Residents' Services SC

Minutes RESIDENTS' SERVICES SELECT COMMITTEE 8 January 2026 Meeting held at Committee Room 5 Committee Members Present: Councillors Peter Smallwood (Chair), Ekta Gohil (Vice-Chair), Darran Davies, Jas Dhot, Kamal Preet Kaur (Labour Lead), Elizabeth Garelick and Jagjit Singh Officers Present: Matt Davis – Director – Strategic and Operational Finance Dan Kennedy (Corporate Director of Residents Services) Ceri Lamoureux – Head of Finance Steve Muldoon (Corporate Director of Finance) Bernard Ofori-Atta – Head of Finance Liz Penny - Democratic Services Officer Ian Thynne - Head of Environmental Specialists Richard Webb (Director Community Safety & Enforcement) Others Present: Kenny McCamlie – APCOA Contract Manager Kedar Maharjan – APCOA 126. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) There were no apologies for absence. 127. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) None. 128. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings dated 6 and 27 November 2025 be agreed as an accurate record. 129. 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. 130. MONTHLY BUDGET AND SPEND REPORT (Agenda Item 5) The Corporate Director for Residents’ Services, Dan Kennedy, presented the Month 7 budget and spend report. Other officers in attendance to respond to Members’ questions were Steve Muldoon - Corporate Director of Finance, Matt Davis - Director – Strategic and Operational Finance, Ceri Lamoureux - Head of Finance and Bernard Ofori-Atta - Head of Finance. It was reported that the projected net overspend for services within the remit of the Residents’ Services Select Committee stood at £7.8 million; a figure that had remained largely unchanged since Month 6. The pressures contributing to this position had been driven primarily by homelessness demand, which had been reported previously to the Committee. It was explained that a number of proactive measures had been undertaken during the year. One notable initiative involved efforts to control temporary accommodation expenditure through the introduction of caps and other controls. This initiative had produced an estimated cost reduction of nearly £8 per unit, per night, amounting to just over £2 million in cost avoidance for the year. Despite this, the overall situation had remained exceptionally challenging, particularly in relation to securing accommodation in the private rented sector and accessing other forms of affordable or social housing. These challenges had been exacerbated by high levels of demand, including increased evictions from private rented homes, evictions by friends and family, and presentations from households fleeing domestic abuse. Members were informed that a series of proposals had been set out in the subsequent agenda item to address these pressures, including growth proposals, budget rebasing and a range of further initiatives planned for the next year. These would include new efforts to secure private rented accommodation, continuation of the year’s ambitious programme to acquire additional social rented properties, and partnership work with housing associations to increase supply. It was acknowledged that these efforts were operating in a highly challenging environment, consistent with the experience of other London boroughs and local authorities nationally. It was emphasised, however, that activity would continue and innovation would be pursued wherever possible. It was also reported that the Housing Revenue Account was projecting a breakeven position and that reserves had been maintained at £15 million, which was considered positive. The Committee was advised that, of the £11.7 million savings target within its remit, £5.6 million (around half) had been banked and were on track to be delivered. A further £3.5 million (around 30%) had been classed as amber and were expected to be delivered, though possibly not fully within the current financial year. It was noted that some savings were deemed undeliverable and would be written out of the budget, with several identified as legacy targets no longer achievable. Councillors referred to page 20 of the report, noting a £0.9 million shortfall in garden-waste subscription income as of Month 7. Clarification was requested on whether the shortfall had increased between Months 6 and 7 or whether the position had stabilised, allowing a more reliable full-year forecast. In response, it was explained by officers that the position had largely stabilised. Income was reported at approximately £1.6 million, against the original £2.5 million target. Officers stated that, as the service had been a new subscription scheme introduced part-way through the year following consultation, income estimates had been based on the best available benchmarking from other boroughs. It was added that schemes of this nature tended to mature over two to four years, with steady growth expected before levelling off. Members asked how the identified shortfalls, including slippages and undeliverable savings, were being mitigated. It was stated that the report outlined the figures but not the associated improvement plan, and further detail was requested on actions being taken, how replacements for undeliverable savings would be identified, and how mitigation would be monitored. Officers responded that some savings targets would never be achievable and were therefore being rebased, as shown in the next agenda item. It was explained that a wide range of control measures had been introduced corporately, including spend controls requiring panel approval for expenditure over £500, strengthened contract compliance, and recruitment controls. These measures were described as significant mitigations. It was emphasised that, in demand-led statutory services, total elimination of pressures was not possible; instead, actions focused on reducing overall costs rather than preventing expenditure outright. Officers noted that further detail could be provided outside the meeting if required. Councillors observed that detailed information would help the Committee scrutinise trends more effectively. Clarification was sought regarding the effect of recruitment controls on day-to-day operations, and concern was raised about references to redundancies. They asked what assessments had been undertaken regarding the impact of such actions on service delivery. It was explained that all service changes were subject to scrutiny by senior officers, finance and HR, as well as the corporate management team. It was confirmed that the Council’s priority was to maintain frontline services and statutory duties. Any proposed changes underwent an equalities impact assessment. Officers reported that recruitment-related adjustments were largely driven by redesigned ways of working and efficiencies, with an emphasis on collaborative working rather than reducing service provision. The Committee requested an update on homelessness, including the number of households in emergency accommodation, the scale of pressure, associated costs, and whether any levelling-off was expected. In response, it was reported that approximately 1,800 households were in temporary accommodation, with around 800 placed in higher-cost nightly or spot-purchased provision. It was confirmed that the Council had negotiated firmly with providers and introduced caps, achieving reduced costs. The challenges were described as significant and largely outside the Council’s control, including unexpected arrivals through Heathrow and sharply rising private-sector rents, with some families facing increases of £400–£500 per month. Officers stated that mitigation efforts included persuading landlords to retain tenants, identifying alternative accommodation, expanding acquisition programmes, and developing new models for housing supply. It was reported that more than 200 additional homes for social rent would be acquired during the year. The underlying issue was described as one of affordability, with many families either unable to enter or unable to remain in the private rented sector. In response to their questions regarding the high overspend and final forecast variance and whether these were attributable to a lack of new housing supply and slow delivery of new homes, Members were advised that turnaround times for existing Council stock were generally strong and that further opportunities were being explored to maximise the use of available stock, including downsizing incentives. It was reported that significant investment was being made in new schemes such as Hayes Town Centre and Avondale. However, lead-in times for new developments and market stagnation— particularly the reluctance of developers to proceed with blocks of flats unless a full sell-through was achievable—were described as constraints. When asked whether homelessness applications had continued to rise, officers reported a stable but high volume of 100–120 applications per week. Members sought clarification about the sustainability of reducing revenue contributions to capital schemes in order to maintain HRA balances, referencing page 21 of the report. Officers responded that the arrangement was sustainable and formed part of the budget’s design. It was stated that the revenue contribution acted as a balancing mechanism and that the changes involved relatively modest amounts within the wider financial framework. Councillors referred to the cost of the waking-watch service and asked whether a phased exit plan existed, noting that the report lacked such detail. In response, it was confirmed that the report before the Committee represented a snapshot of the financial position rather than an in-depth thematic report and that more detailed reporting could be provided separately. It was explained that the waking-watch arrangement had been introduced to prevent residents in affected private accommodation from being required to leave their homes following a likely prohibition notice from the London Fire Brigade. Officers confirmed that the Council had incurred unavoidable costs but reported that the Council was now close to exiting the waking-watch arrangement, subject to final sign-off. RESOLVED: That the Select Committee: 1. Noted the budget monitoring position as of October 2025 (Month 7) for the Council; and 2. Noted the budget monitoring position as of October 2025 (Month 7) for the services within the remit of the Residents’ Services Select Committee. 131. CABINET BUDGET PROPOSALS 2026/27 (Agenda Item 6) The Corporate Director of Finance, Steve Muldoon and the Corporate Director for Residents’ Services, Dan Kennedy, presented the report. Other officers in attendance to respond to Members’ questions were Matt Davis, Director – Strategic and Operational Finance, Ceri Lamoureux, Head of Finance and Bernard Ofori-Atta, Head of Finance. It was explained that the overall Council budget had been reviewed by the Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee earlier in the week, with a more detailed discussion available via the meeting recording. The Corporate Director of Finance outlined the wider financial context, noting that the Medium-Term Financial Strategy, published in December 2025, reflected a highly challenging environment driven by rising demand, market pressures in social care and temporary accommodation, and inflation outpacing funding levels. It was noted that Government funding for Hillingdon had increased but would be phased in over three years. Council reserves had been significantly depleted in recent years, reducing financial resilience. As a result, the Council required budget growth to meet unavoidable pressures and had identified a number of difficult savings proposals. To balance the 2024/25 budget legally, the Council was seeking Exceptional Financial Support (EFS), which required central Government approval and repayment. Members heard that all savings proposals were owned by senior officers, had been through internal challenge sessions, and were intended to be realistic rather than aspirational. Further detailed work was still required, particularly on high-risk or high-value proposals, and ongoing improvements to demand modelling and savings monitoring would continue. It was noted that the meeting would focus on the proposals within the Residents’ Services Select Committee’s remit, including assumptions, savings, growth proposals, risks, and service impacts. The output would be the Committee’s feedback and recommendations to Cabinet, to be considered alongside responses to the six-week public consultation. Final budget decisions were scheduled for Cabinet on 19 February and full Council on 26 February 2026. It was noted that a net budget increase of approximately £15.8 million had been proposed within the remit of Residents’ Services. This increase was composed of nearly £30 million in growth alongside £14 million in savings. It was explained that the majority of the growth had been driven by demand pressures, particularly in relation to homelessness, as well as the need to address legacy income targets and other longstanding budget pressures. An example was provided in which the budget for tree inspection and maintenance had been proposed for an uplift of £130,000 to ensure statutory duties continued to be met as tree numbers expanded across the Borough. Members were informed that the efficiencies and savings proposals had been presented as arising from a range of service areas, with an emphasis placed on doing things differently. It was highlighted that greater collaboration across services, deployment of digital technology, expansion of self-service options, and process improvements designed to achieve tasks correctly at first attempt were being prioritised. Joint working both within Residents’ Services and across the wider Council was expected to generate reductions in expenditure. With reference to the proposed 10% increase in discretionary fees and services, Members sought clarification as to how the increase supported continued value for money for residents, whether the Council would remain benchmarked among the lowest-cost boroughs in London, and whether comparative information from neighbouring authorities could be provided. It was stated by officers that the Council had continued to be recognised as a value-for-money, high-quality service provider, supported by strong benchmarking across adult social care, children’s social care and housing services. It was confirmed that the Council’s fees and charges had historically remained positioned at the lower end relative to other London and West London boroughs. Officers noted that the proposed increase of the waste subscription charge to £77 would still leave the Council’s costs lower than neighbouring authorities operating fortnightly collections, while Hillingdon continued to offer weekly collections. It was confirmed that additional benchmarking data could be made available outside the meeting. A question was raised by Members concerning how the increase in fees might affect take-up of services, with reference to a previous decline in green waste subscriptions. It was asked what the implications would be should insufficient numbers of residents use those services and what measures had been considered. In response, Members were informed that all proposals had undergone significant testing, including assumptions around expected income. Where increased fees carried uncertainty, income projections had been cautiously reduced to account for potential reductions in demand for discretionary services. A further question was posed as to whether such reductions could prevent the Council from achieving planned savings. Officers were confident that income levels set out in the budget would be achieved. It was stated that where new services carried greater uncertainty, income projections had been intentionally lowered. Reference was also made to corporate contingency funds maintained to mitigate non-delivery of savings or unexpected cost pressures. Housing budget proposals were then queried. Councillors referred to the planned £8.5m savings and asked whether this represented continuation of current initiatives or acceleration of existing work, noting the scale of the existing pressures. Officers explained that a wide programme of initiatives was under way, particularly aimed at increasing access to private rental sector accommodation. It was reported that active discussions were ongoing with agents and landlords to increase supply, prevent homeless households from entering temporary accommodation, and to expedite move-on pathways. Various models were described, including temporary placements that could convert into private-rented tenancies, thereby discharging homelessness duties. It was explained that negotiations for multi-year arrangements were being explored to secure lower pricing from landlords and agents. It was further stated that a portion of the £8.5m savings related to inflation control, whereby keeping inflation below projected levels would contribute to the target. Officers acknowledged the challenge but confirmed that proactive work was already being undertaken. The Committee sought clarification in relation to potential future arrivals and asked whether any advance notice from government had been provided and what contingency existed should such pressures reoccur. It was confirmed that no prior notice was given because the arrivals involved UK nationals acting independently. It was stated that contingency funding had been built into the budget for unforeseen increases in demand. It was emphasised that lobbying was being undertaken to secure government funding, as only a small number of port-authority councils had been affected. A question was raised about emergency tree maintenance provision. Councillors observed that limited budget seemed to have been allocated for unplanned pressures, such as storm-related tree damage, and asked how the associated risks were being managed and whether a dedicated external agency might offer improved budget stability. Officers stated that statutory tree safety duties would always be fulfilled, regardless of in-year budget pressures. It was confirmed that a corporate contingency fund existed for unforeseen emergencies. Officers also highlighted a proposed £430k increase in the tree maintenance and inspection budget, intended to strengthen proactive maintenance and reduce the likelihood of storm-related failures. A follow-up question asked whether further funding could be secured if the £430k were exhausted. Officers stated that contingencies could be used, or costs could be mitigated elsewhere within service budgets. The Chair added that the £430k represented an increase, not the total budget. Members asked for information on the number of people sponsored under the Council’s sponsorship policy and the income generated. It was confirmed that detailed data would be provided separately. Councillors raised questions regarding the Green Lane civic amenity site, where tables within the budget documentation appeared to present seemingly duplicated figures of £70k and £165k. It was explained that the two £70k figures related to separate items— one a saving offset by software costs—and that the £165k represented a pressure from undelivered savings carried forward into the next financial year. Waste collection efficiencies were then queried, with Councillors asking how a significant projected saving would be achieved. Officers explained that a service review was under way, focusing on waste prevention and diversion to lower-cost disposal streams. Initiatives such as the “simpler recycling” programme and food-waste diversion were highlighted as key cost-reduction mechanisms. Members asked whether the roll-out of food caddies to 20,000–25,000 flats was part of this work, and it was confirmed that the rollout to flatted properties was imminent and would significantly reduce costs by diverting food waste from residual streams. The Committee asked how confident officers were that all proposed savings would be delivered, and what proportion of them could be considered secure. It was stated that all proposals had been through rigorous scrutiny, and that every efficiency was intended to be delivered. It was noted that, where external factors prevented delivery, directors would manage pressures through cost-control measures and internal mitigations. It was also stated that new spend-control measures required approval for all new expenditure and were expected to support delivery of savings. A question was asked regarding the effectiveness of consultations, noting that past consultations had not always aligned with final decisions. Concern was raised as to how resident feedback could be ensured meaningful consideration. The Chair observed that consultations were not referendums and that final decisions were the responsibility of Cabinet and, ultimately, the electorate during elections. It was confirmed that the Councillor’s concerns would be recorded in the minutes. Members sought clarity concerning fair funding and EFS. They asked whether fair funding was also conditional and whether it required Council Tax to be increased to the referendum limit over three years. Officers confirmed that the government’s figures had been predicated on all councils applying a 4.99% increase in each of the three years. It was explained that business-rate assumptions carried risk, particularly relating to appeals, and that EFS constituted borrowing requiring repayment over 20 years, plus interest if borrowed from the Public Works Loan Board. Councillors requested further detail on investment in major capital projects, including the water sports facility and crematorium refurbishment, and asked whether these projects were expected to generate sustainable income. Officers stated that the capital programme encompassed schools’ expansion, the new leisure centre, new council housing, and significant housing investment to meet the decent homes standard. The water sports facility was described as a modern replacement offering improved amenities, while the crematorium improvements were intended to maintain service quality and introduce operational efficiencies. It was confirmed that income generation was sought where feasible. A further question concerned how contingency funding would absorb unplanned pressures such as resident services, community safety needs, and emergency works. In response, it was confirmed that directors would be expected first to manage pressures within their budgets, including through internal mitigations and cross-service efficiencies. Underspends would be banked to offset pressures elsewhere and spend-control measures were expected to encourage cultural change and prevent unnecessary expenditure. In response to Members’ questions regarding how the Council determined when efficiencies were negatively affecting frontline services, it was stated that thorough appraisals and impact assessments were undertaken during the planning process. If unforeseen impacts emerged during implementation, officers would reassess the proposal and present options to Members, ensuring that residents remained prioritised. It was confirmed that comments from the Committee would be delegated to the Democratic Services Officer, in conjunction with the Chair and in consultation with the Opposition Lead, for submission to Cabinet. RESOLVED: That the Select Committee: 1. Noted the draft revenue budget and Medium -Term Financial Strat egy proposals for 2026/27 to 2030/31 relating to services within the Committee’s remit; 2. Considered and commented on the financial assumptions, savings proposals, growth pressures, service impacts and delivery risks within those proposals; and 3. Agreed that c omments to Cabinet for consideration as part of the final budget proposals to be presented to Council in February 2026, be delegated to Democratic Services in conjunction with the Chair and in consultation with the Opposition Lead. 132. PERFORMANCE REPORT (Agenda Item 7) Dan Kennedy, Corporate Director – Residents’ Services, was in attendance to respond to any questions and queries from Members in respect of the performance report as set out in the agenda pack. Councillors commented that the report contained several positive indicators, including the Council having the fourth-lowest net expenditure per 100,000 residents in London and strong performance in housing landlord services. Members observed that the report referenced the delivery of 245 new council homes, but they believed this figure represented a gross total and did not account for homes lost through Right to Buy. An accurate net position was therefore requested, and it was agreed that officers would provide this outside of the meeting. The Corporate Director noted that in previous years around 50 homes per year had been lost through Right to Buy, though that number might have increased slightly following a surge in applications when the government reduced the available discount. Councillors sought clarification regarding recycling contamination levels, noting that these levels had not been quantified in the report. They expressed a desire to understand how much of the Borough’s waste and recycling was being contaminated so that potential problem areas could be identified. It was confirmed that the relevant data could be provided and it was suggested that the matter could be fully explored at the next waste-focused Committee session. The Chair agreed and asked that the Democratic Services Officer record this as an item for discussion in the forthcoming in-depth waste session. The Committee then sought clarification on the statement that one-third of council homes in Hillingdon had failed the decent homes standard. Members observed that this appeared inconsistent with the Council’s claims of strong performance in repairs and asked how the two positions could be reconciled. It was explained that the decent homes standard related to physical components such as kitchens, bathrooms, windows and energy efficiency, whereas repair performance related to tenant experience, including response times and achieving a first-time fix. It was stated that tenant satisfaction remained high. Officers reported that the 30% non-decent figure reflected the position as of 31 March 2024, but significant progress had since been made. It was reported that Cabinet had previously approved £108 million for improvements, that non-decency was expected to fall to approximately 14%–15% by the end of March, and that the Council was on track to reach 5% non-decent homes within two to three years. It was confirmed that regulators had expressed no concerns regarding progress or trajectory. Members raised a question regarding homelessness pressures linked to Heathrow. Reference was made to a previous report indicating that around 40 families had presented at Heathrow. They asked how many rough sleepers and how many families within the current reporting period had originated from Heathrow-related presentations. Officers confirmed that this information was held and could be provided through the Chair. The Chair stated that it would be appropriate to include the information within the February agenda item on the homeless and rough sleeping strategy and confirmed that this would be arranged. Councillors referred to a chart showing data on vacant dwellings and asked for clarification. It was noted that the report stated that vacant dwellings were re-let within