% 10.2% 10.5% 12.8% 9.9% 9.9% 9.7% 8.8% 8.5% 7.1% 7% 6.9% 6.8% 4.5% 6 Ward Total Size (Ha) Canopy cover (%) Carbon storage (t) Carbon sequestration (t/yr) Belmore 225 11.1% 1,921 76 Charville 266 17.7% 3,620 144 Colham & Cowley 460 21.1% 7,454 297 Eastcote 362 21.6% 6,001 239 Harefield Village 871 27.6% 18,490 736 Hayes Town 384 13.9% 4,106 164 Heathrow Villages 2,352 10.1% 18,187 724 Hillingdon East 459 21.8% 7,679 306 Hillingdon West 200 21.6% 3,315 132 Ickenham & South Harefield 1,322 27.2% 27,614 1,100 Northwood 644 31.3% 15,480 616 Northwood Hills 287 20.0% 4,423 176 Pinkwell 320 11.9% 2,925 116 Ruislip 865 46.5% 30,915 1,231 Ruislip Manor 176 10.5% 1,426 57 South Ruislip 674 8.5% 4,414 176 Uxbridge 425 19.6% 6,415 255 West Drayton 350 21.7% 5,820 232 Wood End 356 14.2% 3,898 155 Yeading 251 20.2% 3,894 155 Yiewsley 323 25.9% 6,415 255 Total 11,571 20.7% 184,412 7,342 Table 2: Ecosystem service benefits nominally provided by the urban forest in each ward Tree Canopy Cover of Council Land 7 Figure 3. Council Land Types Figure 4. Canopy Cover within Hillingdon’s Council Owned Land* *Council land excludes TfL land along the A40 corridor, as well as locations within Heathrow Airport’s boundary Cemeteries Education Culture Highways and Transport Housing Corporate Green Spaces % of Total Council-owned Land 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 39.7% 25.2% 11.1% 9.0% 8.4% 5.8% 0.8% 8 Land categories Total Size (Ha) Canopy Cover (Ha) Canopy Cover (% of land type) Carbon storage (t) Carbon sequestration (t/yr) Carbon storage (£) Carbon sequestration (£/yr) Cemeteries 26 6 23.4 472 19 £465,289 £18,527 Corporate 791 90 11.4 6,918 275 £6,824,312 £271,736 Culture 262 109 41.5 8,345 332 £8,231,322 £327,762 Education 181 44 24.4 3,386 135 £3,339,725 £132,984 Green Spaces 1,245 662 53.2 50,874 2,026 £50,183,047 £1,998,232 Highways & Transport 281 50 17.7 3,822 152 £3,770,144 £150,123 Housing 348 55 15.8 4,241 169 £4,183,809 £166,595 Total 3,134 1,016 32.4 78,058 3,108 £76,997,648 £3,065,959 Table 3: Ecosystem service benefits nominally provided by the urban forest in Hillingdon LB Council Owned Land Methodology Data Sources In the production of this report, Google Environmental Insights Explorer (EIE) was used to collect information on the canopy cover for Hillingdon LB. Google EIE uses high resolution aerial imaging in combination with human driven machine learning to map tree canopy cover present. This is the most accurate data available and is updated regularly although the the data presented in this report will be reliant on the most up to date images at the time. Council land boundaries were supplied by Hillingdon Council. The original land types were grouped into broader categories (e.g., Housing combines dwelling and non-dwelling housing). This approach was applied consistently across all land types. Valuation Method This information was then used in conjunction with data derived from i- Tree Canopy to ascertain values for carbon storage and carbon 1 sequestration per hectare of tree canopy cover. Once canopy cover and ecosystem services were estimated the monetary value was calculated based upon prices provided by the UK government. Carbon storage and carbon sequestration values are calculated based on CO2e and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero figures of 2 £269 per metric ton for 2024. Area tonnage and value allocations are a simple reflection of share of canopy. I-Tree Eco (2024)1 DESNZ (2024)2 9 Bibliography i-Tree Canopy (2024). i-Tree canopy Configuration step 3. Available online: https:// canopy.itreetools.org/benefits DESNZ, (2023). Green Book supplementary guidance: valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Last accessed: June 2024. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/ government/ publications/valuation-of-energy-useand- greenhouse-gas-emissions-for-appraisal Doick, K.J., Davies, H.J., Moss, J., Coventry, R., Handley, P ., VazMonteiro, M., Rogers, K. and Simpkin, P ., 2017, April. The Canopy Cover of England’s Towns and Cities: Baselining and setting targets to improve human health and well-being. In Proceedings of the Trees, People and the Built Environment III, International Urban Trees Research Conference, University of, Birmingham, UK (pp. 5-6) . 10 Treeconomics Ltd Exeter Science Park 6 Babbage Way Exeter EX5 2FN +44 (0)1392 249 170 info@treeconomics.co.uk www.treeconomics.co.uk 11

Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public SECTION 19 FLOOD INVESTIGATION Committee name Residents’ Services Select Committee Officer reporting Ian Thynne, Head of Environmental Specialists Papers with report Section 19 Flood Investigation (Flood Event September 2024) Ward All HEADLINES Under Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, the Council, as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), investigated the significant flood event of 22–23 September 2024. A total of 172 flood incidents were reported, including 123 internal and 49 external. The majority were in Ickenham and Ruislip. The investigation identifies sources and causes, roles/responses of Risk Management Authorities (RMAs), and sets recommendations to reduce future risk. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Residents’ Services Select Committee: 1. Notes the findings of the Section 19 investigation and the scale of impacts across priority catchments; and 2. Notes the programme of actions for 2025/26, including targeted drainage improvements, community Flood Action Groups (FLAGs), and collaborative schemes with EA and TWUL. SUPPORTING INFORMATION The investigation was compiled through a range of risk management authorities, c ouncil service inputs, resident questionnaire responses (152 submissions), GIS catchment analysis, and site inspections (April and Summer 2025). Findings cover rainfall/river gauge evidence, flood mechanisms in key catchments, and actions taken before, during and after the event. This flood event was one of the largest in the Borough in recent years in terms of properties directly impacted, i.e. internal flooding. The investigation was commensurate with the scale and impact of the flood event and represents an extensive analysis of a range of information. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public Event Facts and Impact Dates 22–23 September 2024 Total reports 172 (123 internal; 49 external) Most affected areas Ickenham and Ruislip Met Office warning Amber warning 08:16–21:00 on 23 Sept EA rainfall (RAF Northolt) 47.8 mm over 11h15; 10.8 mm in 15 min peak Primary rivers implicated River Pinn; Yeading Brook (East & West); Ickenham Stream Priority Catchment Findings (headlines):  Bessingby Park (Catchment 2): Detention basins (designed ~1 in 5) less effective under event intensity; sewer surcharging at Whitby Road as river levels reduced outfall capacity; highway flow issues at Beech Avenue.  Breakspear Road South (Catchment 4): Surface water routing toward River Pinn; fluvial flooding into St George’s Field affected Derwent Avenue; continue HS2 scrutiny.  East of Ickenham (Catchment 5): Flow path across Breakspear School to Hoylake Crescent; pitch drainage to be checked; property resilience advised.  West Ruislip Depot Area (Catchment 6): Accumulation al ong Glebe Avenue; school car park/playground runoff to rears; recommend gauge on Ickenham Stream.  Ruislip Gardens (Catchment 12): Extensive highway/property impacts; low/blocked outfalls to Yeading Brook West; programme of gully and outfall upgrades; dayli ghting opportunity at Bridgewater Road Playing Fields.  Victoria Road Area (Catchment 17): Surface water accumulation at The Fairway/Down Barns Road; school flooding at Queensmead and Bourne; possible foul misconnection upstream of Bourne.  Brook Drive / Pin n Meadows (Catchment 26): Fluvial exceedance on River Pinn; groundwater limiting swale/pond capacity; PFR measures effective.  West End Road (Catchment 44): Southward surface water routing; station forecourt ponding at low point; Cherry Close drainage capacity/positioning issues. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public Action Programme (selection)  Gauges: Review coverage; install river level/flow gauges on Ickenham Stream and other gaps.  Highways: Targeted gully cleansing and spacing improvements; consider rain gardens/drainage channels in hotspot roads.  Outfalls: TWUL/Council to clear/raise/upgrade low or blocked outfalls (e.g., Ruislip Gardens) and share maintenance regimes.  Schools: Drainage surveys and SuDS options at Breakspear, Glebe, Bourne, Queensmead; develop flood action plans and pursue SuDS in Schools funding.  Schemes: Progress Pinn Meadows & Park Wood SSSI NFM; Ruislip Gardens and Victoria Road flood alleviation schemes; daylighting at Bridgewater Road Playing Fields.  Community: Establish FLAGs (Whitby Road; Clyfford Road and surround s); increase EA flood warning sign-ups; promote PFR uptake. PERFORMANCE DATA There is no specific supporting performance data. RESIDENT BENEFIT The Floods of September 2024 were highly impactful with reports of some displaced residents still in temporary accommodation over 6 months later. Extensive property refurbishment/repair works at Clyfford Road in Ruislip Gardens were evidenced by a series of skips on driveways which remained in the area for several months. The Flood Investigation provides an understanding of why the flood occurred, identifying weaknesses in the existing drainage network and providing a route to securing better f lood risk management and resilience. The Investigation is predominantly aimed at protecting residents so that the possibility of flooding is reduced, and residents are better prepared. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There is no financial cost in developing the Flood Investigation. Officers will continue to secure funding available for additional flood risk management. Recommendations for Highways and Green Space management will be considered by the services in line with existing budgets. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The production of the Investigation satisfies the requirements of Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act. BACKGROUND PAPERS Nil. APPENDICES Section 19 Flood Investigation

23 September 2024 Flood Event 1 Section 19 Flood Investigation 23 September 2024 Flood Event 23 September 2024 Flood Event 2 Acknowledgements We would like to extend our heartfelt thanks to all those who participated in the recent flood investigation, especially the residents who experienced flooding firsthand. Flooding is a deeply distressing event, bringing disruption, damage, and emotional strain. We recognise the significant impact it has on individuals, families, and communities. We are especially grateful to those who, despite the stress and difficulty of their circumstances, provided valuable input to the investigation. Your contributions are essential in helping us understand the effects of flooding and to inform improved flood risk management for our communities. Executive Summary This flood investigation report was written as part of the London Borough of Hillingdon Council’s (Hillingdon Council) duty as a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) under Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (FWMA). Heavy rainfall on the 22 and 23 September 2024 caused flooding and disruption across the south-east of England and London, including the London Borough of Hillingdon (Hillingdon). There were 172 flood incidents reported in total as a result of the rainfall event. This included 123 reports of internal flooding and 49 reports of external flooding. The majority of the flood incidents were located in Ickenham and Ruislip. The investigation aims to identify the sources and causes of the flooding, as well as the flood management responsibilities of the Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) and other relevant stakeholders involved. Based on these details, this report includes recommendations with the aim of reducing the risk of future flood events. As part of this investigation, the reported flood incidents were mapped within the hydrological catchments set out in Hillingdon Council’s Catchment Plan 2022. The flood mechanisms of catchments that contained more than one internal flooding event were analysed to identify the sources and causes of flooding on the 23 September 2024. This included the use of available data from Thames Water Utilities Limited (TWUL), the Environment Agency (EA), and British Geological Survey (BGS), and a site visit to each location. The analysis also considered actions taken by each RMA before, during, and after the event up to March 2025. During the event, the River Pinn, Ickenham Stream, and Yeading Brook experienced high water levels that rose above surface water drainage outlets. This reduced the surface water sewer network’s ability to discharge into the rivers, limiting its capacity to accommodate more flows. The result was that the drainage network became overwhelmed and caused surcharging. Locations at the low topographical points were particularly susceptible to surface water accumulation. Some of the flood incidents were caused or worsened by fluvial flooding from the River Pinn or the Yeading Brook. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 3 List of Recommendations Catchment 2 – Bessingby Park Area 1 Hillingdon Council Flood Officers should conduct a review of the flood alleviation works in Bessingby Park, ensuring that the basins are working as designed. 2 Hillingdon Council Flood Officers should facilitate the formation of a Flood Action Group (FLAG) at Whitby Road which may increase community flood resilience. 3 Hillingdon Council Flood Officers should further investigate the mechanisms of the fluvial flooding along Whitby Road and undertake remedial action if necessary. 4 Hillingdon Highways Team should consider reprofiling works and the installation of additional gullies along Beech Avenue to reduce the risk of flooding to properties from the highway. 5 Flood-affected residents should consider installing Property Flood Resilience (PFR) measures to reduce the amount of floodwater entering their property during a flood event. The National Flood Forum has a six-step guide to navigate the process of installing PFR measures. 6 Hillingdon Council Flood Officers should investigate options for further flood alleviation works in Bessingby Park and bid for future funding opportunities (where available) should a feasible option be identified. Catchment 4 – Breakspear Road South, Ruislip 7 Flood-affected residents should consider installing PFR measures to reduce the amount of floodwater entering their property during a flood event. The National Flood Forum has a six- step guide to navigate the process of installing PFR measures. 8 Hillingdon Council should continue to review HS2 plans, ensuring that the development does not increase the risk of flooding to surrounding properties. Catchment 5 – East of Ickenham 9 Flood-affected residents should consider installing PFR measures to reduce the amount of floodwater entering their property during a flood event. The National Flood Forum has a six- step guide to navigate the process of installing PFR measures. 10 Breakspear School should investigate the installed drainage of the artificial playing pitch to confirm the system is working in line approved drainage plans. 11 Hillingdon Council Flood Officers should investigate options for SuDS at Breakspear School and bid for future funding opportunities (where available), such as SuDS in Schools grants, should a feasible option be identified. Catchment 6 – West Ruislip Depot Area 12 Flood-affected residents should consider installing PFR measures to reduce the amount of floodwater entering their property during a flood event. The National Flood Forum has a six- step guide to navigate the process of installing PFR measures. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 4 13 Hillingdon Council Flood Officers should investigate options for SuDS at Glebe Primary School and bid for future funding opportunities (where available), such as SuDS in Schools grants, should a feasible option be identified. 14 The EA should consider installing river level or flow gauges on the Ickenham Stream as there is no gauge currently within this river. Catchment 12 – Ruislip Gardens 15 Hillingdon Highway Team should review the way the highways drain along Stafford Road, Trevor Crescent, Bedford Road, Clyfford Road, and Lea Crescent and consider installing additional gullies, rain gardens, or drainage channels along the route to reduce the risk of flooding to properties from the highway. 16 TfL should explore the installation of additional gullies along West End Road to reduce the risk of flooding to properties from the highway. 17 Hillingdon Council should continue to develop the surface water sewer daylighting scheme at Bridgewater Road Playing Fields with support from TWUL. 18 Hillingdon Council Flood Officers should facilitate the formation of a FLAG at Clyfford Road and surrounding area, with the aim of increasing community flood resilience. 19 Flood-affected residents should consider installing PFR measures to reduce the amount of floodwater entering their property during a flood event. The National Flood Forum has a six- step guide to navigate the process of installing PFR measures 20 Hillingdon Council Flood Officers should continue to work in partnership with the EA to develop the Ruislip Gardens flood alleviation scheme towards implementation. Catchment 17 – Victoria Road Area 21 TWUL should investigate a possible misconnection in their network upstream of Bourne Primary School. 22 Hillingdon Council Flood Officers should engage with Bourne Primary School’s maintenance team to conduct a drainage survey in order to better understand the drainage issues at the site. 23 Hillingdon Council Flood Officers should engage with Bourne Primary School to develop a flood action plan based on findings from the drainage survey and an understanding of how the site floods. 24 Flood-affected residents should consider installing PFR measures to reduce the amount of floodwater entering their property during a flood event. The National Flood Forum has a six- step guide to navigate the process of installing PFR measures. 25 Hillingdon Council Flood Officers should investigate options for drainage improvements at Bourne Primary School and bid for future funding opportunities (where available), such as SuDS in Schools grants, should a feasible option be identified. 26 Hillingdon Council and Harrow Council should collaborate to investigate opportunities for a flood alleviation scheme within this catchment. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 5 27 Lead Local Flood Authority officers should support investigate and support authorities with the implementation of flood resilience measures at Queensmead School. 28 Lead Local Flood Authority officers should continue to work in partnership with the EA and TWUL to develop the Victoria Road flood alleviation scheme towards implementation. Catchment 26 – Brook Drive, Ruislip 29 Lead Local Flood Authority officers should continue to work in partnership with the EA to develop the Pinn Meadows and Park Wood SSSI Natural Flood Management schemes towards implementation. 30 Flood-affected residents should consider installing PFR measures to reduce the amount of floodwater entering their property during a flood event. The National Flood Forum has a six- step guide to navigate the process of installing PFR measures. Catchment 44 – West End Road 31 Hillingdon Highways Team should consider installing additional gullies along Cherry Close and Eversley Crescent to reduce the risk of flooding to properties from the highway. 32 TWUL should investigate their surface water sewer system at Cherry Close and rectify any blockages and consider improvements in capacity. 33 Flood-affected residents should consider installing PFR measures to reduce the amount of floodwater entering their property during a flood event. The National Flood Forum has a six- step guide to navigate the process of installing PFR measures. 34 Hillingdon Council and TWUL should collaborate to investigate opportunities for highway drainage improvements within the catchment. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 6 Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 8 2 Risk Management Authorities .......................................................................................... 12 3 Flood Incident Details ....................................................................................................... 16 4 Flood Event Analysis ......................................................................................................... 26 5 Catchment 2 – Bessingby Park Area, Ruislip .................................................................... 28 6 Catchment 4 – Breakspear Road South, Ickenham .......................................................... 36 7 Catchment 5 – Central Ickenham ..................................................................................... 42 8 Catchment 6 – West Ruislip Depot Area .......................................................................... 49 9 Catchment 12 – Ruislip Gardens ...................................................................................... 57 10 Catchment 17 – Victoria Road Area ............................................................................. 66 11 Catchment 26 – Brook Drive, Ruislip ........................................................................... 74 12 Catchment 44 – West End Road, Ruislip ...................................................................... 82 13 Post Flooding Observations ......................................................................................... 91 14 General Recommendations ......................................................................................... 93 15 Flooding Incidents Outside the Section 19 Criteria ..................................................... 95 16 Before, during and after the Event .............................................................................. 96 17 Appendix A ................................................................................................................. 100 23 September 2024 Flood Event 7 Acronyms and Abbreviations Abbreviation Definition BGS British Geological Survey CDA Critical Drainage Area DfE Department for Education DWMP Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan EA Environment Agency FLAG Flood Action Group FWMA Flood and Water Management Act LFB London Fire Brigade LFRMS Local Flood Risk Management Strategy LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority MAFP Multi-Agency Flood Plan Harrow London Borough of Harrow Hillingdon London Borough of Hillingdon Hillingdon Council London Borough of Hillingdon Council HS2 High Speed 2 PFR Property Flood Resilience RMA Risk Management Authority RoFSW Risk of Flooding from Surface Water SuDS Sustainable Drainage Systems TfL Transport for London TWUL Thames Water Utilities Limited 23 September 2024 Flood Event 8 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Policy and Information 1.1.1 This flood investigation report has been prepared by Metis Consultants Ltd on behalf of the London Borough of Hillingdon Council (Hillingdon Council) as part of their duty as a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA). Under Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (FWMA), LLFAs are required to investigate significant flooding incidents and publish the results. 