an average of 30.64 days, which had been reported as 14 days faster, yet the narrative later indicated performance remained 14% below the England average. Members sought clarification on how these statements aligned, as a 30-day void period appeared lengthy. It was acknowledged that the turnaround time could appear long but it was explained that a large number of mandatory checks were required before a property could be re-let, including health and safety inspections, gas safety, asbestos assessments and occasionally significant repairs or replacements, such as boiler installations. It was stated that as the proportion of non-decent homes decreased, the extent of major works required before re-letting would also diminish, resulting in improved turnaround times. It was agreed that comments from the Committee would be submitted to full Council. The Chair confirmed that comments would be delegated to the Democratic Services Officer in conjunction with the Chair and in consultation with the Opposition Lead, in line with Committee practice. RESOLVED: That the Select Committee: 1. Noted the six -month performance report for 2025/26, as attached in Appendix 1; and 2. Agreed that Select Committee comments to be presented to full Council be delegated to Democratic Services in conjunction with the Chair and in consultation with the Opposition Lead. 133. PARKING ENFORCEMENT (Agenda Item 8) Richard Webb, Director of Community Safety and Enforcement presented the report which provided general background on the Council’s parking enforcement approach and outlined key data. It explained that enforcement operations were delivered through a partnership with APCOA, whose contract had commenced in 2022 and was due to end the following year, with options available for extension. The contract scope, as described in the report, included the provision of Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) – also referred to as parking wardens – parking and moving-traffic enforcement cameras, and ancillary services such as cash collection. Members heard that the Civil Enforcement Officers were deployed to monitor car parks to ensure that parking payments were made, to patrol on-street parking bays, and to enforce parking restrictions, including yellow lines and all permit zones. The contract contained a range of key performance indicators, particularly related to deployment levels, contracted service hours, acceptable error rates in Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issuing, and responsiveness to the public enforcement line. It was confirmed that the Council’s parking team engaged with APCOA frequently, with daily operational contact and monthly performance meetings to review deployment patterns, emerging issues, and operational data. Formal annual reviews were also undertaken. Deployment decisions were jointly agreed and informed by a broad evidence base, including patterns of non-compliance, school pick-up and drop-off priorities, resident and elected member feedback, and other data identifying areas of highest need. The challenges posed by the Borough’s large and diverse geography were noted, which required CEOs to cover wide areas. To address this, Members were informed that the Council had recently leased a vehicle equipped with Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology to support more efficient monitoring of extensive areas. The Council was evaluating the effectiveness of this approach and actively reviewing CEO deployment models to improve coverage and better respond to resident priorities. Kenny McCamlie (Contract Manager) and Kedar Maharjan of APCOA were also in attendance. The Contract Manager addressed Members of the Select Committee thanking them for the opportunity to attend and noting APCOA’s long-standing relationship with the Borough. He explained that APCOA’s head office was located in Uxbridge and that its European headquarters had relocated there in the final quarter of the previous year. He also emphasised the company’s strong commitment to Hillingdon and Uxbridge, noting that the organisation also managed a major contract at Heathrow and employed over 500 people within the Borough. In relation to parking enforcement, Members heard that the organisation employed approximately 60 staff and maintained a flexible employment model that enabled 20– 30% of the workforce to operate flexibly. The Contract Manager highlighted the challenging nature of the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) role, noting that officers worked in all weather conditions and often faced hostility despite performing a vital public service. It was confirmed that the organisation worked closely with the local police sergeant in Uxbridge to improve staff safety, develop methods for officers to protect themselves, and pursue prosecutions where necessary. He reported having achieved successful prosecutions, including two in the past year, and noted additional incidents of lower-level but often malicious abuse. The Contract Manager expressed appreciation for any recognition the Committee could give to frontline officers and described the collaborative working relationship with the Council’s team. He stated that both parties worked hard to ensure that the service provided to the Borough was efficient and cost-effective. The introduction of the new ANPR vehicle was being used as an opportunity to reassess service delivery, strengthen data-led deployment, and ensure that officers were sent to areas of known non-compliance. It was noted that year-on-year increases in Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) numbers were one indicator that deployments were targeting appropriate locations, although PCN volumes could not be treated as a target. Councillors noted that Members of the Committee had previously undertaken frontline observations of Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs). They enquired whether the CCTV control room had been equipped with colour monitors or a radio link to receive code red alerts, noting that under-reporting of such incidents had been previously identified. It was asked whether this option had been explored, and if so, why it had not been implemented. In response, officers advised that APCOA staff were not based in the Council’s CCTV control room, which remained a secure, supervised-access environment and was not staffed 24/7. Redeploying the officer who ordinarily handled CEO radio communications into the control room had not been considered viable. Members suggested that, although placing staff permanently in the control room might be impractical, providing a live radio link would allow CCTV staff to hear code red calls and activate cameras to support CEO safety. An incident witnessed by Councillors was cited, in which a CEO’s device had been taken from them during a distress call. Officers explained that previous reviews had identified significant operational complications. When a code red was triggered, APCOA’s dedicated control room was already fully engaged in supporting the CEO and, where necessary, contacting the police. CCTV staff simultaneously received multiple other inputs and could not guarantee priority handling. It was emphasised that CEO body-worn cameras were active at all times and pressing the code red button often deterred aggressors. Training had been developed with the police to encourage CEOs to move away from danger rather than remain in proximity until officers arrived. Over-involvement by multiple parties during emergencies had also been identified as unhelpful. The Committee asked whether CEOs had access to “people-safe” technology, GPS connectivity, or devices enabling communication once code red was triggered. APCOA confirmed that activating the red button opened a live microphone, alerted nearby CEOs, and automatically transmitted the officer’s location to APCOA’s control room. GPS information on handheld devices also enabled emergency services to be directed to the officer’s location if they were unable to speak. Members queried 420 recorded verbal abuse incidents and 31 code red incidents, asking whether under-reporting might be linked to the diverse ethnic backgrounds of CEOs. Questions were raised regarding whistleblowing channels, reporting confidence, and how APCOA ensured staff safety in a challenging environment where abuse could relate both to role and ethnicity. APCOA responded that CEOs were strongly encouraged to report incidents, including “code blues”—lower-level but potentially harmful incidents, often racist in nature. Although such behaviour generally originated from passers-by and could not easily be prevented, reporting enabled pattern-spotting, dual deployment and targeted policing support. A confidential reporting line was available, although management actively fostered direct reporting relationships. CEOs were reminded that under-reporting prevented the organisation from building an accurate picture of risks. Councillors sought clarifications as to whether racist incidents were logged as hate crimes and formally passed to the police. It was explained that staff were encouraged to do so and that an online reporting template had been jointly developed with the local Police Sergeant. Misconceptions—such as the belief that prosecutions might restrict international travel—were actively addressed. APCOA reported higher prosecution success than many boroughs but acknowledged that further improvements were welcome. Councillors raised concerns about CEOs frequently being observed in groups of four to six in high-footfall areas, which appeared to reduce enforcement efficiency. It was asked whether this was common and how CEOs were being deployed effectively. In response, APCOA confirmed that CEOs were remote workers, and several operational reasons could explain groupings, including shift changes and deployment patterns. However, it was acknowledged that improvements were needed. GPS and live mapping were used to monitor CEO locations, and Council officers also had access. Human instinct to gather in groups existed, and management actively countered it through performance monitoring and training. Councillors were encouraged to report instances for review. Members then asked how the Council’s parking enforcement hotline data was logged— specifically whether it was recorded at road level—and how APCOA used that information to identify hotspots. APCOA confirmed that all hotline reports entered its system and were used to identify persistent problem areas, alongside complaints received by Council officers and Members. Data recorded during each visit—such as whether a vehicle was moved on or a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued— supported proactive deployment. In response to Members’ questions regarding the CCTV enforcement vehicle, its benefits, and its role in CEO and public safety, it was explained that the vehicle employed automatic number plate recognition to scan permit zones efficiently— something impossible on foot. Although officers still had to exit the vehicle to issue certain PCNs, use of the vehicle enabled redeployment of foot patrols to high-non-compliance areas. A further question concerned repeated pavement parking near schools and what actions were taken to address high-risk areas. APCOA stated that significant resources were dedicated to school patrols, although enforcement could be challenging. Parents’ responses varied, and statutory observation periods limited immediate action. Councillors were encouraged to submit specific locations for review. Councillors asked about the three CEOs assigned as quality monitors, including their deployment and how data captured through their cameras had been used. It was explained that these officers were deployed daily, with data uploaded to the Council’s digital system. Council officers would need to provide details on how the data was analysed, and APCOA committed to arranging this. Questions were then raised about how required hours and PCN issue rates compared with other London boroughs and how enforcement officers were trained. APCOA outlined its training programme: online modules, British Parking Association-regulated exams, supervised local instruction, pairing with senior CEOs, and a strict sign-off process. Differences in observation times (e.g., instant for school zig-zags, 5 minutes for permit bays) were explained, and APCOA acknowledged that inconsistent answers given to residents should not have occurred. Further questions were raised regarding enforcement of motorcycle parking, particularly relating to delivery drivers. APCOA explained that motorcycles were generally exempt from displaying pay-and-display tickets unless traffic orders specified otherwise. Restrictions had been updated in some areas (e.g., Ruislip) following Cabinet approval. In relation to complaints about deployment at Ruislip Lido, APCOA noted that winter and summer deployment patterns existed but could be reviewed. Councillors asked whether CEOs worked to targets. It was confirmed that no PCN-issuing targets existed; however, issue rates per hour were analysed to identify anomalies, training needs, or deployment inefficiencies. The Committee sought further clarification regarding a reduction in PCNs issued by CCTV cameras, noting that camera numbers had decreased from 120 to 75. It was asked whether the reduction in PCNs had resulted from fewer cameras rather than improved compliance. APCOA explained that compliance had improved particularly at new yellow-box junction enforcement sites. Older cameras with extremely low detection rates had been removed because replacement costs were unjustifiable. The Chair concluded by thanking APCOA representatives for their comprehensive answers and invited APCOA to provide written information on wider enforcement services. A site visit for Members was also suggested. RESOLVED: That the Select Committee: Noted the contents of the report which provided 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 had brought forward initiatives to improve facilities for motorists whilst generating an income for the Council. 134. CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRESS REPORT (Agenda Item 9) Ian Thynne, Head of Environmental Specialists, was in attendance to respond to Members’ questions in relation to the Climate Change Progress Report included in the agenda pack. The Chair thanked him for his thorough, comprehensive and interesting report. Councillors asked how confident the Council was that climate-change targets and associated deadlines would be met. The Head of Environmental Specialists responded that confidence was difficult to quantify because a trend analysis was still being undertaken to map the routes toward achieving carbon neutrality by 2030. He explained that climate action was not a statutory duty for local authorities and therefore competed with other pressures. He confirmed that meeting the targets would be challenging, although substantial progress had been made since the declaration of the climate emergency. A programme of activity and the release of £1.5m in Section 106 funding for community-facing carbon-reduction projects were highlighted as supporting elements, though the full cost and pathway to the targets had not yet been fully established. Members enquired what major challenges existed in relation to fleet decarbonisation and whether electric-vehicle capacity could be retained in the future. It was explained that performance tracking had been difficult due to the absence of detailed dashboards showing mileage and fuel consumption. It was stated that electric refuse vehicles were extremely expensive and that prioritising them could reduce the Council’s ability to deliver other services. It was also noted that required charging infrastructure was not yet available. Therefore, the heavy fleet was likely to retain a carbon footprint in 2030, and offsetting measures would be required. Smaller diesel vehicles had already been replaced by electric models but refuse lorries and heavy vehicles were unlikely to be electric by 2030 due to replacement costs and operational constraints. In response to Members’ questions as to whether initiatives such as carbon monitoring or energy-efficiency schemes had been assessed for cost-effectiveness, it was confirmed that the Council sought not only carbon savings but also financial savings for residents. It was noted that carbon-saving measures—such as replacing Civic Centre gas boilers with air-source heat pumps—were designed to reduce long-term energy costs during periods of high market volatility. Monetary and carbon savings were embedded jointly within strategic planning. Councillor enquired whether the Council had considered the use of hydrogen-powered fleet vehicles. It was confirmed that hydrogen vehicles remained largely at pilot-stage development. The Council’s realistic focus was on electric vehicles and that hydrogen was not currently on the Council’s agenda. The Committee sought clarification as to whether Heathrow expansion or changes associated with the Cranford Agreement could slow local climate-action progress. It was confirmed that the recent Cranford Agreement decision involved redistribution of existing flight movements rather than an increase, so no additional carbon output would result from that change. It was noted that a third runway would have a major carbon impact, but calculation of aviation emissions fell within central government responsibility. The Head of Environmental Specialists explained that the Council’s targets related to its operational emissions, while major emissions sources such as the airport, the M4, and the M25 fell outside its control. Members asked whether future pay-per-mile charging—expected around 2028—had been factored into fleet-modernisation planning, particularly regarding electric and hybrid vehicles. It was stated that significant work was still required on fleet analysis, and current data gaps meant that the question could not yet be answered; upcoming work in the calendar year would provide greater clarity. In response to their questions regarding how much of the Council’s capital programme depended on external or grant funding, Members were informed that the Council’s operating model centred on embedding carbon saving within existing structures rather than creating costly additional programmes. It was stated that housing-improvement programmes, public-sector decarbonisation grants and Section 106 funding had been key sources of support. While grant funding remained useful, it was noted to be decreasing, and the Council would therefore continue to combine internal efficiencies with external funding where possible. Councillors asked whether there were plans to install new electric-vehicle charging points in Council areas, and how many were planned for the year. In response, the Head of Environmental Specialists noted that the Council had joined the West London EV charging scheme and continued to use air-quality-related Section 106 funds. He confirmed that the EV strategy was being reviewed for increased ambition and that further rollout—especially on-street charging—was expected. He also described expanded tree-planting efforts and the development of “climate parks,” providing cooler shaded areas and increased carbon sequestration. The Committee sought further clarification as to how decisions were made regarding the replacement of large mature trees with smaller saplings, noting residents’ concerns about environmental value. It was explained that the Borough planted tens of thousands of trees annually, far exceeding its loss rate. Although a precise carbon-equivalency calculation between mature trees and mass sapling planting had not yet been undertaken, it was confirmed that overall planting volumes surpassed losses. Developers were also required to contribute to biodiversity net gain, and HS2-related planting would add hundreds of thousands of additional trees. In response to their requests for clarification as to how the Council engaged with volunteers and community groups—including those supporting Ruislip Woods—and how a proposed People’s Assembly would interact with such groups, Members were informed that the Head of Environmental Specialists met monthly with Friends of the Earth and worked with other volunteer organisations, though more engagement was desired. Increased community-facing work had been funded through Section 106 allocations, and the Cleaner, Greener Festival was cited as an example of joint working. Collaboration with Ruislip Woods Trustees was being explored to secure innovative management approaches and external funding support. RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the content of the Progress Report. 135. SECTION 19 FLOOD INVESTIGATION (Agenda Item 10) Ian Thynne, Head of Environmental Specialists, was in attendance to respond to Members’ questions in relation to the Section 19 Flood Investigation report included in the agenda pack. Members asked what lessons had been learned from the recent increase in flooding incidents, noting that these had been significantly more frequent than in previous years. The Head of Environmental Specialists responded that the primary lesson learned was that flooding had worsened as the climate had continued to change. He stated that the September 2024 events had been among the worst the Borough had experienced, with devastating impacts on residents in areas such as Ruislip and Northwood. Flooding remained an emotive subject because residents could go years without incident and then suddenly face displacement, property loss, and severe distress. It was explained that the Council had struggled to keep pace with flood-risk management due to ageing drainage infrastructure, limited funding, and complex interactions with Thames Water. As a result, the Council had shifted toward innovative approaches using green spaces to reduce flood risk. Thirteen projects were being delivered through external Environment Agency funding, a significant achievement given the small size of the team. However, much of the Council’s work necessarily remained reactive, given the impossibility of predicting exactly where future flooding would occur. It was noted that, while proactive projects were being implemented in areas identified as vulnerable, flooding often had to occur before intervention could begin. When incidents did occur, the Council acted quickly; for example, after more than 100 properties were flooded at Ruislip Gardens, a flood action group had been established and a project identified to reduce future risk. Members enquired whether improved funding and monitoring would enable better preparedness and risk prediction. It was confirmed that, while additional information and funding would be helpful, flooding ultimately depended on unpredictable weather conditions. Officers described the extreme rainfall of 2024, equivalent to a month’s worth falling in a single day, which exceeded the design capacity of many local schemes. It was emphasised that forecasting precise impacts was extremely difficult because outcomes depended on seasonal conditions, infrastructure state, and unpredictable variables. It was noted that residents needed clearer information about their flood-risk status and greater encouragement to undertake their own resilience measures. The Committee Members asked specifically about situations where blocked gullies and drains were contributing to local flooding. They queried whether the Council could recharge Thames Water for the administrative time spent chasing the company to resolve issues for which it was responsible. In response, it was explained that responsibilities were highly fragmented: Council gullies drained into the Thames Water sewer network, which then flowed into rivers managed by the Environment Agency. In practice, disputes frequently occurred over ownership of drainage systems beneath carriageways or at property boundaries. Reports were often passed back and forth between agencies, creating inefficiencies. It was believed that costs for reporting or chasing Thames Water were not recovered and it was acknowledged that residents often did not understand which authority held responsibility. Engagement with Thames Water was described as difficult because it was required to prioritise spending its customers’ money carefully, while the Council also had statutory duties. The national “common reporting tool,” intended to streamline processes, remained some distance away from implementation. Councillors sought further clarifications as to whether, in cases where the Council had undertaken work that later proved to be Thames Water’s responsibility, cost recovery was pursued or could be expanded. The Head of Environmental Specialists agreed that this was an important issue and stated that he would raise the matter with the Highways team to provide a more detailed answer on cost-recovery mechanisms. He noted that Thames Water’s operational teams had often been helpful in clearing networks when asked, although strategic cooperation remained challenging. Councillors queried whether the growing use of concrete in new developments—and the resulting reduction in natural drainage—was being addressed through planning requirements. They proposed measures such as mandating that residents retain part of their front gardens as permeable surfaces. In response, it was clarified that new developments were already required to achieve Greenfield runoff rates and to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. The greater issue was existing dwellings, many of which had paved front gardens and numerous dropped kerbs. These longstanding changes had reduced infiltration capacity across the Borough and formed part of the legacy issues contributing to current flood problems. The Council was therefore focusing on encouraging residents to adopt measures such as water-butt installation to reduce runoff at household level. Members enquired who was responsible for cleaning canals and rivers, given that residents often dumped large items such as mattresses and pallets in local waterways. It was explained that canals were managed differently from rivers: canals did not generally have floodplains because their water levels were artificially controlled, whereas rivers were managed by the Environment Agency. It was noted that dredging, often requested by residents, was costly and only provided short-term relief before silt re-accumulated. River maintenance responsibilities depended on ownership, and many residents were unaware that they legally owned and were responsible for maintaining sections of watercourses adjoining their properties. This complexity was part of the wider challenge the Council faced in managing local flood risk. The Chair asked for clarification regarding a historical flood reference in the report and requested that wording be updated. He also sought further clarification as to how flood action groups (FLAGs) would be engaged in a manner that ensured expert voices were heard without overshadowing residents who had concerns but less technical knowledge. The Head of Environmental Specialists stated that flood action groups served as the frontline link with affected communities and that residents’ lived experience was crucial to understanding local flood mechanisms. The value of working with these groups was highlighted, noting that different areas had different histories and patterns of flooding. It was confirmed that engagement would continue to be strengthened to ensure balanced representation and effective collaboration. Members thanked the Head of Environmental Specialists for his report and for providing acronyms and abbreviations for ease of reference RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee: 1. Noted the findings of the Section 19 investigation and the scale of impacts across priority catchments; and 2. Noted the programme of actions for 2025/26, including targeted drainage improvements, community Flood Action Groups (FLAGs), and collaborative schemes with EA and TWUL. 136. FORWARD PLAN (Agenda Item 11) RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the Forward Plan. 137. WORK PROGRAMME (Agenda Item 12) The Chair, Councillor Peter Smallwood, updated the Committee on the plans for the next few months and explained that these had already been discussed with the opposition leader, Councillor Kamal Kaur. He paid tribute to Councillor Bridges, the former chairman, thanked him for chairing the Committee diligently and fairly for many years and congratulated him on becoming the Cabinet Member for Residents Services. He also thanked Councillor Farley for his excellent work as the previous opposition lead. The Chair welcomed Councillor Singh and Councillor Dot to the Committee and outlined recent discussions about whether to undertake a mini-review. Although footway parking had been considered, it was ultimately felt that such a review would be too substantial to complete properly in the short time remaining in the administration. Instead, it was noted that the Committee planned to focus on a series of smaller topic-based discussions. He explained that the January meeting would examine parking enforcement with input from officers. Waste services were scheduled for February, and Councillor Bridges had been invited to attend alongside the Corporate Director. In March, it was confirmed that the Committee would look at community safety and cohesion, inviting partners such as the police, fire service, and faith representatives. Members were encouraged to suggest additional contributors. In April, the Committee planned to consider the topic of HMOs, with Councillor Tuckwell agreeing to participate. It was confirmed that the Committee would continue to operate in the same way as under Councillor Bridges’s chairmanship: external partners or officers would give a brief presentation before the Committee moved directly to questions. Members were expected to read the papers in advance. The questioning format would remain as one question plus an optional follow-up. The collaborative work undertaken by the Committee in respect of funfairs and circuses was also recognised by the Chair. It was noted that a deposit scheme was now in place, that had originated from cross-party collaboration within the Residents’ Services Select Committee. This demonstrated that, by working together, positive outcomes could be delivered protecting land and ensuring that deposits were taken from those operating said funfairs and circuses. 