1.1.2 As stipulated by Section 19, Hillingdon Council must, to the extent that they consider it necessary or appropriate, investigate: • which Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) have relevant flood risk management functions, and • whether each of those RMAs has exercised, or is proposing to exercise, those functions in response to the flood. 1.1.3 After completing the flood investigation, Hillingdon Council must publish the results of its investigation and notify the relevant RMAs. 1.1.4 The criteria of flooding that triggers a Section 19 investigation is set by each LLFA for their area. At the time of writing, the criteria for Hillingdon Council are where more than 10 properties suffer internal flooding. 1.1.5 The flooding event on the 23 September 2024 triggered a Section 19 investigation, as there was internal flooding to more than 10 properties. A total of 172 flood incidents were reported regarding this flooding event, including 123 internal flooding incidents and 49 external flooding incidents. 157 of these flood incidents were reported directly to Hillingdon Council, with the Environment Agency (EA) sharing two additional reports of flooding, and the London Fire Brigade (LFB) sharing 13 additional reports of flooding. The majority of the flooding reports came from either Ickenham or Ruislip. It is possible more properties flooded given there is an acknowledged under reporting of flood incidents. 1.2 Methodology 1.2.1 To conduct the investigation, data was collected from the relevant RMAs through a series of emails and interviews. The source and data received is outlined in Table 1-1. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 9 Table 1-1: Data sources. Source Data Hillingdon Lead Local Flood Authority officers • Flooding reports • Photographs and videos of the event • Historical flood records • Hydrological catchment mapping Hillingdon Highways Team • Actions taken before, during or after the event • Formal view on the causes of the flooding Hillingdon Emergency Planning and Response Team • Actions taken before, during or after the event • Formal view on the causes of the flooding Thames Water Utilities Limited (TWUL) • Actions taken before, during or after the event • Flooding reports • Sewer network data • Formal view on the causes of the flooding Internally flooded schools • Actions taken before, during or after each event • Photographs and videos of the event • Formal view on the causes of the flooding EA • Actions taken before, during or after each event • Flooding reports • Rainfall data • Flood Alert data • Detailed River Network data • Mapping of flood risk from different sources • River level data • Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data • Formal view on the causes of the flooding LFB • Actions taken before, during or after each event • Flooding reports London Borough of Harrow (Harrow) LLFA • Actions taken after the event • Formal view on the causes of the flooding Community Engagement and Evidence Collection 1.2.2 To support a comprehensive understanding of the September 2024 flooding event, the Council launched a public-facing questionnaire, which was made available on the Council’s website from 3 December 2024 to 12 January 2025. The purpose of this survey was to gather first-hand accounts from residents affected by flooding, enabling the Council to collect qualitative and quantitative data to inform its investigation. 1.2.3 The questionnaire included structured questions regarding the timing, location, and severity of flooding, as well as open-ended sections for residents to describe their experiences in more detail. Crucially, respondents were also given the opportunity to upload photographs and videos, which provided valuable visual evidence of flood impacts 23 September 2024 Flood Event 10 and water flow patterns. In total, 152 responses were received, representing a significant portion of affected communities and contributing to a more nuanced understanding of the event. 1.2.4 The online surveys were supplemented by interviews and direct engagement with other risk management authorities and representatives from educational facilities that experienced flooding. Data Integration and Catchment Analysis 1.2.5 To provide further context to the community feedback, the Council undertook a detailed mapping exercise using Geographical Information Systems (GIS). This involved the integration of historical flood records, topographical data, and drainage infrastructure information to identify potential sources of flood risk within each impacted hydrological catchment. 1.2.6 Following this desktop analysis, a targeted site visit was conducted on 7 April 2025 to validate the mapped data and observe physical features that may have influenced flood behaviour. This included inspecting watercourses, culverts, surface water flow paths, and areas of known drainage constraint. The visit provided critical insight into the mechanisms that contributed to flooding, such as blocked assets, overland flow routes, and topographical depressions. Supplementary Site Investigations and Stakeholder Engagement 1.2.7 Further site inspections were carried out during Summer 2025, focusing on sensitive and high-risk locations, particularly Bessingby Park and Ruislip Gardens, where flood impacts were notably severe. These visits allowed officers to assess seasonal conditions, vegetation growth, and any interim changes to land use or drainage systems that may affect future flood risk. 1.2.8 In parallel, the Council maintained ongoing liaison with key stakeholders, including officers from the Environment Agency and Thames Water, to share findings, validate assumptions, and ensure alignment with statutory responsibilities. These discussions helped clarify asset ownership, operational responses, and future maintenance commitments. Review of Risk Management Authority Responsibilities and Actions 1.2.9 As part of the investigation, the Council undertook a detailed review of the roles and responsibilities of each Risk Management Authority (RMA) under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. This included evaluating the actions taken by each RMA before, during, and after the September 2024 flood event. Conclusions and Recommendations 1.2.10 The findings of this multi-faceted investigation have been compiled and presented in this report. Based on the evidence gathered, including resident feedback, site observations, GIS 23 September 2024 Flood Event 11 analysis, and stakeholder input, a series of recommendations for flood risk mitigation have been developed. These recommendations aim to: • Address identified vulnerabilities in drainage and surface water management. • Improve inter-agency coordination and emergency response protocols. • Enhance community awareness and preparedness for future flood events. • Support investment in infrastructure upgrades and natural flood management solutions. 1.2.11 The Council will continue to work collaboratively with RMAs and local stakeholders to implement these recommendations and reduce flood risk across the borough. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 12 2 Risk Management Authorities 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 There are multiple RMAs who hold responsibilities for managing the risks of flooding within Hillingdon. These are shown in Table 2-1. The responsibilities of other key stakeholders related to the flooding event are outlined in Table 2-2. Table 2-1: Relevant RMAs. RMA Borough-specific authority Flood risk management responsibilities EA EA Main rivers and reservoirs LLFA Hillingdon Council Surface water, ordinary watercourses, and groundwater Water & Sewerage Company TWUL Surface water, foul & combined sewer systems Highway Authority Hillingdon Council Public highway drainage Highway Authority Transport for London (TfL) Highway drainage on A roads Highway Authority National Highways Responsible for the Strategic Road Network Table 2-2: Relevant stakeholders. Stakeholder Flood risk management responsibilities LFB Responding to emergency calls related to flooding Hillingdon Emergency Planning and Response Team Responding to emergency calls related to flooding, produce a MAFP Harrow LLFA Surface water, ordinary watercourses, and groundwater within Harrow Bourne Primary School Maintaining the onsite surface water sewer network Queensmead School Maintaining the onsite surface water sewer network 2.2 Environment Agency (EA) 2.2.1 The EA is the national flood risk authority for England and Wales. They are responsible for managing the risk of flooding from main rivers, reservoirs, estuaries and the sea. In the borough, the EA has an important role in working with other RMAs to manage the risk of flooding from rivers and reservoirs and advising Local Planning Authorities on how development proposals may influence and be influenced by fluvial flood risk. They take part in emergency planning through issuing Flood Alerts and being a Category One Responder to flooding events under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 13 2.2.2 The Main Rivers within Hillingdon that the EA have oversight of are shown within the EA’s Statutory Main River online mapping and listed below: • Duke of Northumberland’s River • Ickenham Stream • River Pinn • River Colne • Frays River • River Crane • Wraysbury River • Cannon Brook • Bigley Ditch • Yeading Brook (the West and East arms) • River Crane 2.2.3 The River Pinn, Ickenham Stream, and Yeading Brook run through the catchments that were affected by the September 2024 flood event. 2.3 Hillingdon Council 2.3.1 Hillingdon Council has multiple duties to perform as an RMA due to its role as a LLFA, Highway Authority, and Category One Responder. The LLFA leads on managing the risk of flooding from surface water, groundwater, and ordinary watercourses. Other duties of the LLFA are outlined below under the different acts: Flood and Water Management Act 2010 • Develop, maintain, apply, and monitor a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) (Section 9) • Carry out flood risk investigations upon coming aware of a flood in its area (Section 19) • Establish and maintain a register of structures or features which are likely to have a significant effect on a flood risk in its area (Section 21) Land Drainage Act 1991 • Carry out flood risk management work if the work is considered desirable with regards to the LFRMS for the area, and the purpose of the work is to manage flood risk in the authority’s area from surface runoff or groundwater (Section 14A) • Regulate the flow of ordinary watercourses by prohibiting obstructions on ordinary watercourses and requiring works for maintaining the flow of an ordinary watercourse (Sections 23 and 25) Town and Country Planning Order 2015 • Undertake a statutory consultee role on surface water drainage proposals for major developments Flood Risk Regulations 2009 • Prepare a preliminary assessment report in relation to flooding in its area (Section 10) • Identify flood risk areas (Section 14) 23 September 2024 Flood Event 14 • Prepare flood hazard maps and flood risk maps in relation to each relevant flood risk area (Section 19) 2.3.2 Other RMAs have a duty to cooperate with LLFAs to undertake the above responsibilities. The LLFA can also carry out work in collaboration with other RMAs to help alleviate flooding within the borough. 2.3.3 As a Highway Authority, Hillingdon Council are responsible for providing and managing highways assets that are not privately owned, nor managed by TfL or National Highways. TfL managed routes in Hillingdon are the A4, A30, A40, A312, A437, and A4180. National Highways managed routes in Hillingdon are the M4 and M40. As part of Hillingdon Council’s responsibilities for their highway assets, they must minimise the risk of highway flooding and maintain gullies and drains that run beneath the roads and footpaths. 2.3.4 As a landowner, Hillingdon Council have a responsibility to safeguard their own land and property against flooding. Common Law also requires Hillingdon Council to carry out tasks, such as drain clearing and maintaining existing flood defences, so that they do not increase the risk of flooding to any neighbouring properties. 2.3.5 As a Category One Responder under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, Hillingdon Council plays a lead role in emergency planning and recovery after a flood event. The Council is required to produce a Multi-Agency Flood Plan (MAFP), outlining delivery of the emergency response to a flood and co-ordinates all relevant stakeholders, including other Category One Responders. 2.4 Thames Water Utilities Limited 2.4.1 TWUL are the sewerage provider for the borough, as well as a supplier of clean water in the borough along with Affinity Water. TWUL have responsibility for the management of flood risk in relation to the drainage network. Under Section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991, TWUL must construct and maintain their sewers ensuring sufficient performance under all normal local climatic conditions. This includes managing any potential failures of their infrastructure that may cause flooding and ensuring sufficient maintenance of public sewers is carried out to reduce the risk of sewer flooding. They are a Category Two Responder under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. 2.4.2 As part of their responsibility for ensuring flood resilience, TWUL have developed a 25 year Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan (DWMP) to reduce pressures on the service, including reducing the number of residential properties that are at risk of flooding. 2.5 Key Stakeholders 2.5.1 There are several other key stakeholders related to the flooding event, including landowners, Category One Responders, and Harrow LLFA, that do not act as RMAs for Hillingdon. Landowners 23 September 2024 Flood Event 15 2.5.2 Landowners have the primary responsibility of protecting their own land and property, including private roads, against flooding. Under Common Law, they are required to ensure any developments to their land or property do not increase the risk of flooding to a neighbouring property. 2.5.3 Riparian landowners, meaning those who own land that includes a watercourse, are responsible for ensuring any structures within the watercourse are clear of debris and the watercourse is able to flow naturally. Riparian landowners are also responsible for maintaining the bed and banks of the watercourse. 2.5.4 Hillingdon Council and TfL are major landowners that were impacted by the September 2024 flooding event. They also act as riparian owners for stretches of the River Pinn, Ickenham Stream, and Yeading Brook. Category One Responders 2.5.5 All local authorities and blue light emergency services are categorised as Category One Responders under Schedule 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, with responsibilities including assessing the risk of the emergency, putting emergency plans in place and advising the public in the event of an emergency. For flood incidents within Hillingdon, the most relevant Category One Responders are the LFB, Hillingdon Council, and the EA. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 16 3 Flood Incident Details 3.1 Rainfall Event 3.1.1 The rainfall event that occurred on the 22 and 23 September 2024 triggered flooding across the south-east of England and London, including in Hillingdon. The investigation requires an understanding of the event in more detail with particular attention given to the climatic events, weather fronts and rainfall data. This requires a granular level of detail to exact times and dates. All times included within this report are in British Summer Time. 3.1.2 During the event, a low-pressure front moved in a north-westerly direction over south and west London between the 22 and 23 September. The Met Office issued an amber weather warning between 08:16 and 21:00 on the 23 September, although flooding had already been reported in Hillingdon before this time. The EA calculated the return period of the rainfall event to be 18.49 years. This was calculated by comparing the rainfall event with the entire history of rainfall events recorded at the nearest rain gauge and ranking it to see how often that amount of rainfall has occurred. Meanwhile, TWUL approximated the return period to be 100 years as an equivalent to one month’s rainfall within a five-hour period. The intense rainfall caused internal and external flooding in Hillingdon, with Ickenham and Ruislip being the most affected parts of the borough. 3.2 Rain Gauge Data 3.2.1 Rainfall data recorded by EA rain gauges have been collated for this flood event. The closest rain gauges to the affected areas were found to be RAF Northolt and Pinner Cemetery, their locations are shown below the data in figure 3-5. 3.2.2 The data, presented in Figure 3-1, shows that the rain began just before 21:45 on the 22 September, peaked around 00:30 on the 23 September, then stopped by 09:00. At the peak, 10.8mm of rain was measured within a 15-minute interval at the RAF Northolt gauge. Over a period of 11 hours and 15 minutes, a total of approximately 47.8mm of rain was received in RAF Northolt and 27.0mm was received in Pinner Cemetery. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 17 Figure 3-1: Rainfall at RAF Northolt and Pinner Cemetery on 22 and 23 September 2024. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 18 3.3 River Gauge Data 3.3.1 River level data recorded by EA gauges has been collated for the River Pinn, Yeading Brook East and Yeading Brook West. The locations of these gauges are shown in 3.3.2 Figure 3-5. River level data could not be collected for the Ickenham Stream as there is no gauge within this river. 3.3.3 Figure 3-2 shows the water levels measured in the River Pinn by two EA gauges. The Ruislip gauge is located approximately 3km upstream of the Swakeleys Road gauge. Levels in the River Pinn started to rise after 22:15 on the 22 September. At the Ruislip gauge, the water level rose from 0.27m at 22:15 to a peak of 1.57m at 05:15 on the 23 September, an increase of 1.30m. 3.3.4 The EA records the normal range for this gauge as 0.14 - 1.20m. It was reported that the River Pinn breached its banks in Pinn Meadows, which is where the Ruislip gauge is located. At the Swakeleys Road gauge, water levels were around 0.67m at 22:15 and rose to a maximum of 1.47m at 04:13 on the 23 September, an increase of 0.80m. These levels are within the normal range for this gauge, which is 0.56 - 1.50m. 3.3.5 It was reported that the River Pinn breached its banks in St George’s Field, which is where the Swakeleys Road gauge is located. The Swakeleys Road gauge took notably longer than the Ruislip gauge to record water levels similar to those before the rainfall event. This is likely because the Swakeleys Road gauge is located downstream of the Ruislip gauge, meaning that surface water from a larger proportion of the river basin discharges into the river by this point. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 19 Figure 3-2: River level data from the Ruislip and Swakeleys Road EA gauges on 22 and 23 September 2024. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 20 3.3.6 Figure 3-3 shows the water levels measured in the Yeading Brook West by two EA gauges. The Village Way gauge is located approximately 7km upstream of the Gutteridge Wood gauge. Levels in the Yeading Brook West started to rise after 22:15 on the 22 September. At the Village Way gauge, the water level rose from 0.21m at 22:15 to a peak of 0.97m at 03:00 on the 23 September, an increase of 0.76m. These levels are within the normal range for this gauge, which is 0.06 - 1.19m. 3.3.7 At the Gutteridge Wood gauge, the water level rose from 0.43m at 22:15 to a peak of 1.22m at 23:00 on the 23 September, an increase of 0.79m. These levels are within the normal range for this gauge, which is 0.08m - 2.30m. 3.3.8 The peak water levels at the Gutteridge Wood gauge occurred much later than those at the Village Way gauge. This is likely because the Village Way gauge is located much further upstream than the Gutteridge Wood gauge, so there is a time delay as peak flows travel downstream. 3.3.9 There was one report of the Yeading Brook West breaching its banks during the rainfall event adjacent to Whitby Road, in between the two-level gauges. It is understood that this was due to a slight trench in the riverbank which operated as a flow channel. This has been identified for further investigation and remedial action. 3.3.10 Figure 3-4 shows the water levels measured in the Yeading Brook East by two EA gauges. The Thistledene Avenue gauge is located approximately 2km upstream of the Yeading East gauge. Levels in the Yeading Brook East started to rise 45 minutes later than in the River Pinn and Yeading Brook West, at 23:00 on the 22 September. 3.3.11 At the Thistledene Avenue gauge, the water level rose from 0.05m at 23:00 to a peak of 1.09m at 02:45 on the 23 September, an increase of 1.04m. These levels are within the normal range for this gauge, which is 0.01 - 1.10m. At the Yeading East gauge, the water level rose from 0.23m at 23:45 to a peak of 1.05m at 03:45 on the 23 September, an increase of 0.82m. The EA records the normal range for this gauge as 0.03 – 0.65m. 3.3.12 The Yeading Brook East reportedly breached its banks less than 500m upstream of the Yeading East next to Bourne Primary School. Like with the gauges within the River Pinn and Yeading Brook West, the hydrograph from the gauge further downstream shows a delayed profile compared that from the upstream gauge, as it takes time for peak flows to travel downstream. 3.3.13 The investigation has found that the coverage of gauges and monitoring locations is not sufficient to allow for a robust understanding of the catchment. A review of the efficacy and spacing of the gauges is recommended to ensure sufficient coverage in the priority flood risk areas. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 21 Figure 3-3: River level data from the Village Way and Gutteridge Wood EA gauge on 22 and 23 September 2024. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 22 Figure 3-4: River level data from the Thistledene Avenue EA gauge on 22 and 23 September 2024. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 23 Figure 3-5: Locations of EA gauges discussed in this investigation. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 24 3.4 Affected Locations and Hydrological Catchments 3.4.1 As mentioned in Section 1.1, there were 172 flood incidents reported in total as a result of the rainfall on the 22 and 23 September. The reports were classified into internal and external flooding as defined in Table 3-1. Internal flooding Flooding inside a building, including basements but excluding sheds and garages. External flooding Flooding within the boundaries of the property but not inside the property. It includes gardens, driveways, sheds, and garages. Table 3-1: Definitions of internal and external flooding. 