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 9.36 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 – 18 February 2026 Classification: Public Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy Consultation Draft Committee name Residents’ Services Select Committee Officer reporting Debby Weller Papers with report Appendix A: Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation Appendix B: Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Review 2025 Ward All HEADLINES As part of its statutory responsibility to undertake a Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Review and to develop and publish a Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy , this report provides the Residents’ Services Select Committee with an opportunity to review and comment on the draft Strategy before Cabinet considers it. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Residents’ Services Select Committee: 1. Notes the contents of the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Review; and 2. Reviews the draft Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy for the Borough and comments on any matters it would like considered as this Strategy is finalised for approval by the Cabinet. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Under the Homelessness Act 2022, local housing authorities must publish a comprehensive homelessness and rough sleeping strategy every 5 years based on a review of all forms of homelessness in their area. The development of the review and the draft strategy ( see attached appendices A & B) have included data analysis and engagement with internal and external partners during summer and autumn 2025. They have been informed by current challenges for homelessness at a national and more local level and take into account the Temporary Accommodation Strategy approved by Cabinet in February 2025 and the Residents’ Services Select Committee Review of Homelessness and the Customer Journey which concluded in January 2025. The Strategy is currently undergoing a six-week formal consultation process which began on 5th January 2026 and concludes on 15th February 2026. Following consultation, the consideration by Cabinet is scheduled for 19th March 2026. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 18 February 2026 Classification: Public The Vision in the draft for Homelessness and Rough Sleeping is: Putting residents first: a compassionate, preventative and empowering approach to tackling homelessness and rough sleeping , with access to appropriate accommodation and support. There are five strategic priorities, brief details of which are as follows: Strategic Priority1: Early and Sustained Prevention of Homelessness Improve Access to Early and Sustained Prevention of Homelessness Strengthen Financial and Multi-Agency Support to Prevent Homelessness Support Tenancy Sustainment and Long- Term Housing Stability • Universal advice • Targeted advice to be expanded for high-risk groups • Tailored response to high volume presentations • Readiness for Renters Rights legislation • Digital tools for self - assessment and tailored advice • Joint working with Children’s Services to improve pathways for care leavers • Homelessness Prevention Fund • Coordinate wraparound support through range of homelessness partners • Hospital discharge protocol • Prison and probation services strengthened protocol • Floating support and tenancy management through partners and inhouse services • Employment and financial advice to support long-term stability • Discretionary Housing Payments kept under review to support households at risk • Preparation for Independent Living Residents’ Services Select Committee – 18 February 2026 Classification: Public Strategic Priority 2: Resident Focused Homelessness Services Residents are Clear about their Rights and Responsibilities and are Respected, Understood and Supported Staff are Equipped to Provide Excellent Services Strengthening Partnerships • Residents’ Charter to explain homelessness support and set expectations • Providing a welcoming environment • Efficient appointment systems • Quality assurance controls • Feedback mechanisms to inform service improvements and promote co-production • Strengthening complaints process and learning to improve services • Update communication materials to ensure clarity and understanding • Training and development • Supervision and Wellbeing - staff supervision and tools and policies to support mental health • Learning culture, share good practice and promote continuous improvement • Professionalism and consistency – clear service standards and protocols • Effective case management with named case workers and active communication • Staff voice – involved in service design • Recognise and value contributions • Shared protocols and integrated systems • Referrals across departments • Engage actively with partners • Coordinate activities • Forward planning work with partners • Longer-term commissioning • Shared learning and development Strategic Priority 3: Support Access to Safe, Suitable, Sustainable Accommodation Increase Access to Safe, Suitable and Sustainable Housing Reduce Reliance on Emergency Housing Improve Pathways to Settled Housing • Develop homelessness accommodation pipeline • Maximise use of council owned assets • Increase supply of temporary and supported housing • Continue to develop relationships with private landlords • Secure move-on options through collaboration with providers • Promote tenancy sustainment and Residents’ Services Select Committee – 18 February 2026 Classification: Public • Address Homes in Multiple Occupation quality and regulation through licensing and inspections • Maximise use of existing council homes • Strengthen partnerships with housing associations and larger private sector providers support services • Monitor and evaluate transition outcomes to inform future planning Strategic Priority 4: Targeted Housing Pathways for Single Homeless, Rough Sleepers and Other Groups Build Clear and Sustainable Housing Pathways Strengthen Partnership and Outreach to Address Complex Needs Promote Recovery, Independence and Long- Term Stability • Robust Pathways to effectively support movement to sustainable accommodation • Pathways for recent arrivals • Increase availability of shared accommodation for under 35s • Targeted supported housing for young people • Safe Temporary Accommodation for survivors of Domestic Abuse • Combined housing and employment advice for those who are benefit capped • Dedicated officer working with hospital discharge teams • Partnership working with other London Boroughs to address rough sleeping • Collaboration with commissioned and non-commissioned services to help transition away from the streets • Outreach services to be reviewed to ensure remain responsive to evolving needs • Focus on health and wellbeing and on access to meaningful opportunities in education, training and employment • Tailored support to transition to independent living • Housing first initiatives to provide a solid foundation to address deep rooted challenges Residents’ Services Select Committee – 18 February 2026 Classification: Public Strategic Priority 5: Modern data led cost effective services Use Data to Drive Prevention and Early Intervention Embed Performance, Workforce and Service Quality Monitoring • Centralised Homelessness Dashboard – provide real-time visibility of key metrics to support operational oversight, strategic planning and performance management • Predictive analytics to identify households at risk of homelessness earlier • Data modelling to support resource allocation, forecast demand and inform commissioning decisions • Benchmarking against other London boroughs and national indicators (outcomes framework) • Monitoring of staff caseloads and wellbeing indicators • Key metrics to include re-approach rates, resolution times and resident satisfaction BACKGROUND PAPERS Residents’ Services Select Committee Review of Homelessness and the Cu stomer Journey – Review Findings APPENDICES Appendix A Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation Appendix B Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Review 2025

Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 1 Appendix A Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation Contents For eword 3 Introduction 5 Context 7 What we know about homelessness in Hillingdon 11 Priority One: Early and sustained prevention of homelessness 17 Priority Two: Resident focussed homelessness services 22 Priority Three: Support access to safe, suitable and sustainable accommodation 26 Priority Four: Targeted h ousing pathways for single homeless , rough sleepers and other groups 31 Priority Five: Modern, data -led and cost -effective services 35 Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 3 Foreword Homelessness and rough sleeping are among the most urgent and visible challenges facing our communities today and London is at the centre of the homelessness crisis. On 31st March 2025, of the 131 thousand homeless households in England in temporary accommodation, more than half were in London. Spending by councils in England on temporary accommodation reached £2.8 billion in 2024-25, up 25% from the year before. Outer-London boroughs like Hillingdon, face significant housing needs and a critical shortage of affordable housing. As a port borough and a hub for asylum hotels and recently for Chargossian families, who have a route to British nationality in place, Hillingdon faces additional and unsustainable pressures. The influx of asylum seekers and other new arrivals, places further strain on already limited housing resources and rough sleeping, exacerbating the challenges of providing adequate accommodation and support services. In Hillingdon, we are determined to tackle these issues head-on with compassion, innovation, and a relentless focus on prevention. This strategy sets out our vision for a borough where homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring. It reflects our commitment to putting residents first— ensuring that every individual who faces or is at risk of homelessness is treated with dignity, empathy, and respect. It also recognises the complex and evolving landscape in which we operate. Loss of private rented sector lettings is the most frequent reason for approaches to the council regarding homelessness and by far the most common reason for households becoming homeless and needing to be housed in temporary accommodation. Other key reasons for homelessness approaches are no longer being able to stay with family and friends and movement out of Home Office accommodation. Our services are being shaped to respond appropriately. We are also aware that the causes of homelessness are varied and often deeply rooted. That is why this strategy prioritises early intervention, tailored support, and strong partnerships across council services, voluntary organisations, health providers, and the wider community. It builds on the progress we have made through initiatives such as the development of housing pathways for rough sleepers and advances made in delivering our Temporary Accommodation Reduction Strategy and our plan to reduce the budgetary impact of homelessness and adverse impacts on the lives of those affected. To reduce the use and unsustainable cost of temporary accommodation, workstreams are focused on increasing early intervention and preventions and on increasing the supply of both temporary and settled accommodation for homeless residents in the private rented and social sectors The private rented sector is the main source of housing for homeless households. The private rented market is changing and to avoid costly nightly paid accommodation we need to review our offer and incentives to attract the larger and institutional parties who will provide stability and longer term housing options. We are building on our existing relationships with private sector landlords and are actively seeking new partners to increase the availability of private rented accommodation for homeless residents, Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 4 including longer-term leasing arrangements for groups of properties. We are exploring alternative options for direct housing provision by the council through existing arrangements and/or new company structures. We are proud of the work already underway—from securing new funding and expanding supported housing, to strengthening our services through staff development. We are expanding the supply of council homes through acquisitions, development and regeneration and are working with Housing Associations to encourage further development. We make best use of existing homes through initiatives to reduce under-occupation and to tackle housing fraud. We recognise that there is much more to do. This strategy sets out a clear roadmap for the next five years, with goals and measurable outcomes to guide our efforts. Councillor Steve Tuckwell Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Growth Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 5 Introduction The Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026-2031 sets out how we will work to prevent and relieve homelessness and remove the need to sleep rough. It outlines five strategic priorities which will direct the work of the council and inform our work with partners over the next five years. Our Strategic Priorities Priority One: Early and sustained prevention of homelessness Priority Two: Resident focussed homelessness services Priority Three: Support access to safe, suitable and sustainable accommodation Priority Four: Targeted housing pathways for single homeless, rough sleepers and other groups Priority Five: Modern, data-led and cost-effective services The strategy has been produced after engagement with a range of local stakeholders and it is informed by best practice and the wider policy and legislative environment. We have completed a comprehensive homelessness review which evidences the extent of the challenges faced by Hillingdon in relation to homelessness and rough sleeping and identifies key trends and challenges. Key findings are covered under ‘What we know about Homelessness in Hillingdon’ below. Our Vision for Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Putting residents first: a compassionate, preventative and empowering approach to tackling homelessness and rough sleeping, with access to appropriate accommodation and support We envision a borough where homelessness is rare, brief, and non- recurring. Our commitment is to put residents first, ensuring that every individual facing or at risk of homelessness is treated with respect, dignity, and empathy. We will prioritise prevention, intervening early to stop homelessness before it starts, and we will support people to help themselves, building resilience and independence through tailored support and opportunities. We recognise that appropriate accommodation and support are fundamental to achieving lasting solutions and enabling people to rebuild their lives. We will deliver this vision through:  Respectful, person-centred and trauma informed services that listen to and involve residents in shaping their own solutions.  Early intervention and prevention strategies that tackle the root causes of homelessness.  Provision of safe, suitable, and sustainable accommodation, matched with the right level of support to meet individual needs. Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 6  Sound financial management, ensuring that resources are used effectively and sustainably to maximise impact.  Empowerment and partnership, helping residents build the skills, confidence, and connections they need to thrive.  Collaborative working across council departments, voluntary sector partners, and communities to create a joined-up response. Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 7 Context Major Shifts Since the 2019 Strategy COVID-19 Disruption: The pandemic reshaped service delivery, accelerating digital transformation and remote working. Unlike many councils, Hillingdon maintained face-to-face support for homeless individuals, preserving continuity of care. ‘Everyone In’ & Rough Sleeping Pathway: The national initiative led to 160 rough sleepers being housed from Heathrow. Olympic House was leased as a 33-bed first-stage accommodation and multi- service hub. This marked a turning point in Hillingdon’s rough sleeping response. Funding Landscape: The Rough Sleeper Initiative (RSI) enabled multi-agency partnership development. Additional funding from public health and accommodation grants expanded capacity, especially for substance misuse and wraparound support. National Homelessness Challenges  High levels of homelessness and households housed in temporary accommodation.  The cost of temporary accommodation reaching crisis levels with local authorities less and less able to spend funding on homelessness prevention.  Increasing numbers of households with children in B&B with shared facilities and the number that have been there for more than the six-week statutory limit.  Placements made a long distance from communities, schools, work, families and friends.  Rents growing far faster than benefit levels.  The impact of providing asylum accommodation on the ability to tackle homelessness.  Insufficient oversight of supported housing with some providing sub- standard housing with little support, supervision or care.  There are concerns that welfare reforms could increase poverty and the risk of homelessness. Evictions from private sector housing are the most common reason for homelessness approaches to local authorities. Housing Market Dynamics & Affordability Challenges Private Rented Sector (PRS) Pressures: Hillingdon’s average rent rose to £1,423 in 2024/25 — 12% higher than the previous year and £429 above the England average. Despite being relatively affordable within London (ranked 28th of 33 boroughs), affordability remains a major barrier for low- income households. Local Housing Allowance (LHA): Re- pegged to the 30th percentile in 2024, but not updated in 2025, creating a widening gap between LHA and actual rents. Council data shows significant shortfalls in properties available at LHA rates, especially for larger households (e.g., £788 gap for 4-bed homes). Structural Market Changes: Small landlords are exiting the market rapidly — 290,000 PRS homes sold (2021– Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 8 2024), while only 130,000 new Build to Rent homes were delivered. London PRS listings have dropped 41% since 2017, with larger homes hardest hit. Only 5% of listings were affordable to LHA recipients in mid-2024. The PRS is evolving with professional and institutional investors stepping in. These buyers are well-capitalised, often operating with lower levels of debt and are focused on sustainability, operational efficiency and long-term capital appreciation rather than short term yields. Demand for rental housing continues to outstrip supply, supporting rental growth and underpinning long-term investment. Legal and Policy Developments Key Case Law: Croydon v Imam: Financial constraints do not excuse councils from statutory duties. Hajjaj v Westminster: Suitability assessments must be evidence-based. Ciftci v Haringey: Reinforced procedural rigour in intentional homelessness decisions. Renters’ Rights Act A major reform aimed at improving security and fairness for tenants in the private rented sector. It will abolish Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions, meaning landlords must provide legitimate reasons—such as rent arrears or needing to sell the property—to end a tenancy. The Act introduces rolling periodic tenancies, strengthens protections against retaliatory evictions, and enhances tenant rights, including the ability to request pets and challenge poor housing conditions. It also establishes a Private Rented Sector Database and Landlord Ombudsman, applies the Decent Homes Standard to private rentals, and bans discrimination against tenants on benefits or with children. These changes aim to reduce homelessness risk by making tenancies more secure and improving housing standards although landlord withdrawal and court delays may offset benefits. The Act may well continue to impact on supply and procurement as more landlords leave the market, particularly those with small portfolios. There may other consequences as landlords become increasingly selective about tenants and seek alternative eviction routes. Ending of private rented sector evictions is a major cause of homelessness. It accounted for the highest number of approaches to Hillingdon’s Homelessness services in 2024/25 and by far the highest number of bookings into temporary accommodation. Although the Renters’ Rights Act is intended to protect tenants there are considerable risks. Without court reform many landlords believe they will be left stranded if tenants stop paying rent. If possession becomes too slow or uncertain more landlords may simply exit the market leaving fewer homes and upward pressure on rents. Supported Housing Oversight (SHROA 2023): The Act aims to raise standards in a part of the housing system perceived to lack oversight. It introduces licensing and national standards for supported housing providers, motivated by concerns that exemptions from housing benefit subsidy caps were being exploited by some providers. Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 9 Councils must conduct needs assessments and develop supported housing strategies, improving regulation and quality assurance. The intent of the legislation is supported but there remains a lot of uncertainty regarding the impact of the legislation. Many people at risk of homelessness have support needs and over the past six years the share of households owed a duty with at least one identified support need has steadily increased across the country from 45% in 2019 to 58% in early 2025.1 Cross-government Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy published 11 December 2025 with a focus on prevention and long-term planning. Implications for Hillingdon’s Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy will be further considered during the consultation period. Government Housing Strategy expected 2025/26. Repeal of the Vagrancy Act (1824) to decriminalise rough sleeping. 1 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, ‘Statutory homelessness England level time series “live tables”’, GOV.UK, 22 July Allocation of Social Housing Regulations 2025: have exempted domestic abuse survivors and care leavers under 25 from local connection tests. Fair Funding Review 2.0 to include separating temporary accommodation funding from Homelessness Prevention Grant, creating ring-fenced preventions stream. Mayor of London’s Rough Sleeping Plan (2025–2030) Aims to eliminate rough sleeping by 2030 through prevention, early intervention, and sustainable housing pathways. Key initiatives: Ending Homelessness Hubs, prevention phoneline, outreach expansion, and refurbishment of 500 social homes via ‘Homes Off the Streets’. Government Investment Commitments: £100m for homelessness prevention. 2025, www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data- sets/live-tables-on-homelessness £950m for Local Authority Housing Fund (Round 4) to reduce reliance on B&Bs and hotels. £39bn Social and Affordable Homes Programme (2025–2035), with 60% for social rent. London receives 30% of funding despite having 56% of TA households. Demand Pressures & Vulnerable Groups Asylum Seekers: Applications nationally surged to 109,000 in 2025. Hotel placements in the borough have increased local demand on homelessness services. Policy changes (e.g., pause on refugee family reunion) may lessen future strain on services to some extent, but new arrivals are a considerable pressure on homelessness resources. Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 10 Policy Landscape Housing Supply Constraints Delivery Challenges: Only 3,991 affordable homes started in London last year — second-lowest on record. Viability issues due to land costs, interest rates, build cost inflation, and fire safety regulations (e.g., second staircase requirement). Provider Pressures: Housing associations are scaling back development to focus on existing stock. Retrofitting for fire safety, damp, and mould is diverting resources from new builds. For-Profit Registered Providers (FPRPs): Rapid growth expected — current 43,100 homes projected to triple by 2030. May help fill gaps left by traditional providers, especially for social rent. Technology and Homelessness Services AI & Digital Tools: Potential to identify homelessness risk factors, coordinate support, and match services to needs. Risks include misinformation, bias, and undermining person-centred approaches. Digital Exclusion: A growing barrier for those in TA or on low incomes. Limited access to secure connectivity affects ability to manage benefits, health appointments, and engage with support services. Landlord Practices: Increased use of digital tenant screening tools (e.g., risk profiling algorithms). May disadvantage benefit recipients, those in non-standard employment, or with limited digital literacy. A multi-year settlement is expected from 26/27. The formula for distributing the Homelessness Prevention Grant is being reformed and will shift the focus towards prevention. It is likely that the RSP&RG will become part of the HPG. The funding will be split into two components – Temporary Accommodation demand and costs and Prevention and Relief demand and costs. The existing split of 49% for prevention/relief and 51% for TA will shift to a greater proportion for prevention/relief. The TA element may be consolidated into the Local Government Finance Settlement. Ending rough sleeping in London In May 2025 the Mayor launched his new plan of action on rough sleeping, promising to break the ‘vicious cycle’ of street homelessness and to put London on a pathway to end rough sleeping for good by 2030. The Plan is framed around three key steps to achieve this ambition.  Provide leadership to join together services and make sure people can get the help they need, as early and as simply as possible.  Prevent rough sleeping wherever possible.  Deliver rapid, sustainable routes away from the streets Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 11 What we know about homelessness in Hillingdon There are roughly 109 thousand households in Hillingdon. During April 2024 to March 2025, 7306 contacted the council because they were either already homeless or they were threatened with homelessness. This number has more than doubled over a 3 year period and is likely to increase again in the current year. Three reasons account for 58% of all approaches:  Family and friend evictions  Evictions from private rented sector housing  Ending of Home Office accommodation A homelessness prevention or relief duty was accepted for 2053 households, around a third for prevention of homelessness and the other two thirds for relief when the resident had already become homeless. 2Local authority revenue expenditure and financing England 2024 to 2025 Nightly paid temporary accommodation The number of households booked into nightly paid temporary accommodation during 2024/25 was 740.  208 with a 1 bedroom need,  269 with a 2 bedroom need,  198 with a 3 bedroom need, and  69 with a 4 bedroom need Private sector evictions are by far the most common reason, accounting for 42% of these bookings, and three quarters of those are for families with children. Of all 3 bedroom bookings, 58% are due to private sector evictions and this rises further to 82% for 4 bedroom bookings. Other prominent reasons for nightly paid temporary accommodation bookings are domestic abuse, ending of Home Office accommodation and friends and family evictions. The number of homeless households in temporary accommodation on 1 April 2025 was 1,562 of which 796 were in nightly paid accommodation. The cost of providing temporary accommodation has increased markedly in Hillingdon as it has in local authorities across the country. Councils in England spent £2.8bn on temporary accommodation in 2024/25 – an increase of 25 per cent in just 12 months.2 Reducing the number of residents placed in and the cost of nightly paid temporary accommodation is an imperative for the borough. Declining availability in the private rented sector Since our last homelessness strategy, housing affordability has worsened, private renting is more expensive and the gap between rents and the amount of benefit that can be claimed to cover housing costs has grown. Small, individual landlords are leaving the housing market at an accelerated pace driven by rising costs, tax changes, ageing landlord demographics and forthcoming legislative changes under the Renters’ Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 12 Rights Act. A study by Savills and the London School of Economics3 found that the availability of private rented homes had dropped by 41%, with the steepest decline in larger properties. The contraction is most severe in the more affordable areas - Hillingdon is one of the most affordable London boroughs ranking 28th out of 33 boroughs. If the private rented sector continues to shrink, the pressure on social housing, already severe, will continue to grow. However, not all types of landlords are in decline. Corporate landlords and institutional investors benefit from economies of scale, streamlined management, and lower financing costs, making them more resilient to economic and legislative pressures. New arrivals from overseas There has been a significant increase in the number of people claiming asylum and action to speed up applications and reduce use of hotels has meant additional pressures for homelessness services. 3 Supply of Private Rented Sector Accommodation in London There has been higher migration for humanitarian reasons via bespoke schemes such as those for Ukrainians and Afghans. Chagossian families, that have a right under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to apply to be registered as British citizens have been arriving following the agreement that Diego Garcia will no longer remain a British Indian Ocean Territory. Rough sleeping in Hillingdon Hillingdon has a high number of rough sleepers compared to other London boroughs. During 2024/25 there were 793 CHAIN4 verified rough sleepers – 301 at Heathrow airport and 492 in the rest of the borough. The number at the airport is similar to the previous year, but the number in the rest of the borough increased by 66%.  315 rough sleepers had a mental health support need,  145 had an alcohol related support need,  155 had a drugs related support need, and  217 had more than one of these needs. 4 CHAIN (Combined Homelessness and Information Network) is a multi-agency database recording  17 were previously in the armed forces  86 had been in prison  21 had been in care We have a growing cohort of people facing homelessness and rough sleeping after being moved on from Home Office accommodation. An increasing number are becoming street homeless as the council struggles to meet statutory obligations amid funding shortfalls and rising demand. Temporary Accommodation Reduction Hillingdon Council already has in place a strategy to reduce temporary accommodation. The associated Delivery Plan has four workstreams:  Increase prevention and reduce new temporary accommodation placements  Increase access to alternative housing options  Reduce cost of temporary accommodation  Increase move-on into social housing information about people sleeping rough and the wider street population in London. Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 13 Review of Housing advice and Homelessness Service  The Council’s Cabinet has approved taking forward recommendations made by the Residents’ Services Select Committee Review into the Council’s Housing Advice and Homelessness Service. Recommendations are made in the following areas: o Enhancing Resident Experience o Managing expectations and process efficiency o Staff support & training o Partnerships & collaboration Stakeholder engagement – Emerging themes Engagement with internal and external colleagues and partners in developing this consultation draft has been carried out. The following themes have been highlighted in these discussions:  Prioritising prevention at an early stage.  Integration of employment support with housing services.  Addressing needs of some specific groups – including households: with an autistic member; under age 35; that are benefit capped, ex-offenders, that have no recourse to public funds, and victims of domestic abuse.  Improved partnering including planning and coordination of services, data sharing and referral pathways.  More joint training, protocols and communication channels with internal and external partners.  Engagement wider range of voluntary and faith based organisations  Ensure that residents are provided with information to enable them to make an informed choice about realistic, sustainable options. Unaffordable housing, especially for single adults combines with a reluctance to consider other locations.  Capture learning from complaints and reviews.  Structured approach to gathering resident feedback  Framework to promote staff wellbeing and prevent burnout  Increase accommodation options for both temporary and permanent housing across tenures. To include longer term leasing options. planned acquisitions and development  Address concerns around the quality of accommodation and anti-social behaviour.  Develop an engagement plan to build relationships with corporate landlords. Address concerns regarding S21 changes causing landlords to exit the market.  Coordinate work to identify HMO landlords early and to work with them.  Address concerns regarding increased numbers of predominantly single male asylum seekers and fairness of the particular pressure on Hillingdon.  Lack of resources for non-priority need homelessness groups is impacting on rough sleeping.  Need for mental health outreach services Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 14  Consider how a Housing First model could work in Hillingdon.  Focus on service delivery to ensure professionalism, consistency and efficiency. Better collaboration between teams. Clear plans and guidelines. Clear governance and decision making structures.  Need for a quality control and performance management culture.  Develop existing work to enhance data capabilities and allow for access to data on demand. Explore opportunities for use of AI in service delivery. The data gathered during our Homelessness Review, existing plans and the feedback from internal and external colleagues and partners has helped to inform our proposed priorities and goals. More detailed action plans to deliver the Homelessness Strategy will be prepared on an annual basis. Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 15 Key Stats Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 16 Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 17 Strategic Priority 1: Early and sustained prevention of homelessness The best way to reduce homelessness is to prevent it happening in the first place. Hillingdon’s approach to homelessness is rooted in early intervention, targeted support, and sustained tenancy outcomes. We provide signposting information on our website for residents in housing need who are able to self-help and also provide residents with tailored advice and information to empower them to make informed decisions about their housing options. We aim in particular to target upstream preventative measures to achieve most impact. This includes prevention activity designed to address the main causes of homelessness and to address the needs of particular groups of residents. Private rented sector evictions are by far the most frequent reason for households in Hillingdon to become homeless and require temporary accommodation. We want to make sure all avenues to relieve the threat of homelessness are available as soon as our service becomes aware of the threat. This can include working with the current landlord, investigating benefit issues, and helping to locate alternative accommodation. We will track success in preventing homelessness for this reason through the numbers of prevention versus the number of relief duties and how those duties are ended. The changes being brought forward by the Renters’ Rights Act will have significant impacts for Housing Advice and Homelessness Officers. The nature of approaches is likely to change. Without the availability of Section 21 evictions use of other grounds will become more likely and there may also be an increase in illegal evictions. Current Service Provision  The Homelessness Team works collaboratively with applicants, their support networks—including family and friends—and landlords to offer guidance and assistance aimed at preventing homelessness and maintaining tenancies where appropriate.  We work in close partnership with hospital discharge teams to ensure appropriate support is in place for individuals transitioning from hospital into the community.  We work in close partnership with relevant agencies to prevent and address domestic abuse. This includes funding the Sanctuary Scheme, which enables victims to remain safely in their own homes. Additionally, we are actively progressing towards achieving Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance (DAHA) accreditation  Housing staff actively participate in a range of multi-agency forums, including the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC), which coordinates risk management strategies for victims and survivors identified as being at the highest risk of harm due to domestic abuse. Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 18  The Housing Protocol for Care Leavers has been updated and includes direct offers of accommodation as well the implementation of a panel to determine best course of action.  Hillingdon has established a Single Homelessness and Rough Sleepers Group that includes Public Health, CNWL NHS Trust, ARCH, social care colleagues and other partners. This multi-agency forum coordinates responses to complex cases and ensures wraparound support.  We successfully secured funding for the Accommodation for Ex-Offenders (AfEO) scheme. Through this programme, we work collaboratively with partners to support individuals with offending histories who are at risk of homelessness, helping them access suitable accommodation with a strong focus on tenancy sustainment. Universal Advice – Targeted Advice Hillingdon’s homelessness services provide both universal and targeted advice. Universal advice is delivered through the Housing Needs and Homelessness Service, including triage, reception, and online resources. However, targeted advice is increasingly prioritised for high-risk groups such as care leavers, asylum seekers, victims of domestic abuse, and those with complex support needs. The P3 service for young people and the tailored Personal Housing Plans are examples of targeted interventions. The Council is exploring digital tools to help residents self- assess eligibility and receive tailored guidance earlier in their journey. Homeless Prevention Fund A dedicated Homeless Prevention Fund is being reviewed to support upstream interventions. This includes financial incentives to retain tenancies, prevent family evictions, and support “Find Your Own” schemes. The fund will be used flexibly to reduce new placements into temporary accommodation and support sustainable housing outcomes. Staff are encouraged to use the fund proactively, and a consistent framework is being developed to ensure equitable access and impact tracking. Joint Working with Social Care – Pipeline for Care Leavers Joint working with Children’s Services is being strengthened to improve housing pathways for care leavers. The review highlights the need for clearer protocols, better communication, and earlier planning. The Council is working to embed housing officers within social care teams and develop a shared pipeline of supported and general needs accommodation. Partnerships with P3 and YMCA are key components of this pathway, offering tailored support and transitional housing. Links with Social Care, Health Services, and Public Health Hillingdon has established a Single Homelessness and Rough Sleepers Group that includes Public Health, CNWL NHS Trust, ARCH, and social care colleagues. This multi-agency forum coordinates responses to complex cases and ensures wraparound support. Public Health leads on the Rough Sleeping Drug and Alcohol Treatment Grant, and a Hospital Discharge Officer has been appointed to improve transitions from hospital to housing. The Council is also working to align with national safeguarding guidance and improve data sharing across services. Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 19 Sustaining Tenancies – Support Tenancy sustainment is a core focus of the strategy, particularly for households in temporary accommodation and those rehoused via PRS or social housing. Support includes floating support services (e.g. P3), tenancy support, and integration with employment and financial advice. The Council constantly reviews it’s Discretionary Housing Payment process to better support households at risk of arrears and subsequent eviction. Trinity’s shared housing model and YMCA’s keywork system are examples of tenancy sustainment in action helping prepare for longer term solutions. Hospitals – Protocols Protocols are being developed to improve hospital discharge processes. A dedicated Hospital Discharge Officer is now in post, working with Hillingdon Hospital and CNWL to ensure timely and appropriate housing solutions. The aim is to prevent discharge into homelessness and reduce repeat admissions. The Council is exploring joint training and referral pathways with health services to embed housing considerations into discharge planning. Prison / Probation – Protocols We will be looking at stronger protocols with probation and prison services. A significant number of rough sleepers have a history of custody, and ex-offenders face barriers in accessing housing. The Council is working to improve referral pathways, engage landlords, and develop supported housing options. Trinity and Olympic House provide accommodation for ex-offenders, and the Council is exploring Housing First models for those with multiple support needs. Asylum seekers – early work in the hotels Hillingdon has the highest concentration of asylum seekers in contingency hotel accommodation in London. A specialist asylum team works with NASS applicants before and after status decisions to prevent homelessness. Early engagement includes housing advice, reconnection planning, and coordination with Heathrow Travel Care. The Council is advocating for fairer funding and national dispersal to reduce local pressures. Rough sleeping among asylum seekers is rising, and targeted outreach is being expanded. Strategic Priority 1: Early and sustained prevention of homelessness – Our Goals Improve Access to Early Advice and Intervention  Universal advice: We will deliver universal advice through triage, reception, and online resources.  Targeted advice: This will be expanded for high-risk groups including care leavers, asylum seekers, victims of domestic abuse, and those with complex needs.  Tailored response to high volume presentations: We will focus on ensuring effective and consistent responses where homelessness is related to PRS evictions, family or friend evictions or other prominent reasons for homelessness.  Readiness for Renters Rights legislation: Preparation for the Act’s implementation will include developing our understanding of the likely impacts and available tools. Staff will receive comprehensive training and work will be Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 20 cross service to coordinate the work of Homelessness Prevention with Private Sector Enforcement.  Digital tools: Enhancements will enable residents to self-assess and to receive tailored guidance earlier.  Joint working with Children’s Services: We will strengthen our working arrangements to improve housing pathways for care leavers, including linking housing officers with colleagues in Children’s Services and developing shared accommodation pipelines. Strengthen Financial and Multi- Agency Support to Prevent Homelessness  Homelessness Prevention Fund: We will review and promote proactive use of the Homeless Prevention Fund to retain tenancies and prevent family evictions.  Coordinate wraparound support: through the Single Homelessness and Rough Sleepers Group, involving Public Health, CNWL NHS Trust, ARCH, and social care.  Hospital discharge protocols: Housing considerations will be embedded into protocols, supported by a dedicated Hospital Discharge Officer.  Prison and probation services: We will develop stronger protocols with prison and probation services to support ex- offenders into housing. Support Tenancy Sustainment and Long-Term Housing Stability  Floating support: We will continue to provide floating support and tenancy management services through partners such as P3 and YMCA and our own inhouse services.  Employment and financial advice: We will engage employment support and financial support with housing services to promote long-term stability.  Discretionary Housing Payments: The process for making discretionary housing payments will be kept under review to better support households at risk.  Preparation for independent living: We will promote innovative models such as Trinity’s shared housing coaching and YMCA’s keyworker system to prepare residents for independent living. Outcomes for residents  Improved Access to Early Advice and Intervention  Strengthened Financial and Multi- Agency Support  Enhanced Tenancy Sustainment and Long-Term Stability Measuring Success  Publication of a supported housing needs assessment and strategy  Establishment of a Homelessness Forum to support coordinated and effective partnership working  Achievement of Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance (DAHA) accreditation  Increasing the proportion of cases addressed at the prevention stage rather than at the relief stage  Proportion of prevention and relief cases resulting in a successful outcome  Increased move-on for individuals to independent living Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 21 Strategic Priority 2: Resident focused homelessness services We are committed to delivering homelessness services that are compassionate, empowering and responsive to the needs of our residents. We believe that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity, to understand their rights and responsibilities, and to receive high quality support from well trained staff. Hillingdon Council has adopted the following set of values to guide how we engage with our communities, our residents and each other. Respect: Collaboration: Efficient: Integrity: Open and honest. We will work to make sure that our staff working with homeless people and those threatened with homelessness embody these values. Current service provision Our Residents’ Services Select Committee has undertaken a review of our Housing Advice and Homelessness Service. The primary aims were to identify ways to improve the experience of those presenting as homeless, better manage their expectations, enhance satisfaction, streamline processes and ultimately provide improved support to prevent homelessness. Key findings from the review included:  The importance of prevention and early intervention in addressing homelessness.  The need for improved communication and empathy from housing officers.  The necessity for better systems and technology for case handovers.  The challenges faced by victims of domestic abuse in accessing housing support. This strategy will take forward the recommendations from the review which cover:  Enhancing Resident Experience  Managing Expectations and Process Efficiency  Staff Support & Training  Partnerships and Collaboration Equalities and diversity We are committed to promoting equality of opportunity, celebrating and valuing diversity, eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and promoting good relations. Complaints Our Corporate complaints policy and procedure enables complaints to be made quickly and easily 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Complaints reports analyse complaints received across the council. It is however our intention to have a stronger framework in place, within homelessness services to ensure that learning from complaints and translating that learning into service improvements is part of our standard practice. Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 22 Priority 2: Resident focussed homelessness Services – Our Goals Residents are clear about their rights and responsibilities and are respected, understood and supported We will ensure that every resident who engages with our homelessness services feels heard, valued and informed. This means:  Residents’ Charter: We will develop a clear, accessible guide explaining each stage of the homelessness support process. This will set expectations, reduce confusion and address common questions.  Welcoming Environment: We will reconfigure the Housing Reception to be more empathetic and welcoming.  Efficient Appointments: We will improve appointment systems by exploring automated text reminders and a self- check-in system at reception. These changes are intended to reduce missed appointments and improve flow through the service.  Quality assurance: We will adopt quality control standards and procedures to continuously monitor service delivery.  Feedback Mechanisms: We will gather resident feedback on an ongoing basis to inform service improvements and we will promote co-production opportunities.  Complaints: We will strengthen our complaints process, ensuring residents know how to raise concerns and that we have mechanisms to learn from complaints and reviews to improve services.  Document Review: We will continue to update resident facing materials to ensure clarity and understanding. Staff are equipped to provide excellent services We will invest in our workforce to ensure that they are confident, capable and supported to deliver high- quality, person- centred and trauma informed services. This includes:  Training and Development: We will deliver joint training with partners, including trauma informed approaches, safeguarding and legal duties.  Supervision and Wellbeing: All staff will receive regular casework supervision and will have access to tools and policies that support mental health and burnout.  Learning Culture: We will create a learning environment to share good practice and promote continuous improvement.  Professionalism and Consistency: We will embed clear service standards, protocols and guidelines to ensure consistent delivery.  Effective Case Management: We aim to make sure that every homeless applicant will have a named case worker. We will actively communicate to provide advice and assistance throughout.  Staff Voice: We will actively promote staff involvement in service design. This will include creating a forum for staff to participate and encouraging use of the suggestion box system for ideas to improve service efficiency and resident experience. Strengthening Partnerships We recognise that homelessness cannot be tackled in isolation. Our partners play a vital Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 23 role in supporting residents and delivering joined-up services. We are committed to strengthening these relationships through meaningful engagement, shared planning and clear coordination. We will:  Recognise and Value Contributions: Acknowledge the expertise, resources, and commitment that partners bring to supporting residents, and celebrate collaborative successes.  