3.4.2 Of the 172 reported incidents, 123 were internal and 49 were external. The locations of these incidents are shown in Figure 3-6; the majority of the reports were from the Ickenham and Ruislip areas. 3.4.3 Hillingdon Council have identified 43 hydrological catchments across the borough as part of their Catchment Plan 2022. They were mapped based on overland flow paths via either natural topography or manufactured drainage structures to an outlet. The locations of the catchments that contain internal flood reports from the 23 September 2024 are provided in Appendix A. Due to the large number of reported incidents, detailed flood analysis has only been undertaken in Sections 4 to 11 for the catchments that contain more than one internal incident in line with Hillingdon Council’s Section 19 criteria. External flooding incidents and catchments that do not meet the Section 19 criteria are discussed in less detail in Section 15. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 25 Figure 3-6: Location of reported flood incidents from the 23 September 2024. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 26 4 Flood Event Analysis 4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 This Section describes the reported flood incidents, the local flood risk, the local drainage network, and the flood mechanisms for each catchment. The discussion of local flood risk will cover surface water, fluvial, ordinary watercourse, groundwater, and sewer flood risk. It is acknowledged that the flood mechanisms for each catchment have been deduced based on the available data and may change as a result of new evidence becoming available. 4.1.2 Flooding from surface water occurs when water from intense or prolonged rainfall is unable to sufficiently drain away through constructed sewer systems or ground infiltration, resulting in surface accumulation. The EA defines the risk of flooding from surface water (RoFSW) within three categories, as described in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: Risk of flooding from surface water categories. Low Risk The area has a chance of flooding of between 0.1% and 1.0% each year. Medium Risk The area has a chance of flooding of between 1.0% and 3.3% each year. High Risk The area has a chance of flooding of greater than 3.3% each year. 4.1.3 Fluvial flooding occurs when intense or prolonged rainfall results in Main Rivers exceeding their hydraulic capacity and overtopping their banks. The EA defines fluvial flood risk within three categories, as described in Table 4-2. Table 4-2: Risk of fluvial flooding categories. Flood Zone 1 The area has a chance of flooding of less than 0.1% each year. Flood Zone 2 The area has a chance of flooding of between 0.1% and 1.0% each year. Flood Zone 3 The area has a chance of flooding of greater than 1.0% each year. 4.1.4 Ordinary watercourses are any watercourses that the EA have not designated as Main Rivers. Flooding from ordinary watercourses can occur if prolonged or intense rainfall causes peak flows to exceed the hydraulic capacity, resulting in flooding to adjacent areas. 4.1.5 Sewer flooding occurs when the volume of rainfall entering the sewer network exceeds the hydraulic capacity of that network, causing the system to back up and surcharge. Sewer flooding can be exacerbated in instances where the sewer is obstructed by debris, the receiving watercourse has high water levels blocking the outlet, or where there is ingress of groundwater. 4.1.6 The catchments relevant to the analysis are set out below. Additional references have been provided within the relevant chapters for ease of identification. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 27 23 September 2024 Flood Event 28 5 Catchment 2 – Bessingby Park Area, Ruislip Figure 5-1: Catchment 2 flood incidents from the 23 September 2024 flood event. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 29 5.1 Background 5.1.1 Catchment 2 is located in the north-east of the borough. BGS Geology Viewer shows that this catchment is underlain by Lambeth Group bedrock geology, which is characterised by a variable permeability with layers that can bear water. It includes a section of Brook Common which the Yeading Brook West runs through. It also includes the majority of Bessingby Park, which is the location of a flood alleviation scheme that involved the implementation of two detention basins in 2021 and 2022 in response to repeated flooding to nearby properties prior to 2021. As shown in figure 5-1 there were five internal flood incidents and one external flood incident reported in this catchment. The internal flood incidents occurred along Whitby Road and Beech Avenue. Surface Water 5.1.2 As shown in Figure 5-2, there are two major surface water flow paths that run from the north of the catchment through Bessingby Park towards the Yeading Brook West in the south of the catchment. At Whitby Road, they converge with a third major flow path which originates from Catchment 3 to the east. The result is an elevated risk of surface water flooding along Whitby Road. Fluvial 5.1.3 As seen in Figure 5-3, some Whitby Road properties in the south-eastern extent of the catchment are located within Flood Zone 2. However, all the reported flood incidents are located within Flood Zone 1. 5.1.4 Although located within Flood Zone 1 and 2, some properties reported internal flooding from the river. On investigation there is a slight trench that leads to the properties north of the Yeading Brook West which operates as a flow channel. This has been identified for further investigation and remedial action. Ordinary Watercourses 5.1.5 Figure 5-3 shows that there is an ordinary watercourse which runs through Catchment 2. It is an open channel along the eastern boundary of Bessingby Park but becomes culverted as it crosses the green space. One of the major surface water flow paths follows the route of the open section of the ordinary watercourse. However, the flow path diverts from this route when the ordinary watercourse becomes culverted, potentially indicating that the capacity of the culvert can only deal with low-intensity rainfall events. Groundwater 5.1.6 Groundwater flood risk mapping is not available for this catchment. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 30 Sewer 5.1.7 The TWUL sewer network data shows that the sewer network in Catchment 2 is comprised entirely of surface water sewers that travel towards the Yeading Brook West. There are only two discharge points into the Yeading Brook West in this catchment which are both located adjacent to 168 Whitby Road. Considering this, there is a likelihood of sewer flooding in this catchment during heavy rainfall events as high river levels could reduce the network’s ability to discharge, limiting its capacity for surface water. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 31 Figure 5-2: Catchment 2 flood incidents and Risk of surface water flooding. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 32 Figure 5-3: Catchment 2 flood incidents and Flood Zones. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 33 5.2 Sources and Causes of Flooding 5.2.1 LiDAR data shows the Yeading Brook West is a low point in Catchment 2, so rain that falls in the catchment is likely travels towards this watercourse as predicted in the EA’s RoFSW mapping. 5.2.2 Bessingby Park is located north of the Yeading Brook West, so surface water from the catchment must first run through this green space before reaching the river. The volumes of water flowing through Bessingby Park likely exceeded the capacity of the ordinary watercourse culvert, meaning that this watercourse would have been ineffective at draining the surface water away. 5.2.3 The detention basins implemented within Bessingby Park was designed to alleviate against the 1 in 5 year rainfall event, so these were less effective at managing surface water runoff during this more intensive rainfall event and the exceedance flows ran onto Whitby Road via the footpath between 123 Whitby Road and 180 Pavilion Way. As detailed in 3.3, the water levels in the Yeading Brook West rose during the rainfall event which reduced the ability of the surface water sewers to discharge, limiting how much surface water could drain away from Whitby Road. This was exacerbated as all the surface water sewer pipes in the catchment converge at Whitby Road. The volumes of water reaching this confluence was greater than the capacity of the network here, causing the sewer to surcharge as shown in Figure 5-4. Figure 5-4: Photograph of the surface water sewer in Bessingby Park surcharging on the 23 September 2024. Image credit: Whitby Road resident. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 34 5.2.4 In the north-west corner of the catchment, it was noted that surface water follows the topography of the land off the railway footbridge onto Linden Avenue and then straight down the footpath towards Beech Avenue, which is pictured in Figure 5-5. There is no gully at the junction between Linden Avenue and the footpath heading down towards Beech Avenue. The TWUL sewer network mapping shows that the gullies on either side of this point are the head of separate sewer runs that flow in opposite directions. 5.2.5 There are gullies on both sides of the road at Beech Avenue, however, the gullies closest to the end of the road are not in a position to capture any of the surface water running down the footpath before it reaches Beech Avenue properties. The only green space between Linden Avenue and Beech Avenue is a relatively narrow strip along the western edge of 58 Beech Avenue, pictured in Figure 5-6. Therefore, the likely cause of internal flooding along Beech Avenue was due to limited interception from gullies or green spaces resulting in large volumes of surface water flowing from Linden Avenue to Beech Avenue and entering the property through low-lying doors. Figure 5-5: Photograph of the junction between Linden Avenue and the footpath to Beech Avenue. Image credit: Metis Consultants Ltd. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 35 Figure 5-6: Photograph of the green space between Linden Avenue and Beech Avenue. Image credit: Metis Consultants Ltd. 5.3 Recommendations • Hillingdon Lead Local Flood Authority officers should conduct a review of the flood alleviation works in Bessingby Park, ensuring that the basins are working as designed. • Lead Local Flood Authority officers should facilitate the formation of a Flood Action Group (FLAG) at Whitby Road which may increase community flood resilience. • Lead Local Flood Authority officers should further investigate the mechanisms of the fluvial flooding along Whitby Road and undertake remedial action if necessary. • Hillingdon Highways Team should consider reprofiling works and the installation of additional gullies along Beech Avenue to reduce the risk of flooding to properties from the highway. • Flood-affected residents should consider installing Property Flood Resilience (PFR) measures to reduce the amount of floodwater entering their property during a flood event. The National Flood Forum has a six-step guide to navigate the process of installing PFR measures. • Lead Local Flood Authority officers should investigate options for further flood alleviation works in Bessingby Park and bid for future funding opportunities should a feasible option be identified. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 36 6 Catchment 4 – Breakspear Road South, Ickenham Figure 6-1: Catchment 4 flood incidents from the 23 September 2024 flood event. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 37 6.1 Background 6.1.1 Catchment 4 is located in the west of the borough. BGS Geology Viewer shows that the west of this catchment is underlain by London Clay bedrock geology, which is characterised by a low permeability, whilst the east of this catchment is underlain by Lambeth Group bedrock geology, which is characterised by a variable permeability. The catchment consists of a mix of residential housing and large areas of open green space which are currently being developed by High Speed 2 (HS2). The River Pinn runs along the eastern boundary of the catchment. As shown in figure 6-1, there were two internal flood incidents and one external flood incident reported in Catchment 4. The internal flood incidents occurred along Derwent Avenue. Surface Water 6.1.2 As shown in figure 6-2, there is one major surface water flow path that runs from the HS2 development in the north-west of the catchment towards the River Pinn in the east of the catchment. Residential properties located between the HS2 project, and the River Pinn are at a high risk of surface water flooding. Fluvial 6.1.3 As seen in figure 6-3, the EA’s Flood Zone mapping shows that Flood Zone 3 extends over Derwent Avenue, Kenbury Close, Greenacres Avenue, and Copthall Road West. Ordinary Watercourses 6.1.4 Figure 6-3 also shows that there is a small stretch of an ordinary watercourse in Catchment 4 which is located in the A40 Fields Woods which connects to the River Pinn. The ordinary watercourse is not located near to or upstream of any reported flood incidents. Groundwater 6.1.5 As seen in figure 6-4 the available data shows that Catchment 4 has less than 25% susceptibility to groundwater flooding, therefore it could be considered that the risk of groundwater flooding is low. Sewer 6.1.6 The TWUL sewer network data shows that the sewer network in Catchment 4 is comprised entirely of surface water sewers that mostly travel towards the River Pinn. When river levels in the River Pinn are high, there is an increased likelihood of sewer flooding in this catchment, as this would limit the sewer network’s ability to discharge and reduce its capacity. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 38 Figure 6-2: Catchment 4 flood incidents and Risk of surface water flooding. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 39 Figure 6-3: Catchment 4 flood incidents and Flood Zones. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 40 Figure 6-4: Catchment 4 flood incidents and groundwater flooding susceptibility. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 41 6.2 Sources and Causes of Flooding 6.2.1 LiDAR data shows the River Pinn is a low point in Catchment 4, which means rain that falls within the catchment is likely to travel towards this watercourse, as predicted by the EA’s RoFSW mapping. 6.2.2 As detailed in section 3.3, the levels in the River Pinn rose, reducing the sewer network’s ability to discharge and limiting its capacity. Surface water flowing from the north-west of the catchment across Derwent Avenue was likely unable to drain away into the sewer system and instead flowed towards the front of Derwent Avenue properties via dropped kerbs. This surface water was then able to enter properties through low-lying doors and airbricks. 6.2.3 The levels in the River Pinn reportedly continued to rise until it burst its banks into St George’s Field. Derwent Avenue properties back onto St George’s Field. As predicted by the EA’s Flood Zone mapping, it was reported that the fluvial flooding extended far enough to cause additional water to enter some of these properties through low-lying back doors and airbricks. 6.3 Recommendations • Flood-affected residents should consider installing PFR measures to reduce the amount of floodwater entering their property during a flood event. The National Flood Forum has a six-step guide to navigate the process of installing PFR measures. • Hillingdon Council should continue to review HS2 plans, ensuring that the development does not increase the risk of flooding to surrounding properties. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 42 7 Catchment 5 – Central Ickenham Figure 7-1: Catchment 5 flood incidents from the 23 September flood event. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 43 7.1 Background 7.1.1 Catchment 5 is located in the centre of Hillingdon and east of Catchment 4. BGS Geology Viewer shows that the east of this catchment is underlain by London Clay bedrock geology, which is characterised by a low permeability, whilst the west of this catchment is underlain by Lambeth Group bedrock geology, which is characterised by a variable permeability. 7.1.2 The catchment is of a mix of residential housing and open green areas, including Swakeleys House Estate, Swakeleys Park, Milton Court and King George’s Field. The Breakspear School is also located in this catchment, which installed an astro turf pitch in 2022. The River Pinn runs along the western boundary of the catchment. As shown in figure 7-1, there were two internal flood incidents, and two external flood incidents reported in Catchment 5. The internal flood incidents occurred along Hoylake Crescent. Surface Water 7.1.3 As shown in figure 7-2, there is a band of high predicted surface water flood risk that extends from east to west across the southern boundary of Breakspear School. There is also a high risk of surface water flooding predicted along Swakeleys Road, The Avenue, Ivy House Road, and Copthall Road East. Fluvial 7.1.4 As seen in figure 7-3, a significant area of land along the western boundary of the catchment is in Flood Zone 2 or 3. However, Hoylake Crescent is located in Flood Zone 1. Ordinary Watercourses 7.1.5 Figure 7-3 also shows that there is an ordinary watercourse in Catchment 5 which branches from the River Pinn and runs through Swakeleys Park before connecting back to the River Pinn. The ordinary watercourse is not located near or upstream of any reported flood incidents. Groundwater 7.1.6 As seen in figure 7-4, Catchment 5 is entirely located in areas that have less than 25% susceptibility to groundwater flooding, therefore it could be considered that the risk of groundwater flooding is low. Sewer 7.1.7 The TWUL sewer network data shows that the sewer network in Catchment 5 is comprised entirely of surface water sewers that mostly travel towards the River Pinn. As with Catchment 4, when river levels in the River Pinn are high, there is an increased likelihood of sewer flooding in this catchment, as this would limit the sewer network’s ability to discharge and reduce its capacity. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 44 Figure 7-2: Catchment 5 flood incidents and Risk of surface water flooding. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 45 Figure 7-3: Catchment 5 flood incidents and Flood Zones. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 46 Figure 7-4: Catchment 5 flood incidents and groundwater flooding susceptibility. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 47 7.2 Sources and Causes of Flooding 7.2.1 In the north of Catchment 5, LiDAR data shows that the land slopes in the south-westerly direction towards the River Pinn. This means surface water flows from the north of the catchment through Breakspear School to Hoylake Crescent before reaching the River Pinn, which aligns with observations from local residents and the modelled surface water flooding. 7.2.2 The River Pinn was reported to have burst its banks along the western boundary of the catchment, although there were no reports of the fluvial flooding extending to properties in this catchment. However, this reinforces the conclusions that the receiving river had limited capacity and in turn surface water sewers had limited ability to discharge surface water runoff. This aligns with the flow path shown on the surface water flood risk map, as well as the river level data outlined in section 3.3. 7.2.3 The questionnaire responses identified that the artificial playing pitch at Breakspear School either caused or exacerbated the flooding. The artificial playing pitch was proposed with an underlying permeable sub-base which was designed to provide surface water attenuation. However, it is necessary to note that the flow path modelled in this area occurs to the east of the artificial playing pitch and runs westwards across the school and a part of Hoylake Crescent towards the River Pinn. 7.2.4 The artificial playing pitch was identified through the questionnaire as being a contributory factor because water was seen cascading off it and onto the road. The playing pitch is towards the western end of a lengthy flow path that collects water from distance to the east. The planning requirements in place at the time of approval of the new playing pitch (2231/APP/2021/3980) related to the runoff occurring from the site itself, i.e. no increased risk of flooding from the proposed development. There is no requirement to reduce runoff occurring elsewhere in the catchment. 7.2.5 Consequently, on 23 September 2024 the observations recorded for Breakspear School reflect the modelling and flow route from further to the east. It is therefore likely that the artificial surface at the playing pitch was not the main contributory factor to the quantity of water running off given it is at towards the end of a flow path from a much wider catchment. This assumption is based on the installation of the drainage proposals as proposed within the planning application. 7.2.6 Further investigative work is outlined in the recommendations. Ultimately, the rainfall event led to large volumes of surface water flowing through the back gardens of Hoylake Crescent properties towards the River Pinn, as shown in Figure 7-5. This water was reportedly able to enter two Hoylake Crescent properties through low-lying airbricks and back doors. Property level resilience measures should be considered for these properties. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 48 Figure 7-5: Photograph of surface water flooding to the back garden of a Hoylake Crescent property on the 23 September 2024. Image credit: Hoylake Crescent resident. 7.3 Recommendations • Flood-affected residents should consider installing PFR measures to reduce the amount of floodwater entering their property during a flood event. The National Flood Forum has a six-step guide to navigate the process of installing PFR measures. • Breakspear School should investigate the installed drainage of the artificial playing pitch to confirm the system is working in line with approved drainage plans. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 49 8 Catchment 6 – West Ruislip Depot Area Figure 8-1: Catchment 6 flood incidents from the 23 September 2024 flood event. 23 September 2024 Flood Event 50 8.1 Background 8.1.1 Catchment 6 is located in the centre of borough and east of Catchment 5. BGS Geology Viewer shows that this catchment is underlain by London Clay bedrock geology, which is characterised by a low permeability. The catchment consists of a mix of residential housing and a large open green space called Ickenham Marsh. Glebe Primary School is also located in this catchment. The Ickenham Stream runs from the north-east to the south-west of this catchment. As shown figure 8-1, there were four internal flood incidents, and two external flood incidents reported in Catchment 6. The internal flood incidents occurred along Glebe Avenue and Aylsham Drive. Surface Water 8.1.2 Figure 8-2 shows a major surface water flow path that flows from Aylsham Drive through Ickenham Marsh before following the route of Ickenham Stream. There is another major flow path that flows along the Metropolitan and Piccadilly Line railway before, again, following the route of Ickenham Stream. The result is a large area of land predicted to be at high risk of surface water flooding further downstream of the Ickenham Stream, including properties along Glebe Avenue. Fluvial 8.1.3 Flood Zone 2 and 3 runs parallel with the Ickenham Stream, and extends over properties along High Road Ickenham, Tweeddale Avenue, Nithsdale Grove, and Austins Lane (see figure 8-3). Further south in the catchment, Flood Zone 2 and 3 are mostly located on the eastern side of the Ickenham Stream, covering Ickenham Marsh. Glebe Avenue and Aylsham Drive are within Flood Zone 1. Ordinary Watercourses 8.1.4 Figure 8-3 shows that there are no mapped ordinary watercourses within Catchment 6, therefore it could be considered

Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public CABINET FORWARD PLAN Committee name Residents’ Services Select Committee Officer reporting Liz Penny, Democratic Services Officer 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 Residents’ Services Select Committee notes 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 fact ors 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. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: 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. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public BACKGROUND PAPERS  Protocol on Overview & Scrutiny and Cabinet relations adopted by Council 12 September 2019  Scrutiny Call-in App

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) 26 Biannual Performance Report Cabinet will receive its biannual report performance report for the current year, looking back on how the Council is delivering on key service metrics and the Council Strategy - and looking ahead at planned actions. N/A 23 December Cllr Eddie Lavery / All Cabinet Members All Ian Kavanagh Matthew Wallbridge Public 36 Infrastructure Funding Statement Cabinet will receive an annual report setting out the Council's Infrastructure Funding Statement, a document it is required to publish which also monitors spending on section 106 (developer contribution) monies along with the Community Infrastructure levy over the past year. All 23 December Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing & Growth Residents' Services Andrew Tebbutt Dan Kennedy Public SI Public Preview of matters to be considered in private A report to Cabinet to provide maximum transparency to residents on the private and confidential matters to be considered later in Part 2 of the Cabinet meeting and agenda. TBC 23 December TBC TBC Democratic Services Public SI Reports from Select Committees Reports, findings and recommendations for consideration by the Cabinet, when referred from the appropriate Committee. All 23 December TBC TBC Democratic Services Public 28b Statement of Licensing Policy (POLICY FRAMEWORK) Every 5 years the Council is required to review its Licensing Policy, which Council officers and Licensing Sub-Committee operate within when making such licensing decisions. Following consultation, Cabinet will consider recommending a reviewed Statement of Licensing Policy to the Full Council All 23 December 22 January 2026 - adoption Cllr Wayne Bridges - Community & Environment Residents' Services P - Daniel Ferrer / Stephanie Waterford Daniel Kennedy Public SI 2026/27 Budget and Future Medium-Term Financial Strategy (BUDGET FRAMEWORK) This report will set out the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), which includes the draft General Fund reserve budget and capital programme for 2026/27 for consultation, along with indicative projections for the following four years. This will also include the HRA rents for consideration and may include Council Tax Reduction Scheme proposals. Cabinet may also consider the outcome of consultation on proposed mid-year changes to fees and charges. All 23 December 26 February 2026 - adoption Cllr Eddie Lavery - Finance & Transformation All Andy Goodwin Steve Muldoon Public Decision-Maker Cabinet Member Lead & Officers DECEMBER 2025 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 43 Private Sector Housing Improvement Programme The Cabinet Member will consider an improvement programme on the Council's approach to regulating the private rented housing sector to ensure residents in rented properties in the borough have safe and secure accommodation and that property conditions meet relevant standards. All December Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing Growth Residents' Services Richard Webb Dan Kennedy Public 17 Annual Lettings Plan The Cabinet Member will consider approval of a lettings policy and plan in support of delivering the Council's Temporary Accommodation Action Plan. All December Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing Growth Residents' Services Adam Stephenson / Debbie Weller / Roy Dunbar Dan Kennedy Public 73a Rural Activities Garden Centre Following Cabinet's decision to close retail operations on 26 June, following further consultation and engagement with those in receipt of assessed social care services and those who attend the RAGC as volunteers on proposals to relocate services, under delegated authority the Cabinet Member will make a decision on the future of the RAGC site and relocation of service provision accordingly. Colham & Cowley December Cllr Wayne Bridges - Community & Environment Residents' Services / Health & Social Care Steve Brown Dan Kennedy Public 33 Tender contract for the collection & treatment of Co- mingled dry mixed recycling Cabinet will receive an update on the current position within the dry mixed recycling materials market and potential legislative changes which may impact the way that the Council operates its recycling collections in the future. In considering this, Cabinet will consider a supplier for such services, after competitive tender. All 15 January Cllr Wayne Bridges - Residents' Services Residents' Services Daniel Long Dan Kennedy Private (3) JANUARY 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 24 Temporary Accommodation Action Plan Monitoring Cabinet will receive a quarterly update, or at a frequency as determined by the Cabinet Member, on progress on the delivery of the Temporary Accommodation Strategy and Action Plan presented to Cabinet in February 2025. This will be aligned with the Homelessness Prevention and Rough Sleeping Strategy and the Medium-Term Financial Strategy, which is to include details of actions taken to bring empty homes across the Borough back into occupation. All 15 January Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing Growth Residents' Services Debbie Weller Dan Kennedy Public SI Public Preview of matters to be considered in private A report to Cabinet to provide maximum transparency to residents on the private and confidential matters to be considered later in Part 2 of the Cabinet meeting and agenda. TBC 15 January TBC TBC Democratic Services Public SI Reports from Select Committees Reports, findings and recommendations for consideration by the Cabinet, when referred from the appropriate Committee. All 15 January TBC TBC Democratic Services Public 84 Local Development Scheme The Council is required to update its Local Development Scheme (LDS). A LDS is required under section 15 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This must specify the development plan documents (incl. Local Plan) which, when prepared, will comprise part of the development plan for the area. Full Council will receive an updated plan for consideration after Cabinet's recommendation. All 15 January 22 January 2026 Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing & Growth N/A Gavin Polkinghorn Dan Kennedy Public 28c Statement of Licensing Policy (POLICY FRAMEWORK) Every 5 years the Council is required to review its Licensing Policy, which Council officers and Licensing Sub-Committee operate within when making such licensing decisions. Following Cabinet consideration, full Council will consider the adoption of the Statement of Licensing Policy. All 22 January 2026 - adoption Cllr Wayne Bridges - Community & Environment Residents' Services P - Daniel Ferrer / Stephanie Waterford Daniel Kennedy Public 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 Audit Committee Annual Report The Audit Committee is required to submit an annual report to Council outlining the Committee’s activities over the previous year. This report summarises the work of the Audit Committee and how it has undertaken its responsibilities in respect of: Internal Audit, External Audit, Counter Fraud, Risk Management and the Financial reporting process of the Statement of Accounts. N/A 22 January 2026 N/A N/A Democratic Services / Claire Baker Steve Muldoon Public SI Programme of Meetings for the next Municipal Year Each year the full Council agrees the programme of meetings for the ensuing Municipal Year, setting out the dates and times of Council, Cabinet and Committee meetings. N/A 22 January 2026 N/A N/A Lloyd White Public SI Council Tax-Base and Business Rates Forecast 2026/27 This report sets out the proposed Council Taxbase and Business Rates Forecast for the forthcoming financial year and in accordance with the legislation for approval by the full Council. The Council is required to calculate both its Council Taxbase as at 30 November 2023 and the Business Rates forecast for the forthcoming year by the end of January. All 22 January 2026 NA N/A Andy Goodwin Steve Muldoon Public 44 Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy Cabinet will consider an updated Strategy, setting out the Council’s long-term approach to preventing homelessness and reducing rough sleeping by improving access to housing, support services, and early intervention. All 19 February Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing Growth Residents' Services Debbie Weller Dan Kennedy Public 94 Hillingdon Parking Strategy The Cabinet will consider a Parking Strategy following public consultation. A parking strategy will seek to establish a framework through which the Council will provide a fair, accessible, and sustainable parking service that supports residents, local businesses, and visitors, while contributing to Hillingdon’s wider transport, economic, environmental, and land use goals. All 19 February Cllr Wayne Bridges - Residents' Services Residents' Services Richard Webb Dan Kennedy Public FEBRUARY 2026 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 41 HRA Business Plan The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) business plan will set out a long-term financial strategy for managing council housing stock, maintain homes, fund improvements, and support new housing opportunities and development. All 19 February Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing Growth / Cllr Jonathan Bianco - Corporate Services & Property Residents' Services Sam Strong Dan Kennedy Public 86 Houses of Multiple Occupation - consultation outcomes Following Cabinet's consideration in July 2025 and subsequent decisions of the matter, this proposed report to Cabinet will consider the outcomes of any consultations relating to the formation of an additional licensing policy and determinations on way forward. All 19 February Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing Growth Residents' Services Richard Webb Dan Kennedy Public SI Public Preview of matters to be considered in private A report to Cabinet to provide maximum transparency to residents on the private and confidential matters to be considered later in Part 2 of the Cabinet meeting and agenda. TBC 19 February TBC TBC Democratic Services Public SI Reports from Select Committees Reports, findings and recommendations for consideration by the Cabinet, when referred from the appropriate Committee. All 19 February TBC TBC Democratic