Shared protocols and integrated systems: We will ensure working processes are in place across partners to ensure timely and appropriate support for residents, reducing duplication and improving outcomes.  Referrals across departments: A streamlined referral system will be implemented to improve coordination between housing, children’s services, adult social care, public health, and voluntary sector partners.  Engage Actively: Facilitate regular meetings, forums, and joint planning sessions with internal and external partners to share updates, align priorities, and build trust.  Coordinate Activities: Improve planning and coordination of services to reduce duplication, close gaps, and ensure residents receive timely, holistic support.  Forward Planning: Work with partners to anticipate future challenges, plan strategically, and respond proactively to emerging needs.  Longer-Term Commissioning: Where possible, we will move toward longer- term contracts with voluntary and community sector partners, underpinned by clear outcomes, performance indicators, and robust monitoring arrangements. This will support service continuity, innovation, and stronger relationships.  Shared Learning and Development: Promote joint training, peer learning, and shared resources to build capacity and consistency across organisations. Outcomes for residents  Residents feel respected, heard, understood and supported throughout their homelessness journey leading to higher satisfaction with the service and staff interactions.  Residents understand their rights, responsibilities and what to expect at each stage and they receive timely updates and reminders reducing missed appointments and delays.  Improved support for complex needs including mental health and substance misuse.  Services are inclusive and accessible. Residents with language barriers or additional needs can access services equitably and residents are able to provide feedback on services received.  Residents are supported by well-trained empathetic staff and benefit from coordinated support across council and partner services.  Residents build resilience and independence Measuring Success We will monitor progress through:  A “One Council" approach to cross- departmental collaboration  Resident satisfaction and feedback mechanisms  Staff training uptake  Joint training manuals developed and disseminated across housing and social care  Staff satisfaction and wellbeing surveys  Quality assurance and case audit outcomes Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 24  Regularly updated Personal Housing Plans  Improved referral and partnership data  Reduction in complaints and improved resolution times  Positive outcomes in homelessness prevention and sustained tenancies  Delivery against commissioned service outcomes and KPIs Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 25 Strategic Priority 3: Support access to safe, suitable, sustainable accommodation Vastly increasing the supply of settled accommodation available for homeless households is imperative to reduce the number of households currently living in nightly paid temporary accommodation. London is at the centre of a homelessness crisis with high levels of homelessness demand and supply pressures in both social and private rented sectors, record numbers of homeless households are in temporary accommodation, more than half of them in London. Private Rented Sector Pressures Incremental reform of the private rented sector has led to significant churn, with small-scale landlords exiting the market and rental stock becoming increasingly concentrated among professional landlords with larger portfolios. These landlords are more likely to offer settled, good quality homes, but are current incentives are not structured to attract long term landlords and investors. In London, private rented sector availability has dropped by 41% since 2017, with the steepest decline in larger properties. Demand for private sector housing remains high. During 2024/25, Hillingdon’s average rent reached £1,423 – a 12% increase year on year. The gap between average rents and the amount that can be covered by benefits ranged from an average £223 for 1 bedroom property to an average £788 for a 4 bedroom property in mid-2024 Temporary Accommodation Pressures In Hillingdon, there are in the region of 1,500 households in temporary accommodation. Over time the proportion of insecure nightly paid accommodation has increased and now makes up more than half of temporary accommodation used. We do not have any households with children in non- self-contained temporary accommodation and are committed to maintaining this. Temporary accommodation can have wide- ranging negative impacts for those living in it, including worse outcomes for health, education and employment. It is also an unsustainable cost pressure for the council. Our Temporary Accommodation Strategy includes measures aimed at increasing prevention activity and keeping the cost of temporary accommodation secured as low as possible. We are transitioning our temporary accommodation supply towards that which is council owned or leased over a longer Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 26 period to bring greater stability and reduce costs. The strategy also needs to address the shortage of supply of homes to meet housing demand. Homelessness Accommodation Demand The number of homeless families needing to be housed during the course of a year 2025/26 is estimated at 674, and this is anticipated to increase by a further 10% to 741 in 2026/27. Some of these households will find their own solution, but we forecast that 628 will require accommodation in either the social or private rented sector Our aim is to eliminate the use of nightly paid accommodation and for housing supply to keep pace with new demand from homeless households. To do this, in addition to meeting the demand arising during the year, settled accommodation is also needed for the currently 800+ households in nightly paid temporary accommodation. This is demand from homelessness households only and demand from other residents is additional to this. We need to increase supply significantly, particularly private sector supply, but also social sector supply in order to meet demand. We need to frontload meeting this demand as much as possible to achieve a rapid impact. Social Housing Supply Hillingdon Council owns approximately 10,000 homes for social renting and there are a further roughly 8,000 homes owned by Private Registered Providers (mainly Housing Associations) in the borough. During 2024/25 there were 690 social housing lettings of which 383 went to homeless households. This includes both re-lets of current social homes as they become vacant and through lettings of additional stock from new development and acquisitions of existing properties. Our target is for 500 social housing lettings to homeless households during 2025/26. This will be achieved mostly through a marked increase in acquisitions and new house building. An increased proportion of lettings will go to homeless households, and we will engage with Housing Associations working in the borough to also maximise social lettings within their housing stock. We will also consider including quotas for young people, vulnerable adults and single homeless in an annual lettings plan. Making best use of our existing homes We have a number of workstreams that are focused on using our existing council properties to better meet housing need. These include:  Tackling Fraud – Our Counter Fraud team are active in recovering social housing properties that have been fraudulently let and in identifying when temporary accommodation is not being used as arranged for homeless households  A cash incentive scheme provides incentives for existing tenants to purchase alternative properties, freeing homes for those in need.  We have an active extension programme which modifies suitable void properties to create much needed larger homes.  A Home Release Downsizer programme includes incentives for tenants to move Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 27 to smaller properties and release family homes. The council uses some of its own housing stock for temporary accommodation. Where appropriate we will consider making settled offers in the existing homes. Property Acquisitions During 2024/25 there were 228 property acquisitions completed, some, but not all of which were let to homeless households. More than half of the acquisitions were studios and 1 bedroom properties; 2 and 3 bedroom properties made up 20% each and 4 bedroom properties accounted for 4% of acquisitions. The acquisitions included a pilot programme with a company to purchase and refurbish 20 properties on our behalf. This programme has now been extended to purchase an additional 200 properties. The contract runs for 2 years, but the aim is for all of the properties to be purchased in the first year. We also have an in-house team that is continuing to purchase additional homes. The Single Homeless Accommodation Programme (SHAP) accounted for 10 of the properties purchased in 2024/25 and the Local Authority Housing Fund (LAHF) accounted for 16 purchases in 2024/25 and will provide grant funding towards the purchase of a further 19 properties in 2025/26. For 2025/26 we have a target for 300 acquisitions to be completed in total. By focusing activity on property purchase we will be able to bring additional properties on stream quickly. In future years the balance of acquisition to new build will switch further in favour of new build. New Housing Development During 2024/25 the combined number of newly built properties for Social or London Affordable Rent was 176. Of these 19% had 1 bedroom, 69% had 2 bedrooms, 9% had 3 bedrooms and just 3% had 4 bedrooms. For 2025/26 the projected number of newly developed properties for Social or London Affordable rent is increased by 36% to 239. The new development is still weighted towards smaller properties, but a healthier proportion of 3 bedroom homes is included and a slight increase in the proportion of 4 bedroom homes. 36% have 1 bedroom, 35% have 2 bedrooms, 25% have 3 bedrooms and 4% have 4 bedrooms. Private Rented Sector We aim to increase private sector supply for both settled housing and to provide temporary accommodation. Leasing Programme The Council is transitioning from a temporary accommodation portfolio significantly reliant on insecure, expensive nightly paid accommodation to a more secure and cost effective, leased based portfolio. Longer term leases for a minimum of 10 years and one day are being secured and held within the Housing Revenue Account. We are exploring the option to transfer existing leased properties used for temporary accommodation to Hillingdon First or the Housing Revenue Account. This will allow increased funds to be reclaimed via government subsidy. Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030: Draft for Consultation 28 This will ensure due diligence and full evaluations of any future leasing arrangements. Settled housing in the Private Rented Sector We will continue to engage with private sector landlords to ensure a good working relationship with them and to understand how best we can attract landlords to provide homes for our homeless residents. Our most recent Landlord Forum was successfully held in July 2025. We aim to hold forums on an annual basis at a minimum. It provides a networking opportunity to explore working relationships and new supply opportunities and to keep landlords up to date with changes to legislation, policy etc. Our offer to landlords including incentives is kept regularly under review and other initiatives, such as insurance and bonds are being explored. We will actively engage larger landlords and investors to understand what is needed for them to be able to operate in Hillingdon and meet our housing needs. We will explore the opportunity of becoming a direct provider of PRS through Hillingdon First or a similar entity and will review our Allocations Policy to include enhancements for residents who secure their own PRS from temporary accommodation. We will review temporary accommodation rents so that they are more into line with those charged in the private rented sector. The disparity between rents acts as a disincentive to move-on. Standards in the Private Rented Sector We are committed to ensuring a good quality accommodation in the private rented sector and supporting our resident to find their own homes All temporary accommodation is subject to routine inspections. We aim to increase the regularity of inspections. Ideally these would happen at least once a year. We carry out or arrange for inspections for properties that we lease or offer incentives for. The physical standards in temporary accommodation should be comparable to those in the general council housing stock. The homes should be free from damp and mould or major hazards and repairs should be carried out in set timescales. Supported Housing Supported housing is an important part of our supply for single homeless people. This is provided in properties leased from private sector landlords by Trinity and dwellings in Ventura House provided by YMCA. (See Priority 4: Housing Pathways for Single Homeless and Rough Sleepers). Temporary Accommodation An HRA Capital funded lodge acquisition programme is under consideration to acquire 100 units of temporary accommodation. These will be hostel-like units, such as HMOs, decommissioned care homes and hotels. This will deliver improved temporary accommodation property and management standards and reduced costs.

Appendix B Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Review 2025 1 | P a g e Contents Page Executive Summary 2 1. Introduction and Context - Changes since our last homelessness and rough sleeping strategy - Future changes affecting homelessness and rough sleeping 7 7 10 2. Homelessness demand and related data - Summary of statutory homelessness data for Hillingdon - Homelessness approaches - Youth homelessness - Temporary accommodation - Housing Register Analysis - Rough Sleepers - Those leaving Home Office accommodation - Court Action Statistics - Private Rental Costs and Local Housing Allowance - Homelessness Demand 16 17 18 22 22 25 29 43 44 45 45 3. Homelessness Resources 46 4. Prevention of Homelessness 49 5. Housing Supply and Homelessness Support 53 6. Homelessness Challenges and Priorities - Temporary Accommodation Reduction Strategy and Action Plan - Residents’ Services Select Committee Review: Homeless Prevention and the Customer Journey - Findings from stakeholder engagement 61 61 63 65 2 | P a g e Executive Summary Hillingdon faces rising homelessness demand, driven by affordability pressures, asylum dispersal, and private rental market contraction. This review document considers the following to inform the development of our homelessness strategy:  Current and future demand related to homelessness in Hillingdon.  Existing prevention activity, accommodation, and support for homeless households.  gaps and challenges in current homelessness services. Key findings Recent and future developments impacting on Homelessness and Rough Sleeping  COVID-19 and resulting changes in responses to rough sleeping. This included ‘Everyone In’ and an increase in grant funding options for rough sleepers which aided development of our rough sleeping pathway.  Changing working patterns with much more online and hybrid working.  World affairs, increased migration and shifting public opinion and political scene. High numbers of asylum seekers and government speeding up of decision making with the aim to reduce use of hotels for migrants.  Periods of increased inflation and interest rates, increasing unaffordability and wider sections of the population affected by homelessness.  Widening gap between Local Housing Allowance and rental costs.  Landlord rent increases, Section 21 evictions, and some exiting of the market particularly by landlords with small numbers of properties.  Impact of the building safety agenda and social housing regulation on the balance of social housing provider investment going to existing homes rather than new provision.  Change of government. Stated ambition for 1.5m homes and increase in social rented supply, but considerable challenges in delivering.  Big increase in the numbers of homeless families in nightly paid temporary accommodation with associated costs and risks to council finances.  Forthcoming licensing of supported housing.  Renters’ Rights Bill will bring major reforms to tenancy law —ending Section 21 evictions, introducing Decent Homes Standards (including Awaab’s Law), capping rent increases, and launching a landlord ombudsman.  The nature of the housing sector continues to evolve, with larger landlord portfolios in the private rented sector and an increasing presence of for profit providers in the social rented sector. More small landlords exiting the market.  Advances in digital technology bring ing both efficiencies and additional challeng es around digital exclusion and potential ly large changes associated with AI. 3 | P a g e Homelessness and related data England January to March 2025  Initial assessments to determine whether a homelessness duty is owed were down 6.3% compared to the same quarter in 2024.  Those owed a prevention duty were down 4.5%.  Those homeless and owed a relief duty were down 7.1%.  Those owed a main homelessness duty were down 7.9%.  131,140 households were in temporary accommodation on 31 March 2025, an increase of 11.8%.  Households with children in temporary accommodation increased by 11.6%.  Single households in temporary accommodation increased by 12%.  3,870 households with children were in non-self-contained accommodation, nightly paid accommodation; down 30.1% from 31 March 2024. 2,300 had been resident for more than 6 weeks, a 29% drop.  The number of households in temporary accommodation is much higher in London than in other parts of the country. Hillingdon data April 2024 to Mar 2025  The number of households assessed as owed a prevention or relief duty during 2024/25 was 2053 (728 prevention 35%, 1325 relief 65%). Of these 1,381 had a household member with a support need.  The ethnic profile of homeless applicants in Hillingdon shows a substantial overrepresentation of certain ethnic minority groups, particularly Black and ‘Other’ ethnic communities including Arab and other unspecified categories. White and Asian residents are underrepresented.  Approaches by those threatened with homelessness in Hillingdon are on an upward trend . There were 7,306 approaches in 2024/25. The most common reasons for approach are family and friend evictions (63% singles, 37% families), private rented sector (PRS) S21 evictions (25% singles, 75% families), and ending of home office accommodation (81% singles, 19% families). These three reasons account for 58% of approaches. The number of approaches is expected to increase again in 2025/26.  The number of households in nightly paid accommodation and the cost of that accommodation is increasing. This has become a significant financial issue for the Council and prompted the development of a dedicated action plan to reduce use of high cost provision.  On 1 April 2025 there w ere 1,562 households in te mporary accommodation (TA), an increase of 36% compared to the previous year . Of these 796 were in nightly paid accommodation , a 10% increase over the previous year. There were no households in non -self-contained nightly paid accommodation on or since 1 April 2025.  Bookings into nightly paid accommodation between April 2025 and March 2026 totalled 740. This is 8% more than the previous year.  Bailiff warrants for private sector evictions are by far the most prominent reason for bookings into nightly paid accommodation, accounting for 42% of all bookings in 2024/25. This rises to 58% of bookings for families requiring 3 bedrooms and 82% of bookings for those requiring 4 bedrooms or more. Other prominent reasons for bookings are domestic abuse (13%), ending of Home Office accommodation (11%), and friends and family evictions (9%). The most common booking reason for those needing a single bedroom was domestic abuse, accounting for 18% of bookings, followed by hospital discharge (14%) and bailiff war rant/PRS eviction , medi cal and, ending of Home Office accommodation (all 13%). 4 | P a g e  The highest number of bookings was for households needing 2 bedrooms (269), followed by 1 bedroom (208), 3 bedrooms (198), and then 4 or more bedrooms (69).  On 31 March 2025 there were 3,194 households on Hillingdon Housing Register (28% 1 bed need, 32% 2 bed, 29% 3 bed & 11% 4 bed or more).  895 of those registered were homeless households (29% 1 bed need, 3 4% 2 bed, 2 6% 3 bed & 11% 4 bed or more). The vast majority, 830, were owed the main homelessness duty. 46 were owed the relief duty and 19 the prevention duty.  The main age groups of homeless households on the housing register are 25 to 44 (507) and 45-59 (248). These two groups account for 85% of applicants.  Overcrowding is the most common cause for registration accounting for 38% of applicants compared to 29% homeless.  CHAIN data for rough sleepers shows a total of 492 individuals were recorded as sleeping rough in Hillingdon between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025. When including figures from Heathrow, this number increases by a further 301 individuals, bringing the total to 7 93.This combined figure places Hillingdon above neighbouring boroughs such as Hounslow (336) , Hammersmith & Fulham (439), Brent (551) and Ealing (723). Harrow recorded the lowest number of rough sleepers across West London, with 94 individuals during the same period.  The number seen bedded down at the airport is 2% lower than in 2023/24, but the number in Hillingdon borough increased by 66%.  The vast majority of rough sleepers in Hillingdon borough (excluding Heathrow) are male, 26 to 35 is the large age group. The main ethnic make-up is 33% White, 28% Asian or Asian British and 26% Black or Black British. The number seen rough sleeping on multiple occasions rose significantly between 2022/23 an d 2023/24 and remained high in 2024/25 , highlighting a growing issue of entrenched or repeat homelessness.  During 2024/25 there were 187 rough sleepers in Hillingdon borough (excluding Heathrow) with a mental health support need, 106 with a drugs related support need and 96 alcohol. There were 49 rough sleepers with more than one support need and 121 with no alcohol, drugs or mental health support needs.  The corresponding figures for Heathrow were: 128 rough sleepers at Heathrow with a mental health support need, 49 with an alcohol related support need and 49 drugs. There were 106 rough sleepers with more than one support need and 168 with no alcohol, drugs or mental health support needs.  The proportion of female rough sleepers is much higher at Heathrow accounting for between 23% and 29% each year since 2020/21.  Of the rough sleepers in Hillingdon borough in 2024/25 there were 9 people previously in the armed forces, 86 in prison and 21 care leavers. The corresponding numbers for Heathrow were 8 armed forces, 43 prison and 9 care leavers.  Hillingdon has a ‘Target Priority Group’ of 19 complex and entrenched rough sleepers.  We have a growing cohort of people facing homelessness and rough sle eping after being moved on from Home Office accommodation . Hillingdon has the highest concentration of asylum seekers in contingency hotel accommodation in any London borough. A growing number are becoming street homeless as the council struggles to meet statutory obligations amid funding shortfalls and rising demand.  There is a generally upward trend in repossessions across landlord types.  Based on July 2024 to June 2025 average rental costs were between £224 more per month than Local Housing Allowance ra tes for a 1 bedroomed property to £788 more for a 4 bedroomed property. 5 | P a g e  We estimate that there will be approximately 741 bookings into nightly paid temporary accommodation during 2026/27. To remove the need for nightly paid accommodation and keep pace with homelessness demand, it is estimated that we will need to source accommodat ion placements for around 628 of these bookings as some will make their own arrangements. We will also need find alternative accommodation for the 800+ households currently in nightly paid temporary accommodation. Homelessness Challenges and Priorities  A dedicated plan has been developed to reduce the number and cost of households placed in temporary accommodati on. The following four workstreams are taking this work forward. o Increase prevention and reduce new temporary accommodation placements o Increase access to alternative housing options o Reduce the cost of temporary accommodation o Increase move-on into social housing  The Council’s Cabinet has approved taking forward recommendations made by the Residents’ Services Select Committee Review into the Council’s Housing Advice and Homelessness Service. Recommendations are made in the following areas: o Enhancing Resident Experience o Managing expectations and process efficiency o Staff support & training o Partnerships & collaboration  Engagement with stakeholders in developing the strategy has covered a wide range of issues and recommendations. Key emerging themes are: o Prioritise preventative work to prevent homelessness at an early stage. o Improved partnering arrangements with better planning and coordination of services. Improved data sharing and referral pathways. o Engagement with wider range of voluntary and faith based organisations o A focus on service delivery to ensure professionalism, consistency and efficiency. Better collaboration between teams. Clear plans and guidelines. Clear governance and decision making structures. o Need for more joint training, protocols and communication channels with internal and external partners. o Further integration of employment support with housing services. o Need for a quality control and performance management culture along with a framework that promotes staff wellbeing and prevents burnout. o Concerns regarding increased numbers of asylum seekers and the fairness of pressure on Hillingdon in particular. A large proportion are single males and a lack of resources for this group, that does not have statutory priority need, is impacting on rough sleeping. o A need for mental health outreach services. 6 | P a g e o Specific groups - Increase in households with an autistic member; housing options for those under 35 and for those who are benefit capped; reluctance of landlords to accept ex -offenders, solutions for those without recourse to public funds ; increased domestic abuse presentations. o Further develop existing work to enhance data capabilities and allow for access to data on demand. Explore opportunities for use of AI to assist in service delivery. o Focus on increasing accommodat ion options for both temporary and permanent housing across tenures. To include longer term leasing options and a planned acquisitions and development programme with a key focus on reducing TA volumes and costs. o Building corporate landlord relationships, concerns regarding S21 changes causing landlords to exit the market. Engagement plan for landlords; coordination to identify HMO landlords early and to work with them. o Unaffordable housing options, especially for single adults combine with a reluctance to consider other geographical areas. Need to ensure that residents are provided with information to enable them to make an informed choice about realistic, sustainable options. o Concerns around the quality of accommodation and anti-social behaviour. o Mechanism to monitor and capture learning from complaints and reviews. Structured approach to gathering resident feedback. o Consideration should be given to see how a Housing First model could potentially work in Hillingdon. 7 | P a g e 1. Introduction The homelessness review is about understanding the picture related to homelessness in Hillingdon. Its purpose is to determine the extent to which the population in the district is homeless or at risk of becoming homeless, assess the likely extent in the future, identify what is currently being done and by whom, and identify what resources are available, to prevent and tackle homelessness. The Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities requires that the review of homelessness includes: (a) The levels and likely future levels of homelessness in the borough; (b) The activities which are carried out for any of the following purposes (or which contribute to achieving any of them): I. Preventing homelessness in the borough II. Securing that accommodation is available for people in the district who are or may become homeless; and III. Providing support for people in the district who are homeless or who may become at risk of homelessness; or who have been homeless and need support to prevent them becoming homeless again; and, (c) The resources available to the housing authority, the social services authority, other public authorities, voluntary organisations and other persons for the activities outlined in (b) above. Changes since our last Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy Our last strategy was published right at the end of 2019 and there have been huge changes in the landscape around homelessness services since that time. It was shortly before Covid hit and the accompanying lockdowns. This had signif icant impacts for homelessness and for the working environment in general. It speeded up a transition to more online and home working. Many councils stopped in person work with homeless people altogether although that wasn’t the case in Hillingdon. ‘Everyone In’, Rough Sleeping Initiative and development of Hillingdon’s Rough Sleeping Pathway Of particular significance was the ‘Everyone In initiative which saw around 160 rough sleepers moved into accommodation from Heathrow Airport. Arrangements were made for leasing of Olympic House, a 33 bed unit which provides first stage accommodation for rough sleepers and a hub to provide other services for homeless clients. 8 | P a g e Throughout the last homelessness strategy there have been grant funding regimes for homelessness , especially for rough sleepers. The Rough Sleeper Initiative (RSI) in particular has been significant in developing the rough sleepers ’ partnership in Hillingdon. Other funding streams such as public health funding for drug and alcohol services for homeless people and funding for accommodation has also enabled increased service provision. Affordability, private rental market and cost of living Incremental reform of the PRS has created churn in the market as small-scale investors sell up and the stock becomes slightly more concentrated among professional business landlords with larger portfolios. Large landlords, such as those in the Build to Ren t market have emerged as an important component but remain peripheral. Demand in the PRS remains high and rents have risen. In 2024/25, Hillingdon's average rent stood at £1,423, marking a 12% annual increase from the previous year. This is £429 higher t han the England average (£994), but still below the London average, which reached £2,698 for new tenancies in Q1 2025. Hillingdon ranks 28th out of 33 London boroughs in terms of rental cost, indicating it's relatively mor e affordable position within the capital.1 The most common rental property type in Hillingdon is 2-bedroom homes, comprising 39.1% of the rental stock. The Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates for Hillingdon are set annually by the Rent Officer. After having been frozen for a number of years, the government re-pegged LHA rates to the 30 th percentile of local rents as of September 2023 and applied this rate from April 2024 , resulting in an average increase of 16% across Broad Rental Market Areas (BRMAs). In Central London, households renting a 3-bedroom property saw support rise by up to £82 per week. In Outer London areas like Hillingdon, increases were more modest but still significant. The April 2004 adjustment was not repeated for 2025 when 2004 rates were carried forward. While exact figures on how many properties were listed at LHA levels aren't published, anecdotal evidence and council data suggest a significant shortfall in properties available at or below LHA rates, especially for larger households. The gap between average rents charged between July 2024 and June 2025 ranged from £223 for 1 bed properties to £788 for 4 bed properties. Savills has recently published a comprehensive analysis on the availability of private rented accommodation in the UK, highli ghting a significant structural shift in the market. Their report, Beyond Buy to Let, reveals that small individual landlords are exiting the market at an accelerated pace, with 290,000 rental properties sold between 2021 and 2024, compared to just 130,000 new Build to Rent h omes delivered.2 The ratio of homes sold by landlords to those bought by landlords from owner occupiers reached 5.4:1 in 2024, up from 1:1 in 2021. This trend is driven by rising costs, tax changes, and ageing landlord demographics, with many seeking to ca sh in on capital gains. The result is a net loss of rental supply, particularly in suburban areas, where listings remain 31% below pre-pandemic levels. 1 Council and housing association evictions: Overview - GOV.UK 2 Savills UK | Beyond Buy to Let: Where next for the UK private rented sector 9 | P a g e In London, a joint study by Savills and the London School of Economics found that the availability of p rivate rented homes has dropped by 41% since 2017, with the steepest decline in larger properties 3. The research shows that only 5% of listings were affordable to households relying on Local Housing Allowance (LHA) in mid -2024, despite a nominal LHA rate increase. The contraction is most severe in the most affordable areas, where rental stock is disappearing fastest. This has profound implications for homelessness prevention, as boroughs increasin gly struggle to source suitable accommodation. The reports c all for urgent government intervention, including raising LHA rates, offering fiscal incentives to landlords, and funding public acquisition of rental stock to stabilise the market and vulnerable renters. Developments in Housing Case Law In recent years, the legal landscape surrounding homelessness in England has undergone notable shifts, driven by evolving interpretations of statutory duties and the impact of broader societal challenges such as the COVID -19 pandemic. For housing professionals and policy officers, staying abreast of these developments is essential - not only to ensure compliance with legal obligations but also to uphold the rights and dignity of those experiencing homelessness. Since 2020, several key court decisions have clarified the res ponsibilities of local authorities, particularly in relation to the provision of suitable accommodation, assessments of vulnerability, and the treatment of repeat applications. The following case law highlights some of the most influential rulings that continue to shape policy and practice in this sector. Croydon LBC v Imam reinforced that financial constraints do not absolve councils from their statutory obligations, with the Supreme Court affirming that mandatory orders can compel compliance unless robust justification is provided4. Other cases have focused on the quality and suitability of accommodation offered. In Hajjaj v Westminster, the Court of Appeal ruled that councils must base suitability assessments on evidence, not assumptions, especially whe n offering private rented homes. Similarly, Ciftci v Haringey clarified that while councils have discretion in determining intentional homelessness, they must still conduct reasonable enq uiries and document their decisions thoroughly. Collectively, these r ulings underscore the need for transparency, evidence -based decision-making, and procedural rigour in how homelessness duties are administered.5 Increase in number of asylum seekers 3 Private Rented Sector Supply in London | London Councils – Home 4 Key Supreme Court judgment concerning… - Landmark Chambers 5 Homelessness duties for local authorities - Birketts 10 | P a g e Since the last Hillingdon homelessness strategy was published there has been a significant increase in the number of people claiming asylum . Between 2004 and 2020 there were between 22,000 and 46,000 people claiming asylum in the UK each year. However, since the second half of 2021 the increase has been notable, with 109,000 applications in the year to the end of March 2025, of which 33% arrived via small boats.6 The total asylum caseload has grown , driven both by applicants waiting longer for an initial decision and a growth in the number of people subject to removal action following a negative decision. The North East and the North West regions have the highest number of asylum seekers relative to their population . London also has a high ratio compared to other areas (21.2 per 10,000 at the end of March 2025) due to the presence of a large number of asylum seekers in hotels which, along with the proximity of Heathrow airport, has impacted on the number of asylum seekers in Hillingdon and Hounslow. The topic has become increasingly contentious, marked by demonstrations and legal action in some areas. As the government has taken actions to speed up processing of asylum applications and redu ce the number housed in hotels , this has meant additional pressure on local authority homelessness advice and housing services and has negatively impacted on rough sleeping numbers in the capital. Action has been taken from September 2025 to pause the Refugee family reunion scheme, while changes are made to the law. Under proposed new rule s, refugees will have to remain in the UK for two years to qualify to bring their family and will face tougher financial and language requirements. Future changes affecting homelessness and rough sleeping The Mayor's Rough Sleeping Plan of Action 2025 The Mayor of London’s 2025 Rough Sleeping Plan of Action outlines a comprehensive and ambitious strategy to eliminate rough s leeping across the capital by 2030. Central to the approach are measures aimed at prevention, early intervention, and the provision of sustainable housing pathways. A key reform includes transitioning from the current requirement for individuals to be visibly rough sleeping before receiving support, to a needs -based assessment model by 2028. The plan proposes the establishment of Endi ng Homelessness Hubs, the launch of a dedicated prevention phoneline, and the expansion of support worker outreach in community settings such as day centres and food banks. A flagship initiative, ‘Homes off the Streets’, will see up to 500 vacant social h ousing units refurbished for long -term accommodation for those at risk. The Mayor has secured £17 million in government funding, alongside a £10 million investment from City Hall, to underpin these interventions. The strategy also urges central government to enhance funding for local authorities, restore the social safety net, and significantly increase the 6 How many people claim asylum in the UK? - GOV.UK 11 | P a g e supply of affordable housing. Building on previous achievements, including supporting over 18,000 individuals off the streets, the plan marks a shift from reactive crisis management to a system-wide, preventative approach.7 Applications for the Homes Off the Streets Programme (part of the Affordable Homes Programme 2021 –2026) must be submitted via the GLA’s Open Project System (OPS), with projects starti ng on site by March 2026 and most completions expected by 2028 (some strategic sites may extend to 2029). Application proposals should include project details, tenure mix, financials, and timelines. The GLA prioritises large -scale, deliverable schemes that demonstrate value for money, quality, and alignment with Mayoral priorities such as sustainability, equality, and building safety. National Government Approach to Homelessness The government has in December 2025 published ‘A National Plan to End Homelessness8’, it’s Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy and is set to publish a wider Housing Strategy . The Homelessness Strategy is cross-government, to include a focus on prevention and to deliver a long-term plan. The Plan aims (1) to halve rough sleeping within 3 years; (2) to end the use of bed and breakfast as temporary accommodation for families with children beyond the statutory limit of 6 weeks and (3) prevent more households from becoming homeless in the fi rst place. Public investment over the next three years includes a fourth round of the Local Authority Housing Fund which will help to increase the supply of good - quality temporary accommodation. Action to help prevent homelessness includes an additional Homelessness Prevention Grant in the current year, 2025/26, and a new duty on public bodies to work together to prevent homelessness, which is intended to ensure that no -one is discharged from prison, hospital or asylum accommodation without accommodation being available for them. There will also be a review of social housing allocations policy to assess how effectively housing associations and local authorities are using new homes and relets to mee t the needs of homeless households. The wider ‘Plan for Change aims to also boost social and affordable housing and end no fault evictions. It has been confirmed that the Vagrancy Act 1824 will be repealed by Spring next year to ensure that rough sleeping is no longer a criminal offence. The Government has proposed ref orms to how homelessness services and temporary accommodation are funded as part of the Fair Funding Review 2.0. Temporary accommodation funding currently provided through the Homelessness Prevention Grant will be transferred to the Revenue Support Grant which will have a new Temporary Accommodation funding formula to account for varied need for temporary accommodation across the country. All other homelessness and rough sleeping funding will come through a consolidated Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Grant. The separation of TA funding aims to resolve the current tension faced by local authorities between investing in prevention and covering TA costs and will create dedicated ring fenced funding streams for homelessness and rough sleeping prevention. 7 The Mayor's Rough Sleeping Plan of Action 2025 | London City Hall 8 A National Plan to End Homelessness 12 | P a g e The Spending Review announced an additional £100 million to fund increased homelessness prevention activity by local authorities. The government is also providing £950 million of investment for the fourth round of the Local Authority Housing Fund to support l ocal authorities in England to increase the supply of good quality temporary accommodation and drive down the use of costly bed and breakfasts and hotels. A commitment has been made for a £39bn Social and Affordable Homes Programme over the next 10 years to boost the supply of social and affordable housing. 60% of the programme will be aimed a properties for social rent. More of the funding will be in the latter half of the time period, with only around a third in the current parliament. The propo rtion for London is 30% despite having 56% of the households in temporary accommodation. The Government’s overall housing target is for 1.5 million homes over the current Parliament. Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates have been periodically capped and frozen and this has resulted in a growing number of households facing a shortfall between the LHA they receive and the rent they pay, impacting on homelessness. For temporary accommodation, funding is essentially based on the 2 011 rate and has not kept pace with local authorities’ rising TA costs. Government is reluctant to increase spending on LHA but have signalled that they may look again at the time of the Autumn 2025 budget. New homes delivery across London Last year, 3,991 affordable homes were started in London. This was well above the 2,358 starts in 2023-24, but still the second-lowest on record. A number of factors have been highlighted as undermining housing supply and the delivery of affordable homes across the c apital. Complex brownfield sites, high land values, rising interest rates, and sustained build cost inflation have increased development costs, leading developers to conclude many projects are ‘unviable’. The Mayor has also stated that the requirement for a second staircase in residential buildings over 18 metres as a fire safety measure has also impacted viability. Affordable housing providers have said that macroeconomic conditions, increased costs relating to their existing stock, and reduced forecast rental incomes have pressured their budgets for building new homes. The rising cost of retrofitting existing homes , especially in relation to fire safety, damp and mould, are major constraints on development plans. Lack of suitable land and inadequate grant levels, given increased build costs and higher environmental standards are also cited.9 Renters’ Rights Bill The Renters Rights Bill currently working its way through parliament will strengthen tenants’ rights and professionalise property management in the sector. It is expected to receive Royal Assent in late 2025 and to become law in early 2026. It will:  Abolish section 21 evictions 9 Affordable homes programmes in London, July 2025 13 | P a g e  Ensure possession grounds are fair to both parties  Provide stronger protections against backdoor evictions  Introduce a new Private Rented Sector Landlord Ombudsman  Create a Private Rented Sector Database  Give tenants strengthened rights to request a pet in the property  Apply the Decent Homes Standard to the private rented sector  Apply ‘Awaab’s Law to the private rented sector  Make it illegal for landlord and agents to discriminate against prospective tenants in receipt of benefits or with children  End the practice of rental bidding by prohibiting landlords and agents from asking for or accepting offers above the advertised rent  Strengthen local authority enforcement  Strengthen rent repayment orders Once the bill has received royal assent there is an expected phased introduction of the various measures. Some will only become law when additional regulations are made. Private rented sec tor enforcement powers are expected to be amongst the earlier measures introduced. The abolition of S21 evictions is currently expected around April 2026 . The introduction of the PRS database and of Awaab’s law are expected to be further in the future. The Renters’ Rights Bill marks a significant shift in the private rented sector by abolishing Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions, a long-standing mechanism that allowed landlords to terminate tenancies without providing a reason. This reform is expected to enhance housing security for millions of renters, reducing the risk of sudden displacement and the associated pathway into homelessness. By moving to a system of rolling periodic tenancies and requiring landlords to cite legitimate grounds for possession —such as persistent rent arrears or the need to sell or occupy the property —the Bill aims to create a fairer and more transparent framework. These changes are anticipated to empo wer tenants to challenge poor conditions and unfair rent increases without fear of retaliatory eviction, thereby contributing to greater housing stability and potentially easing pressure on homelessness services In Hillingdon, where demand for temporary a ccommodation is already high and budgets are under pressure, the removal of this eviction route could help reduce the number of households entering homelessness by offering greater security of tenure. However, the effecti veness of this reform will depend on the timely implementation of court system improvements and the availability of genuinely affordable housing. Without these, the pressure on local services may persist, even as the legislative landscape shifts. There is concern that some landlords may choose to exit the rental market in response as landlords will no longer be able to regain possession of their properties without citing specific legal grounds, such as rent arrears or anti -social behaviour. The increased reliance on Section 8 and the court system may also raise concerns about delays and administrative burdens, prompting some to reconsider their involvement in the sector. The actual scale of landlord withdrawal will likely depend on how effectively the new system is implemented, including c ourt efficiency and support for landlords navigating the new legal framework. 14 | P a g e Supported Housing Regulatory Oversight Act 2023 (SHROA) The introduction of this legislation was motivated by gaps in regulation, which led to some inconsi stencies in standards amongst providers. Additionally, the rapid growth of exempt accommodation, has raised concerns in some areas about high rental charges and limited support being provided. The SHROA seeks to improve oversight by enabling councils to identify and respond to providers who do not meet expected standards. Supported housing provides essential services to diverse groups of individuals with support needs , of interest to homelessness services as well as colleagues and partners working in related areas. Primary groups of people served by supported housing include:  Older adults  People with physical and learning disabilities  People with mental health conditions  People fleeing domestic abuse  People experiencing or at risk of homelessness  People recovering from substance misuse  Individuals transitioning from the justice system  Young people leaving care The SHROA requires local councils to conduct comprehensive needs assessments to understand local demand and plan service provision accordingly. It also requires each council to develop a supported housing strategy outlining how the council plans to meet the assessed needs and include frameworks for monitoring, evaluation and enforcement. One of the most significant provisions of the SHROA is the introduction of a licensing system for supported housing providers. Councils will be responsible for issuing licences based on a provider’s ability to meet new National Supported Housing Standards. This provides the mechanisms and relevant powers for LA s to regulate both commissioned and non -commissioned providers, ensuring that all housing meets consistent standards. Draft regulations are expected early in 2026. For profit housing providers The presence of For-Profit Registered Providers (F PRP) in the affordable housing sector is continuing to increase. Savill s has found a clear ambition from investors to scale up their portfolios, with an expectation that a current 43,100 homes will triple by 2030. A quarter of the sector’s housing stock is expected to be for social rent through new build and through investment in existing homes, releasing capacity for housing associations. This comes at a time when many traditional housing associations have reduced development programmes in favour of investment in existing homes. 15 | P a g e Advances in digital technology The increasing use and the capabilities of digital technology ha ve profound significance for many service areas, including those impacted by homelessness and those working in homelessness services. Digital service delivery is becoming more and more relevant in increasing resident accessibility to services and delivering efficiencies. Embracing GenAI tools has the potential to assist with general tasks such as writing emails, project planning, and writing up notes for instance. It has also been suggested that AI could be used in homelessness for identifying risk factors that may lead to homelessness and for coordinating the support people experiencing homelessness receive from various channels helping to match services to a person’s specific needs. There are also potential pitfalls including the need to check the accuracy of information produced and ensuring that confidential and sensitive information is not shared. AI has potential but can also draw unhelpful conclusions and undermine professional and person-centred approaches. As public and other services move increasingly online, being digitally excluded is a growing barrier to everyday life and is especially so for those facing housing instability, low income or health challenges. For those living in temporary accommodation, access to privat e, secure connectivity can be difficult. Many are forced to rely on free public access Wifi in shared public spaces. They may struggle to manage bank or benefit accounts, access health appointments or communicate confidentially with support services. Digital technology is also changing how landlords let properties and seek to protect their income and property. Landlords with fewer properties face heightened vulnerability, where a single non -paying tenants can result in substantial income loss. In response, landlords increasingly prioritise stringent tenant screening to mitigate risks such as rent arrears and property dama ge. ‘Professionals only’ advertisement are common on digital platforms. Estate agents are leveraging technology to augment rather than replace services , including use of digital tenant risk -profiling tools which use algorithms to streamline tenant selection, replacing traditional judgement based methods. Services combine identify verification and credit checks with other data sources to offer comprehensive tenant screening and risk scoring. The adoption of these tools raises questions about their impacts on fairness, discrimination and tenant rights. The tools enable landlords to access financial and administrative data , enhancing tenant selection decisions while streamlining processes. However, digitalisation also exacerbates accessibility barriers, particularly for tenants in non -standard employment, reliant on benefits or with limited digital proficiency. 