Services Public 46b Community Safety Strategy (Policy Framework) Following consultation, Cabinet will consider recommending to full Council a Community Safety Strategy. It is a multi-agency plan that sets out how the Council and its partners will work together to reduce crime, anti-social behaviour, and promote safer communities. All Def from Jan 19 February 26 February 2026 - adoption Cllr Wayne Bridges - Community & Environment Residents' Services Richard Webb Dan Kennedy Public SI 2026/27 Budget and Future Medium-Term Financial Strategy (BUDGET FRAMEWORK) Following consultation, this report will set out the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), which includes the draft General Fund reserve budget and capital programme for 2026/27 for consultation, along with indicative projections for the following four years. This will also include the HRA rents for consideration and any proposals for the Council Tax Reduction Scheme. All 19 February 26 February 2026 - adoption Cllr Ian Edwards - Leader of the Council / Cllr Eddie Lavery - Finance & Transformation All Andy Goodwin Steve Muldoon Public 23 Biannual Performance Report Following Cabinet's recommendation, Council will receive for information, the Council's annual report performance report which will have also been scrutinised by select committees. N/A 26 February 2026 Cllr Eddie Lavery / All Cabinet Members All Ian Kavanagh Matthew Wallbridge Public 5 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 Members' Allowances 2026/27 The Council is required to undertake an annual re- adoption of its Allowances Scheme and, in doing so give due regard to the recommendations made by the report of the Independent Panel on the Remuneration of Councillors in London. All 26 February 2026 N/A N/A Lloyd White Public SI Public Preview of matters to be considered in private A report to Cabinet to provide maximum transparency to residents on the private and confidential matters to be considered later in Part 2 of the Cabinet meeting and agenda. TBC 19 March TBC TBC Democratic Services Public SI Reports from Select Committees Reports, findings and recommendations for consideration by the Cabinet, when referred from the appropriate Committee. All 19 March TBC TBC Democratic Services Public 24 Temporary Accommodation Action Plan Monitoring Cabinet will receive a quarterly update, or at a frequency as determined by the Cabinet Member, on progress on the delivery of the Temporary Accommodation Strategy and Action Plan presented to Cabinet in February 2025. This will be aligned with the Homelessness Prevention and Rough Sleeping Strategy and the Medium-Term Financial Strategy, which is to include details of actions taken to bring empty homes across the Borough back into occupation. All 23 April Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing Growth Residents' Services Debbie Weller Dan Kennedy Public SI Public Preview of matters to be considered in private A report to Cabinet to provide maximum transparency to residents on the private and confidential matters to be considered later in Part 2 of the Cabinet meeting and agenda. TBC 23 April TBC TBC Democratic Services Public SI Reports from Select Committees Reports, findings and recommendations for consideration by the Cabinet, when referred from the appropriate Committee. All 23 April TBC TBC Democratic Services Public BOROUGH LOCAL ELECTIONS - 7 MAY 2026 MARCH 2026 APRIL 2026 Schedule of Individual Cabinet Member Decisions that may be taken each month (standard items non key-decisions) 6 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 Urgent Cabinet- level decisions & interim decision- making (including emergency decisions) The Leader of the Council has the necessary authority to make decisions that would otherwise be reserved to the Cabinet, in the absence of a Cabinet meeting or in urgent circumstances. Any such decisions will be published in the usual way and reported to a subsequent Cabinet meeting for ratification. The Leader may also take emergency decisions without notice, in particular in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, which will be ratified at a later Cabinet meeting. Various Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC Cllr Ian Edwards - Leader of the Council TBC TBC Public / Private SI Release of Capital Funds The release of all capital monies requires formal Member approval, unless otherwise determined either by the Cabinet or the Leader. Batches of monthly reports (as well as occasional individual reports) to determine the release of capital for any schemes already agreed in the capital budget and previously approved by Cabinet or Cabinet Members TBC Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC Cllr Eddie Lavery - Finance & Transformation (in conjunction with relevant Cabinet Member) All - TBC by decision made various Public but some Private (1,2,3) SI Petitions about matters under the control of the Cabinet Cabinet Members will consider a number of petitions received by local residents and organisations and decide on future action. These will be arranged as Petition Hearings. TBC Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC All TBC Democratic Services Public SI To approve compensation payments To approve compensation payments in relation to any complaint to the Council in excess of £1000. n/a Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC All TBC various Private (1,2,3) SI Acceptance of Tenders To accept quotations, tenders, contract extensions and contract variations valued between £50k and £500k in their Portfolio Area where funding is previously included in Council budgets. n/a Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC Cllr Ian Edwards - Leader of the Council OR Cllr Eddie Lavery - Finance & Transformation / in conjunction with relevant Cabinet Member TBC various Private (3) 7 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 All Delegated Decisions by Cabinet to Cabinet Members, including tender and property decisions Where previously delegated by Cabinet, to make any necessary decisions, accept tenders, bids and authorise property decisions / transactions in accordance with the Procurement and Contract Standing Orders. TBC Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC All TBC various Public / Private (1,2,3) SI Chrysalis Programme of Environmental Improvements The Cabinet Member will be asked to consider the approval of projects. Various Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC Cllr Wayne Bridges - Community & Environment Residents' Services Neil O'Connor Public SI External funding bids To authorise the making of bids for external funding where there is no requirement for a financial commitment from the Council. n/a Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC All TBC various Public SI Response to key consultations that may impact upon the Borough A standard item to capture any emerging consultations from Government, the GLA or other public bodies and institutions that will impact upon the Borough. Where the deadline to respond cannot be met by the date of the Cabinet meeting, the Constitution allows the Cabinet Member to sign-off the response. TBC Cabinet Member Decision - date TBC All TBC various Public 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 8

Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public WORK PROGRAMME Committee name Residents’ Services Select Committee Officer reporting Liz Penny, Democratic Services Officer 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. RECOMMENDATION: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee considers the Work Programme report and agrees any amendments. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. 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 12 June 2025 CR6 15 July 2025 CR6 9 September 2025 CR5 6 November 2025 CR5 8 January 2026 CR5 18 February 2026 CR5 10 March 2026 CR5 22 April 2026 CR5 Site Visits Members of the Residents’ Services Select Committee have undertaken a number of site visits to include the CCTV room in the Civic Centre, Harlington Road Depot, Heathrow Imported Food Office, Hillingdon Fire Station, Botwell Leisure Centre, Breakspear Crem atorium, the Recycling Centre at Edmonton, visits with the Traffic Wardens and the Noise Team , the Platinum Jubilee Leisure Centre works and Heathrow Skills Academy. 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. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 8 January 2026 Classification: Public How this report benefits Hillingdon residents Select Committees directly engage residents in developing policy proposals and recommendations to Cabinet - and as such, Committees seek to improve the way the Council provides services to residents. Financial Implications None at this stage. Legal Implications None at this stage. BACKGROUND PAPERS Nil.

MULTI-YEAR WORK PROGRAMME 2022 - 2026 2025/26 2026/27 May January February March April May June July Sept No meeting 8 18 10 22 No meeting Review: Topic selection / scoping stage Witness / evidence / consultation stage Findings, conclusions and recommendations Final review report agreement Target Cabinet Reporting IN PROGRESS: Topic selection / scoping stage Witness / evidence / consultation stage Findings, conclusions and recommendations Final review report agreement Target Cabinet Reporting Regular service & performance monitoring Monthly Budget and Spend Report (Dan, Andy Goodwin, Matt Davis, Ceri and Bernard) X X X X Infrastructure Funding Statement Update (was CIL Expenditure Monitoring - Annual Report & S106) each November - Julia Johnson / Andrew Tebbutt (comments ndd 4 Cabinet in Dec) Strategic Climate Action Plan/Flood Prevention Works per Flood Action Plan / Strategy - IT X Cabinet Budget Proposals 2026/27 (Comments for Cabinet) X Cabinet Forward Plan Monthly Monitoring X X X X Parking Annual Report - Richard Webb Bi-annual Performance Report (Ian Kavanagh, Mark Batho, Kim Overy, Dan K to present) X X Annual Complaints Submission to the Housing Ombudsman Service (Rod Smith/Debbie W) - Sam Strong or Gary Penticost to present the report One-off information items Environmental Protection Service -the Council's duty to investigate noise and nuisance (SW) X Review of Statement of Gambling Policy - policy framework consultation Sport for Young People - how the Council encourages participation in deprived areas X APCOA Parking Enforcement (Richard Webb / Freddie Mohammed) X The condition of allotments in the Borough Statement of Licensing Policy (Policy Framework) (Cabinet paper) - Dan Ferrer West London Waste Plan (Cabinet paper) - Gavin Polkinghorn X Community Safety Strategy (Cabinet paper) - Richard Webb Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy (Cabinet paper) - Debby Weller / Sachin Patel X Housing Strategy (Policy Framework) - (Cabinet paper) - Debby W / S Patel / A Stephenson X Hillingdon's Business Waste Service (Commercial) -update on performance (Jordan Groves) X Enforcement of PSPOs, Illegal Street Trading and FPNs issued X General Waste Services (Jordan Groves / Chris Wheeler) X HMOs - Licensing Article 4 Implementation (Richard Webb and Julia Johnson) X Community Cohesion - Fiona Gibbs X Crime & Disorder - Statutory Scrutiny (themed) Safer Hillingdon Partnership Development X Safer Hillingdon Partnership Performance Past review delivery Update on Alley Gating Review X Update on Homeless Prevention and the Customer Journey Review Update on Review of Empty Homes Council Tax Premium Internal use only Report deadline Agenda publication date Committee Site Visits Graffiti Removal Waste Services (with the a.m. crew) HS2 Site Visit (March) Dogs Trust Residents' Services Select Committee