16 | P a g e 2. Homelessness and related data This section is concerned with the types of homelessness in Hillingdon and the number of people and households affected. It considers what types of households are most susceptible to homelessness in Hillingdon and, what causes them to be homeless or threatened with homelessness. National statutory homelessness statistics published for the 2025 January to March quarter show that the total number of households in temporary accommodation continues to rise and is at record levels for households both with and w ithout children . At the end of March 2025 , 131 ,140 households were living in TA an increase of 11.8% over the previous year, two-thirds (63.4%) of which are households with children. There have been some improvements. The number of households owed a main homelessness duty fell by 7.9% and accommodation secured at the end of both relief and prevention duties are higher than for the previous two years. The number in non -self-contained B&B also dropped and those in this accommodation for more than 6 weeks also reduced. Section 21 evictions remain a leading cause of homelessness presentations. In the quarter January to March 2025 the number of households per 1,000 in the area threatened with homelessness was 2.86 in London compared with 1.71 for the Rest of England. The following number per 1,000 were recorded for West London Boroughs. West London Borough Threatened with homelessness per 1,000 households Brent 5.10 Ealing 2.79 Hammersmith and Fulham 2.61 Harrow 1.77 Hounslow 4.16 Hillingdon 4.01 Kensington and Chelsea 2.60 On 31 March 2025, there were 19.9 households living in temporary accommodation per 1,000 households in London, compared to 2.8 households per 1,000 in the Rest of England. Newham had the highest rate in London with 57.7 households per 1,000. The corresponding figure for Hillingdon is 17.7. Slough Borough Council had the highest rate outside London with 23.8 households per 1,000. 17 | P a g e Summary of Statutory Homelessness Data for Hillingdon Ethnicity of homeless applicants Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total White 105 28.2% 113 27.6% 169 25.1% 122 19.6% 509 25.1% Black / African / Caribbean / Black British 74 19.9% 95 23.2% 170 25.3% 193 30.9% 532 24.8% Asian / Asian British 83 22.3% 91 22.2% 174 25.9% 144 23.1% 492 23.4% Mixed / Multiple ethnic groups 25 6.7% 15 3.7% 28 4.2% 23 3.7% 91 4.6% Other ethnic groups 64 17.2% 79 19.3% 105 15.6% 113 18.1% 361 17.6% Not known 21 5.6% 16 3.9% 27 4.0% 29 4.6% 93 4.6% In 2024/25, the ethnic profile of homeless applicants in Hillingdon shows notable disparities when compared to the borough's overall population based on the 2021 Census 10. White residents, who make up around 48.2% of Hillingdon’s population, accounted for only 25.1% of homeless 10 How life has changed in Hillingdon: Census 2021 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Initial assessment completed 393 435 688 639 2155 Total households with support needs owed a duty 178 277 463 463 1381 Households owed a prevention duty 154 126 280 168 728 Households owed a relief duty 218 258 393 456 1325 Secured accommodation for 6 months at prevention stage 45 57 66 36 204 - alternative accommodation 16 25 33 23 97 - existing accommodation 29 32 33 13 107 Helped to secure with a financial payment at prevention stage 4 8 14 11 37 Secured accommodation for 6 months at relief stage 48 105 66 60 279 Helped to secure with a financial payment at relief stage 4 13 10 6 33 Number of main duty decisions 172 158 109 90 529 Of which, accepted priority need, unintentional 138 134 90 71 433 - includes dependent children 115 105 61 47 328 Number of main duty ended 10 14 35 15 74 18 | P a g e applicants, indicating significant underrepresentation. Conversely, Black / African / Caribbean / Black British individuals r epresented 24.8% of homeless applicants, despite comprising just 7.8% of the general population —highlighting a substantial overrepresentation. Asian / Asian British residents were also underrepresented, making up 23.4% of homeless applicants compared to 33.3% of the population. Other ethnic groups, including Arab and other unspecified categories, were overrepresented at 17.6% of applicants versus 6.3% of the population. M ixed / Multiple ethnic groups were proportionally represented, with 4.6% of applicants compared to 4.4% of th e population. These figures suggest that homelessness in Hillingdon disproportionately affects certain ethnic minority groups, particularly Black and Other ethnic communities. Homeless Approaches In the fiscal year 2024/25, Hillingdon Council experienced a significant increase of 47% in homelessness approaches over the previous year, which was itself an increase of 28% over the year before that. Single-person households constituted 55% of these cases. This is a reduction from 66% the year before. In 2024/25, the total number of homelessness approaches received by the local authority rose significantly to 7,306, compared with 4,968 in 2023/24 and 3,886 in the preceding year. This upward trend is expected to continue over the coming year. The pattern of two-thirds of approaches originating from single-person households remained consistent with previous years. Of the total, 4,032 approaches were from single individuals, while 3,274 were from households with families. This upward trend is expected to continue into 2025/26. 19 | P a g e Homeless approaches in Hillingdon remained consistently high throughout 2024/25, with notable fluctuations. Singles accounted for the majority of approaches each month, peaking sharply in January 2025 at 414 cases, while families reached their highest poin t in February at 422 cases. The winter period (December –February) saw a significant surge compared to earlier months, suggesting seasonal pressures and possibly clearance of court backlog driving demand. Overall, the trend indicates sustained and rising pr essure on homelessness services, with single households consistently forming the largest cohort, though family approaches also spiked during the year. 315 269 325 287 304 254 354 339 321 249 288 289 343 319 289 273 268 189 414 292 422 271 389 243 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Singles Families Singles Families Singles Families Singles Families Singles Families Singles Families Singles Families Singles Families Singles Families Singles Families Singles Families Singles Families Apr-24 May-24 Jun-24 Jul-24 Aug-24 Sep-24 Oct-24 Nov-24 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Homeless Approaches 2024/25 20 | P a g e The chart highlights the main reasons for homelessness approaches in Hillingdon during 2024/25. The two dominant causes are end of private rented tenancy (assured shorthold) and requirement to leave Home Office -provided accommodation, together accounting for the largest share of cases. Both reasons affect families more than singles, with family approaches for assured shorthold tenancy terminations exceeding 1,200 cases, compared to around 330 for singles. Conversely, leaving Home Office accommodation disproportionately impacts singles, with ne arly 970 cases, compared to 233 for families. Other significant factors include domestic abuse, relationship breakdown, and eviction from supported housing, though these are far less frequent. This pattern underscores the dual pressures of private rental insecurity and asylum dispe rsal policies as key drivers of homelessness demand, alongside persistent issues such as domestic abuse and institutional discharge. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 End of private rented tenancy; assured shorthold… Required to leave accommodation provided by… Domestic abuse; victim End of private rented tenancy - not assured… Relationship with partner ended (non-violent… Departure from institution: Custody Non-racially motivated / other motivated violence… Voluntarily left accommodation to relocate Fire or flood / other emergency Loss of tied accommodation Departure from institution: Looked After Child… Unsuccessful placement or exclusion from… Left HM Forces Approach Reasons 2024/25 Total Singles Total Families 21 | P a g e HOMELESS APPROACHES 2024/25 Total Singles Total Families Overall Total Friends/Family no longer willing or able to accommodate 1067 632 1699 End of private rented tenancy; assured shorthold tenancy 329 990 1319 Required to leave accommodation provided by Home Office as asylum support 967 233 1200 Eviction from supported housing 283 180 463 Domestic abuse; victim 210 224 434 End of private rented tenancy - not assured shorthold tenancy 162 239 401 Not known due to last settled accommodation Not known 182 93 275 Relationship with partner ended (non-violent breakdown) 141 114 255 Home no longer suitable due to disability / ill health 92 109 201 Departure from institution: Custody 176 2 178 Mortgage repossession or sale of owner occupier property 54 110 164 Non-racially motivated / other motivated violence or harassment 67 55 122 End of social rented tenancy 48 50 98 Voluntarily left accommodation to relocate 48 47 95 Property disrepair (Inhabitable) 27 60 87 Fire or flood / other emergency 14 45 59 Domestic abuse; alleged perpetrator excluded from property 42 15 57 Loss of tied accommodation 36 15 51 Racially motivated violence or harassment 14 30 44 Departure from institution: Looked After Child Placement 28 9 37 Departure from institution: Hospital (general or psychiatric) 37 4 41 Unsuccessful placement or exclusion from resettlement scheme/sponsorship 7 14 21 Left HM Forces 1 4 5 22 | P a g e Youth Homelessness Analysis of the 2024/25 dataset reveals that the most prevalent reason for homelessness is “ Required to leave accommodation provided by Home Office as asylum support ”, accounting for 279 cases (31.2%). This is most commonly associated with applicants previously housed in National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation, refuges, and temporary arrangements. The second most frequent reason is “ Family no longer willing or able to accommodate”, with 271 cases (30.3%), predominantly linked to those living with family or friends. Domestic abuse (victim) ranks third, contributing to 53 cases (5.9%), with a notable proportion coming from refuge settings and temporary accommodation. These findings highlight the critical intersection between immigration status, family breakdown, and domestic abuse in driving housing instability. The data underscores the need for tailored support pathways for individuals exiting asylum support and those affected by familial or relationship breakdowns. The most common accommodation outcome under both prevention and relief duties was securing self-contained units in the private rented sector, accounting for 0.6% and 3.4% of cases respectively. Main reason for loss of settled home (Top 10) Total Required to leave accommodation provided by Home Office as asylum support 279 Family no longer willing or able to accommodate 271 Domestic abuse; victim 53 Eviction from supported housing 43 End of private rented tenancy; assured shorthold tenancy 43 Friends no longer willing or able to accommodate 35 Departure from institution: Custody 27 Not known due to last settled accommodation Not known 26 End of private rented tenancy - not assured shorthold tenancy 26 Departure from institution: Looked After Child Placement 17 Temporary Accommodation/B&B At the close of the 2024/25 period, the count of households residing in temporary accommodation (TA) stood at 1,562, marking an increase of 415 from the 1147 recorded at the year’s commencement. During 2024/25 there were 740 new bookings into temporary accommodation. This is 5 8 more than the previous year. On 31 March 2025 the number of households in high cost B&B was 796 which is an increase of 18.3% over two years. Throughout the 2024/25 year, the B&B bookings distributed as follows: 206 for one-bedroom (-15 compared to 2023/24), 267 for two-bedroom (+20), 199 for three-bedroom (+40), 64 for four-bedroom (-8), and 4 for accommodations larger than four bedrooms (-1). 23 | P a g e Private rented sector evictions via bailiff warrants dominate, accounting for the largest share of bookings across all bed sizes, particularly for larger homes (3–4 bedrooms), where this reason represents the overwhelming majority. Domestic abuse and cessation of Home Office accommodation are the next most common causes, with a more even distribution across smaller bed sizes (1–2 bedrooms). Other reasons such as friends or family eviction, hospital discharge, and medical needs appear less frequently an d are concentrated in smaller properties. This pattern highlights that eviction from the private rented sector is the primary driver of high-cost temporary accommodation, especially for families requiring larger homes, while single-person households are more likely to enter TA due to domestic abuse or health-related issues. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Bailiff Warrant - Private Rented Sector Eviction Domestic Abuse Victim Cessation of Home Office Accommodation Friends or Family Eviction Medical Hospital Discharge Judicial Review or Pending Appeal Family Reunion (withour suitable accommodation) End of Accommodation by Childrens Social Services Care Leaver Top 10 Booking Reasons by Bed Size 1 2 3 4 5 24 | P a g e Reason 1B 2B 3B 4B 5B Total % of Approaches % of all bookings Bailiff Warrant - Private Rented Sector Eviction 27 119 115 53 3 317 24% 43% Domestic Abuse Victim 38 42 16 96 22% 13% Cessation of Home Office Accommodation 27 28 29 2 86 7% 12% Friends or Family Eviction 17 45 9 1 0 72 4% 10% Medical 27 3 1 31 15% 4% Hospital Discharge 29 29 71% 4% Judicial Review or Pending Appeal 5 4 7 2 0 18 - 2% Family Reunion (without suitable accommodation) 1 3 5 2 1 12 2% End of Accommodation by Children’s Social Services (S17) / Eviction from supported living 4 10 4 2 20 4% 3% Care Leaver 11 11 30% 1% Rough Sleeper 8 1 9 3% 1% Victim of Civil Unrest - Chagos Islands 5 3 8 1% Prison Release 6 6 3% 1% Regeneration Scheme 2 4 6 1% Victim of Civil Unrest - Lebanon 1 3 1 5 1% Illegal Eviction 2 1 3 0% Fire 1 1 2 3% 0% Relationship Breakdown 1 1 2 1% 0% Accepted Main Housing Duty 1 1 2 0% Victim of Civil Unrest - Sudan 1 1 2 0% Modern Trafficking Victim 1 1 0% Referral by Local Authority under S198 1 1 0% Unsuitable Housing 1 1 1% 0% 206 267 199 64 4 740 100% Private sector evictions are by far the most prominent reason for bookings into nightly paid accommodation, especially for larger homes - 58% of bookings for families requiring 3 bedrooms and 82% of bookings for those requiring 4 bedrooms or more. One bed bookings are much more evenly split between private sector evictions, domestic abuse, cessation of home office accommodation, medical and hospital discharge, with domestic abuse being the most prevalent reason. Families in need of four or more bedrooms predominantly consisted of households at risk of:  homelessness under section 21(56 compared to 42 last year),  those fleeing domestic violence (zero compared to 11 last year), and  family reunion (3, not one of the top 3 last year), representing the three primary categories. In contrast, families in need of three bedrooms largely consisted of:  households at risk of homelessness under section 21 (115 compared to 83 last year +32),  asylum seekers whose Home Office- provided housing had ceased (29 compared to 23 last year +6) and  domestic abuse (16 compared to 8 last year) making up the three primary categories. 25 | P a g e Housing Register Analysis As of 31st March 2025, Hillingdon’s housing register listed 3,194 households (29% 1 bed need, 34% 2 bed, 26% 3 bed & 11% 4 bed or more). At this time, we were transitioning to a new banding system with bands 1 to 14, 3,112 had been placed on the new banding system as shown in the table below. A further 82 were still to transition. Housing Register by Band on 31 March 2025 0&1 bed 2 beds 3 beds 4 beds 5 beds Total Band 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Band 2 1 1 3 1 0 6 Band 3 5 11 3 0 1 20 Band 4 109 63 12 5 0 191 Band 5 8 1 3 6 0 18 Band 6 14 10 15 5 0 44 Band 7 2 0 2 0 0 4 208 269 198 64 4 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1 2 3 4 5 (blank) Total Bookings by Bed Size Total 26 | P a g e Band 8 14 5 1 1 0 21 Band 9 25 59 119 97 1 301 Band 10 64 86 91 27 0 268 Band 11 72 270 365 122 0 829 Band 12 305 234 132 23 0 694 Band 13 254 244 163 54 0 715 Band 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 to 14 873 984 910 341 2 3112 Of those registered, 895 were homeless households, 819 of which were in the new bands. Housing Register by Band on 31 March 2025 Homeless Main Duty Homeless Relief Homeless Prevention Total Band 1 0 0 0 0 Band 2 0 0 0 0 Band 3 0 0 0 0 Band 4 0 0 0 0 Band 5 3 0 0 3 Band 6 2 0 0 2 Band 7 1 0 0 1 Band 8 1 0 0 1 Band 9 64 0 2 66 Band 10 68 4 2 74 Band 11 69 0 2 71 Band 12 19 2 4 25 Band 13 534 36 6 576 Band 14 0 0 0 0 Total 761 42 16 819 27 | P a g e The proportion on the register for different bedsizes is similar for homeless households and the housing register as a whole. There is a slightly higher proportion requiring 1 and 2 bed properties and slightly lower proportion requiring 3 bed properties. Housing Register by Homelessness Duty/Beds 0&1 bed 2 beds 3 beds 4 beds 5 beds Total Homeless Main Duty 211 297 227 95 0 830 Homeless Relief 40 4 2 0 0 46 Homeless Prevention 6 6 6 1 0 19 Total 257 307 235 96 0 895 Housing Register by Transfers/Beds 0&1 bed 2 beds 3 beds 4 beds 5 beds Total Total 220 276 385 167 2 Housing Register for Overcrowding for Beds 0&1 bed 2 beds 3 beds 4 beds 5 beds Total Total 179 446 411 108 0 Age Bands Housing Register by Homelessness Duty/Age band 16-24 25-44 45-59 60-64 65-74 75+ Total Homeless Main Duty 66 478 228 27 24 7 830 Homeless Relief 7 18 13 4 3 1 46 Homeless Prevention 0 11 7 0 1 0 19 Total 73 507 248 31 28 8 895 84% of homeless households on the housing register have a main applicant aged between 25 and 59. The primary cause for registration on the housing list is due to overcrowding, which affects 1144 households (where known), representing 38% of the total registrations with homeless household accounting for 29%. Many homeless cases (84%) fall within the 25 to 59 age group. Housing Register by Main Reasons Overcrowding 1144

Residents’ Services Select Committee - 18 February 2026 Classification: Public Commercial Waste and General Waste Services Committee name Residents’ Services Select Committee Officer reporting Jordan Groves, Head of Waste and Green Spaces Papers with report None Ward All HEADLINES This report provides the Residents’ Services Select Committee with an overview of the Council’s commercial waste service performance and an update on borough -wide waste and recycling services for the 2025/26 financial year. It includes key operational data, service changes linked to Simpler Recycling reforms, performance indicators, resident impacts, and ongoing improvement initiatives across Waste Services, Recycling, Trade Waste, Street Cleansing and Civil Amenities RECOMMENDATIONS That the Residents’ Services Select Committee: 1. Notes the update in the report. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Commercial Waste Service Performance (Trade Waste) To date in the 2025/26 financial year, the service has secured 79 new contracts generating £198,301.90 in income. Over the same period, 98 contracts have ended, representing a loss of £138,913.84. This results in a net positive income position of £59,388.06, despite operating within a highly competitive and challenging commercial environment. The primary reasons for contract cessation are price sensitivity within the market and non-payment of invoices. Of the contracts lost, 43 accounts were terminated specifically due to non-payment. The service is currently working with Corporate Recovery to determine appropriate next steps regarding unpaid debts, including escalation to external debt collection agencies or legal processes where necessary. In addition, there have been 11 cancellations relating to pricing and 30 instances where businesses have either ceased trading or relocated outside the borough boundary. The service has continued to focus on service optimisation and upselling opportunities with existing customers. As part of this, the service has successfully increased re cycling and food waste capacity where appropriate and has upsold 76 additional 140 -litre food waste containers and 36 additional recycling bins. The service has also seen an uplift in general waste collections Residents’ Services Select Committee - 18 February 2026 Classification: Public from existing customers whose waste generation has increased. Overall, while the total number of contracts has decreased, income remains on an upward trajectory. This is due to enhanced service uptake among existing customers and the higher value of new contracts compared to those lost. Without the r ecent increase in non -paying customers, the service would have recorded a net gain in both contract numbers and income. Furthermore, the service continues to review the Council’s existing trade waste agreements identifying potential and working with busin esses to ensure they are compliant with waste legislation, in particular ensuring they have a valid waste disposal contract in place. Where non- compliance is identified and not remedied officers are working increasingly with the enforcement team to ensure they do become compliant and not impede on residents’ experience of the Borough. General Waste Update The service remains unchanged from previous years with the exception of Garden Waste becoming a paid for service halfway through 2025. The Service operates a weekly sack collection model with the exception of properties that require bulk bins or those that present a kerbside food waste container. Garden waste has a current subscription base of 23,240 with the new subscription period due to open in April. The income generated from the subscription in this financial year was £1.62m which is a strong contribution to the operating costs of the waste service. For the current financial year, the garden waste service collected 10,126 tonnes of green waste which contributes to the Council's recycling rate. Over the Christmas period the garden waste service continued to operate, and residents were also offered a free kerbside Christmas tree collection. There were some issues with this service as residents who did not have a garden waste permit were unable to report misses in the system or identify what their scheduled collection day would be over the fortnight available. December and early January were a busy time of year for the Waste collection teams with the Christmas period one of the busiest in the year due to the 3 bank holidays that impact on the regular waste collection schedules for residents. This most recent Christmas the service was “pulled forward” which means that instead of working a day behind the normal collection schedule the schedule was instead worked a day in advance beginning with Monday 22 December being rescheduled to Saturday 20 December. These changes were communicated ahead of time by the Council; however, this change resulted in a l arge number of residents not having their waste collected as they presented on their normal days. This had an impac t on the service which then experienced a large number of missed collection reports which it reacted to and cleared well but it did result in the service being under pressure for the period as it reacted to these. The service is currently experiencing some challenges with an aging fleet of vehicles which will require replacing via a capital programme in the current years and the procurement t eam will support the service in acquiring these. Some changes to the vehicle layout and design may be required as the existing fleet profile, particularly cab capacity, is being phased out by suppliers which may have an impact on the way the service operates some of its rounds. The service is also aware that there have been a number of reported issues with the recycling and food waste sacks supplied to residents. In the previous financial year, the contract for sacks Residents’ Services Select Committee - 18 February 2026 Classification: Public was expiring and a procurement exercise was undertaken which was awarded to a new supplier. The service has conducted an investigation into the sacks provided to the Council and ha s identified that these are not to the standard required . Officers are curre ntly working through remedial actions with the supplier to address these quality concerns. Alongside this, a mobile waste collection pilot has been established, with eight “drop and go” events planned across the Borough, beginning with the first event at Charville Community Centre on Saturday 31 January from 10am to 2pm. Efforts to reduce contamination continue to show progress: at kerbside, a structured three step education process is being applied using crew reports to target persistent issues ; while in communal settings, trials of reverse lidded recycling bins at high contamination sites have shown significant improvements, and work is underway to assess the feasibility of a boroughwide roll out. A step education process is being applied using crew reports to target persistent issues. Lidded recycling bins at high contamination sites have shown significant improvements, and work is underway to assess the feasibility of a boroughwide rollout. -step educat ion process is being applied using crew reports to target persistent issues-lidded recycling bins at high -contamination sites have shown significant improvements, and work is underway to assess the feasibility of a borough-wide rollout Simpler Recycling Implementation of the Simpler Recycling programme is progressing to schedule across all housing types. For Flats Above Shops (FLASH), surveying has been completed on time and database updates are now being finalised to accurately define collection points, with communication letters due to be issued imminently. All required stock has been secured to support the rollout, which commenced in the first week of February to provide new food waste and recycling containers to a further 2,200 properties. For private blocks, 17,000 information letters have been printed and delivered to the depot, and the rollout - initiated on 19 January - is expected to conclude within six weeks, bringing an additional 17,000 properties into the food waste service. PERFORMANCE DATA A summary of key service performance indicators:  Commercial waste income: £2.1m turnover.  Monthly trade users: 1,414.  Harefield CA diversion rate: increased to 74%. (Diversion means waste diverted from incineration or landfill)  Additional food waste properties delivered (2025/26): 19,200+ across FLASH and private blocks.  Recycling contamination: Improvements evidenced in trial blocks through reverse ‑lidded bins. RESIDENT BENEFIT  Expanded food waste and recycling services improve sustainability, reduce landfill dependency and prepare residents for statutory national requirements. Residents’ Services Select Committee - 18 February 2026 Classification: Public  Drop & go events provide safe alternatives to waste dumping and reduce fly‑tipping.  Enhanced contamination reduction work improves recycling quality and reduces disposal costs. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS  Commercial Waste contributes £2.1m income towards service costs.  Debt recovery work is ongoing to mitigate risk from unpaid trade waste accounts.  Harefield CA site trade income reached £1.16m by December 2025. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS  The Council must comply with national Simpler Recycling legislation requiring separate collection of core recyclable materials. BACKGROUND PAPERS Nil.

Residents’ Services Select Committee - 18 February 2026 Classification: Public DRAFT WEST LONDON WASTE PLAN Committee name Resident’s Services Select Committee Officer reporting Gavin Polkinghorn Papers with report Appendix A: Cabinet Report – West London Waste Plan Regulation 18 Consultation Appendix B: Maps of safeguarded waste sites Appendix C: West London Waste Plan Regulation 18 Draft Ward All HEADLINES This report describes the West London Waste Plan, which was approved by Cabinet for public consultation in line with Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended). RECOMMENDATIONS That the Residents’ Services Select Committee 1. Notes the contents of the draft report and appendices; and 2. Reviews the draft West London Waste Plan and comments on any matters it would like considered as this Plan is sent for further Cabinet consideration in June. SUPPORTING INFORMATION It is a statutory requirement for each area to have a ‘waste local plan’ that sets out how and where waste expected to be produced within the area is to be managed. Policies in waste local plans are used by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) alongside policies contained in other development plan documents, to determine applications for planning permission relating to waste management development. The West London Waste Plan (WLWP) is a strategic plan that plans for waste management sites in the West London Boroughs (Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Richmond upon Thames, and the Old Oak & Park Royal Development Corporation). Key elements of the WLWP include:  the amount of waste to be managed in West London over the plan period (waste arisings);  an updated list of safeguarded waste sites across West London with sufficient waste management capacity to manage expected waste arisings; and  updated policies against which planning applications for waste-related development will be Residents’ Services Select Committee - 18 February 2026 Classification: Public determined. The WLWP is part of the Council’s development plan and, therefore a policy framework document. The current plan was adopted in 2015 and is considered in many respects to be out-of-date in the context of national and regional planning policy and therefore needs to be replaced. The West London Boroughs with the West London Alliance have commissioned BPA consultants to prepare the new WLWP. Once adopted the updated WLWP will replace the 2015 West London Waste Plan taking account of changes in policy and taking the planning horizon forward for another 15 years. Work is underway on the new WLWP. The first consultation relating to the updated West London Waste Plan (known formally as the ‘Regulation 18 Draft Updated West London Waste Plan’) recently completed . The consultation ran from Thursday 11 December 2025 to Thursday 5 February 2026. Safeguarded sites A total of 23 sites in the London Borough of Hillingdon is proposed to be safeguarded. These sites are listed in the Draft WLWP (Appendix 2) and maps of the sites are provided in Appendix 3. This is a decrease on the existing number of safeguarded sites in Hillingdon (25) and no new site allocations are proposed. Next steps The full timetable is set out in the cabinet report (Appendix 1). The proposed submission version of the WLWP is set for consultation in mid-2026 and examination expected for early to mid-2027. RESIDENT BENEFIT Managing waste is a key part of a well-functioning modern society. If waste is not handled in the right facilities or locations, it can harm both the environment and local communities. The WLWP is the key strategic planning tool to manage waste in the Borough. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The costs of the consultation arising from approving the Regulation 18 Consultation are estimated to not exceed £3k and would be funded from the existing Planning Policy Service revenue budget. The costs for the West London Waste Plan have been agreed and are £30k per borough per year over the five-year period 2023/24 to 2027/28, which is met from the Strategic Planning Earmarked Reserve and is reflected within the budget monitoring position. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The legal implications are set out in full in Appendix 1 to this report, the Cabinet report for approval to consult on the regulation 18 West London Waste Plan. The Council will be conducting the consultation in accordance with the Town and Countr y Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012 (as amended). Residents’ Services Select Committee - 18 February 2026 Classification: Public BACKGROUND PAPERS NIL APPENDICES Appendix 1: Cabinet Report – West London Waste Plan Regulation 18 Consultation Appendix 2: West London Waste Plan Regulation 18 Draft Appendix 3: Maps of safeguarded waste sites

Appendix A Cabinet – 20 November 2025 (Part 1 Public) WEST LONDON WASTE PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION Cabinet Member & Portfolio Cllr Steve Tuckwell, Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing and Growth Cllr Eddie Lavery, Cabinet Member for Community & Environment Responsible Officer Dan Kennedy, Corporate Director of Residents Services Report Author & Directorate Gavin Polkinghorn , Planning Policy Team Leader, Residents Services Papers with report Appendix A: List of Safeguarded Sites. Appendix B: Maps of Safeguarded Sites. Appendix C: West London Waste Plan Regulation 18 Draft. HEADLINES Summary This report seeks Cabinet agreement to undertake a public consultation on the Draft West London Waste Plan in line with Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended). A draft version of the consultation document is provided (Appendix C). This decision also seeks approval for a number of other related steps that are deemed necessary to progress the West London Waste Plan after the Regulation 18 Consultation. Putting our Residents First Delivering on the Council Strategy 2022-2026 This report supports our ambition for residents / the Council of: Live in a sustainable borough that is carbon neutral This report supports our commitments to residents of: A Green and Sustainable Borough Financial Cost The costs of the consultation arising from approving the Regulation 18 Consultation are estimated to not exceed £3k and would be funded from the existing Planning Policy Service revenue budget. Select Committee Resident’s Services Ward(s) All Cabinet – 20 November 2025 (Part 1 Public) RECOMMENDATIONS That: 1) Regulation 18 consultation on the Draft West London Waste Plan attached in Appendix C be agreed; 2) Authority be delegated to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth (as Chief Planning Officer) to make minor modifications to the draft Plan before consultation launch (in conjunction with other participating boroughs); 3) the outcome of the consultation be reported back to Cabinet in 2026 with subsequent approval sought for a second round of consultation known as Regulation 19. Reasons for recommendations The West London Waste Plan (WLWP) is part of the Council’s development plan and, therefore a policy framework document. The current plan was adopted in 2015 and is considered in many respects to be out -of-date in the context of national and regional planning policy and therefore needs to be replaced. The process of preparing a new WLWP includes statutory consultation periods. Cabinet approval is required from each of the participating boroughs to commence the Regulation 18 consultation. The new plan is being prepared in the context of the national December 2026 submission deadline for plans to progress under the current plan -making legislation. Delegated authority to recommend minor amendments to the Plan prior to consultation is necessary to allow the process to continue in a timely manner. The final submission version of the plan , which will be produced next year , will require further Cabinet consideration and ultimately Full Council approval in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. It is a statutory requirement for relevant local planning authorities to produce plans to assist with decisions involving waste developments. These plans can be produced jointly with other planning authorities to address strategic matters. There are also significant cost savings achieved by doing so jointly. Alternative options considered / risk management The option of not approving the draft updated WLWP for consultation. This decision would delay the adoption of the WLWP, meaning that the participating west London boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Richmond upon Thames and the OPDC would not have an up-to- date Waste Local Plan against which to determine planning applications for waste related development. Significant delay could result in LB Hillingdon not being able to participate in the WLWP update process. Democratic compliance / previous authority The WLWP forms a Development Plan document and thereby consideration and adoption of it follow the procedures for Policy Framework documents in the Constitution. The timetable for this is set out in the report below. Cabinet – 20 November 2025 (Part 1 Public) Select Committee comments None at this stage. The relevant select committee will be engaged in this as part of the consultation process, as a policy framework document. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Why is the waste plan being reviewed? The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local plans to be reviewed and updated as necessary at least once every five years. After this, plans or parts of plans may be regarded as not being up-to-date and may be given less weight in planning decision-making. The current WLWP was adopted over 10 years ago. It is being updated to provide an up -to-date set of policies to determine planning applications for waste-related development and ensure that sufficient capacity is available to manage expected waste arisings over the next 15 years. The updated Plan will also address the Household, Industrial and Commercial ( HIC) waste apportionment and management targets for construction and demolition waste set out in the 2021 London Plan. Key elements of the emerging WLWP The emerging updated WLWP follows a similar format to the adopted plan. Key elements include the amount of waste to be managed in West London over the p lan period (waste arisings), an updated list of safeguarded waste sites across West London with sufficient waste management capacity to manage expected waste arisings and updated policies against which planning applications for waste-related development will be determined. Waste arisings in West London The starting point for the updated WLWP is the Household, Industrial and Commercial (HIC) waste apportionments set out in the current London Plan (March 2021). The apportionment is the percentage share of London’s total predicted HIC waste arisings that each Borough is expected to plan for through to 2041 in terms of the land take required to process the anticipated flows of waste. The London Plan encourages Boroughs to pool these apportionments. When the HIC waste apportionments for each west London Borough are pooled it means they are expected to manage 1,615,000 tonnes of the forecast London’s HIC waste arisings between 2021 and 2041. Hillingdon’s waste apportionment is 365,000 tonnes of London’s total forecast HIC waste arisings in 2041. In addition to the HIC waste apportionments, the Boroughs are expected to ensure sufficient capacity is available within the plan area for the amount of Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste forecast to arise in wes t London over the Plan period, to be managed in accordance with the management targets set out in Policy SI 7 of the London Plan. Cabinet – 20 November 2025 (Part 1 Public) The Boroughs are not expected to ensure sufficient capacity is available to manage all the hazardous waste forecast to arise in west London within the Plan area, rather there is an expectation that its management be planned for in collaboration with neighbouring authorities. Similarly, there is no expectation that excavation waste will be exclusively managed within west London, or London as a whole. Vision and objectives The draft Regulation 18 WLWP contains a high -level vision which sets out what the plan is seeking to achieve by the end of the plan period and a series of strategic objectives, which provide a framework to realise the vision. These elements have been developed from the adopted WLWP with input from officers, drawing on the content of the various plans and strategies from each Borough. WLWP policies As with the adopted WLWP, the emerging WLWP contains a seri es of policies against which planning applications for waste related development will be determined. The policies safeguard existing waste sites identified in the emerging WLWP. Safeguarding means that planning applications for other forms of development ( such as residential) that result in the restriction or loss of waste management capacity will be resisted, unless suitable alternative replacement capacity is identified elsewhere in the Plan area. The draft updated WLWP contains the following policies:  Policy WLWP 1 – Safeguarding and Optimising Waste Site Network: Keystone policy to make the most of existing network of waste sites.  Policy WLWP 2 – Provision of additional Waste Management Capacity: Policy making provision for compensatory and windfall (additional) capacity.  Policy WLWP 3 – Residual Waste Management & Energy Recovery: Policy defining specific conditions under which capacity for the management of residual waste may be supported.  Policy WLWP 4 – Ensuring High Quality and Resilient Waste Facilities: Policy introducing waste specific requirements/standards facilities need to meet.  Policy WLWP 5 – Recovery and Disposal of Waste to Land: Policy defining specific conditions under which proposals for non-inert landfill, placement of inert waste; and excavation/mining of existing landfills may be consented.  Policy WLWP 6 – Circular Economy: Policy setting out the requirements for proposed development to fulfil certain sustainability criteria. Safeguarded sites To be in general conformity with the London Plan, the WLWP is required to identify sufficient waste management capacity to manage the projected C&D waste arisings and the total London Plan HIC waste apportionment for west London. Sites that are:  Sites with extant planning consents for a waste use;  Sites granted Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development; and  Sites deemed to be lawful over time or ancillary to another lawful use. Cabinet – 20 November 2025 (Part 1 Public) A total of 23 sites in the London Borough of Hillingdon are safeguarded. These sites are included in Appendix A with maps provided in Appendix B. It should be noted that this is a decrease on the existing number of safeguarded sites in Hillingdon (25) and no new site allocations are proposed. Integrated Impact Assessment and Evidence Base for the draft WLWP Land Use Consultants (LUC) were commissioned in October 2023 to undertake an Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), comprising the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment ( SEA), Health Impact Assessment (HIA), Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA), and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the draft WLWP. The IIA appraises the likely environmental, social and economic effects of the vision, objectives and policies. The IIA Report will be published as part of the consultation on the Regulation 18 of the WLWP. The HRA specifically focuses on the potential effects of the WLWP on certain designated nature conservation sites, and is contained in a separate HRA report, which will also be published for consultation. The IIA is undertaken as an iterative process during the plan’s preparation. It includes assessments of preferred policy approaches and reasonable alternatives. Reports are published and consulted on at key stages in the plan process, often alongside draft Local Plan documents. The IIA helps to identify potential issues at an early stage so that measures to avoid or mitigate harm, and improve expected outcomes, can be incorporated into the plan. The IIA team had the opportunity to comment and make recommendations on the Regulation 18 WLWP policies as they were being drafted, and this resulted in more comprehensive mitigation requirements within some of the draft policies to help to minimise adverse effects of new or redeveloped waste management facilities. The key findings of the IIA can be summarised as follows:  Overall, the draft Vision, Stra tegic Objectives and Policies in the Regulation 18 WLWP are likely to have a range of minor positive and significant positive effects particularly in relation to moving waste management up the waste hierarchy, helping to reduce CO2 emissions, supporting the local economy and health and wellbeing.  Several mixed minor positive and negative effects were identified for the environmental objectives because of the potential negative impacts associated with the development of new waste facilities, depending on when and where development comes forward, and the specific features and design of any new facility.  Policies within the draft WLWP and other parts of the development plan provide criteria to minimise any adverse effects of new or redeveloped waste sites.  No significant negative effects were identified for the Regulation 18 WLWP proposed policies. Other evidence BPP Consulting has prepared a Waste Capacity Report, which assesses the management capacity of existing waste sites across the plan area to determine if the waste apportionments set out in the current London Plan 2021 will be met. A survey of waste operators (that run the principal waste sites across west London) has been undertaken to test the findings of this work. The Capacity Report forms a key part of the evidence base for the emerging updated WLWP and indicates that at this stage, there is sufficient waste management capacity within existing sites across west London to meet the London Plan apportionments and C&D waste management Cabinet – 20 November 2025 (Part 1 Public) targets. There is a possibility that the waste apportionments could increase as part of the London Plan Review or the Regulation 18 consultation might find that existing waste sites are no longer available. Officers are therefore of the vi ew that a ‘call for sites’ exercise should be undertaken as part of the Regulation 18 consultation. A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) relating to the sites is being prepared as part of the evidence base by Metis consultants Next steps in the plan making process Subject to Cabinet approval, the Regulation 18 draft updated WLWP will be issued for consultation over an eight-week period commencing in November/December 2025. Following the closure of the consultation, the responses received will be analysed and the findings used to inform the production of the Regulation 19 version of the Plan that boroughs intend to submit for examination. This version of the WLWP will return to Cabinet for approved, prior to being published for further comment and further information on the timetable for submission and examination process will be provided at this stage. The final submission version of the plan will require Full Council approval. The full WLWP programme is set out below. Key Stage Timeline Draft emerging WLWP – 6/8-week public consultation (Regulation 18) November/December 2025 WLWP Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) to Cabinet then Full Council TBA prior to mid 2026 Proposed Submission WLWP published for representations (Regulation 19) Mid 2026 WLWP submitted for independent examination Late 2026 Examination hearings (if needed) Early/Mid 2027 Main modifications (if needed) published for representations Mid 2027 Inspector’s Report Late 2027 Adoption Late 2027/Early 2028 Going forward, other activities in the plan making process will include:  Maintaining dialogue with the Greater London Authority to ensure the emerging updated WLWP is in general conformity with the current and emerging London Plan, which has also recently commenced review.  Continuing with duty to co-operate activities, including preparing and agreeing statements of common ground with neighbouring authorities and relevant organisations as needed.  Keeping the evidence base under review to ensure it continues to support the emerging plan. At this stage, it is not considered that additional evidence is required to support the emerging policies or sites.  Engaging in governance activities, including the potential establishment of a working group with elected representatives from each of the west London boroughs. Cabinet – 20 November 2025 (Part 1 Public) Financial implications The preparation of the West London Waste Plan is being led by BPP Consulting, with specialist sub-consultancy input from Land Use Consultants (Integrated Impact Assessment) and Metis (Strategic Flood Risk Assessment). The overall project is being man aged by the West London Alliance. The cost of undertaking the project (consultancy and project management) is £29,500 per year per borough over the duration of the project (2023/24-2027/28). The WLWP funding has been agreed at directo rate level and is funded by the Strategic Planning EMR. It has been included in the budget monitoring position. This decision will help ensure that the WLWP is completed on time and that no further funding is required. This decision has a cost of no more than £3k to cover administering the consultation activities at borough level. This includes advertisements in local newspapers and printing and distribution of the consultation documents to libraries and selected stakeholders . These costs will be funded from the existing Planning Service revenue budget. RESIDENT BENEFIT & CONSULTATION The benefit or impact upon Hillingdon residents, service users and communities Managing waste is a key part of a well-functioning modern society. If waste is not handled in the right facilities or locations, it can harm both the environment and local communities. The WLWP is the essential planning tool to manage waste in the borough. Equalities implications The draft WLWP has been informed by an Integrated Impact Assessment that includes an Equalities Impact Assessment as set out in this report. This will be updated as the project progresses. The report has been included as a background paper. Consultation and Engagement The Regulation 18 version of the updated WLWP is scheduled to be issued for consultation in November/December 2025, once it has been approved for consultation by all of the participating boroughs. The approach to the consultation process will meet statutory requirements, including the provisions of each borough’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The following methods will be used to communicate how the WLWP is being prepared.  A dedicated website will serve as a single, accessible portal for all updates, consultation materials, FAQs, and opportunities for involvement.  Information and consultation documents will be published on Borough’s websites and made available for inspection at main offices, libraries, and other community venues.  Notification of the process by each Borough, in line with SCIs, (generally) emailing stakeholders in its area using details held on consultation databases.  Boroughs will publicise key stages of the WLWP production using established social media channels (e.g. X (Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, YouTube channel)  Publication of hard copies of draft versions of the Plan at each consultation stage for inspection at main offices and certain libraries. Cabinet – 20 November 2025 (Part 1 Public)  Publicise using local media (e.g. local newspapers or newsletters) at key stages of the process. An online joint launch event will take place at the initial publication of the draft updated WLWP at Regulation 18 stage. A particular purpose of the online meetings is to ensure that all those who are interested are given an opportunity to be involved. Th ere is also an option to hold in person drop-in sessions at accessible venues and convenient times. There will be a minimum of two consultation periods during the Plan production process, each lasting at least six weeks. The first will begin following th e publication of the draft Regulation 18 version of the plan and its supporting documents, with a second taking place once the Regulation 19 draft plan is published. If significant new issues arise from the Regulation 18 consultation, a further round (or targeted re-consultation on specific issues) may also be undertaken. Comments received at all consultation stages will be recorded (on a project database), and a summary report produced, which will be made publicly available on the project website. Duty to Cooperate Engagement with key organisations has commenced to ensure the emerging WLWP is compliant with the duty to co -operate (a legal requirement of the plan -making process). In particular, discussions have been held with the GLA to determine expectations and statements of common ground will be drafted with neighbouring authorities and other key partners. CORPORATE CONSIDERATIONS Corporate Finance Corporate Finance have reviewed this report and concur with the Financial Implications set out above, noting approval is sought to proceed with the Regulation 18 consultation for the Draft West London Waste Plan, with delegated authority for minor pre-consultation modifications to be granted to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth, with the outcome of the consultation to be reported in 2026, ahead of the proposed Regulation 19 consultation. Furthermore, it is noted the West London Waste Plan is managed by the West London Alliance, with the total consultancy and project management cost of £30k per borough per year over the five-year period 2023/24 to 2027/28, which is met from the Strategic Planning Earmarked Reserve and is reflected within the budget monitoring position. An additional £3k will be required to support the borough-level consultation activities, which will be met from the existing approved Planning Service revenue budget. As at Month 5 the Planning, Regeneration and Environment Servic e were reporting a favourable variance of £4k. The cost of the consultation will be monitored through the regular monthly monitoring cycle. Legal When preparing the Local Plan, the Local Planning Authority (“LPA”) must comply with the consultation requirements set out in Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Cabinet – 20 November 2025 (Part 1 Public) Planning) Regulations 2012 (as amended) (“the Regulations”). The LPA must consult with specific consultation bodies as defined in Regulation 2 of the Regulations. Any representations received must be taken into account before a formal consultation on the proposed submission documents and statement of the representations procedure (“Regulation 19”). Property Only two of the sites listed are Council owned sites and these are b oth currently used for waste purposes, so it is not considered the contents of this report will have any impact on the Council’s property portfolio. BACKGROUND PAPERS Existing West London Waste Plan: West London Waste Plan 2015 West London Waste Plan Integrated Impacts Assessment Re gulation 18 Draft Plan: IIA Report for the Reg. 18 West London Waste Plan Cabinet – 20 November 2025 (Part 1 Public) Appendix A Reference Site Name Operator Type of Facility Safeguarding justification Permit date HI01 New Years Green Lane CA Site & WTS Hillingdon Council WTS Permanent permission 1989 HI02 Airside Waste Sweepings Treatment Facility Heathrow Airport Ltd Treatment Lawful over time 2015 HI03 New Years Green Lane BFA Recycling Ltd MRS Lawful over time 2012 HI04 WTS, Civic Way, Ruislip B&K Environmental Services Ltd WTS Lawful over time 2007 HI06 Land off Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth Foley Haulage Ltd Treatment CLEUD 2020 HI07 GK Depot, Trout Road Recycling with Skips Ltd Treatment CLEUD 2018 HI08 Old Stockley Road, West Drayton Hanson Quarry Products Europe Ltd Treatment Lawful over time 2015 HI09 Holloway Lane Materials Recycling Facility Powerday Ltd Treatment CLEUD 2002 HI13 Skip Lane, Harvill Road Sortera Ltd Treatment Permanent Permission 1991 HI14 WTS Off Rigby Lane Talking Rubbish Waste Solutions Ltd Treatment - 2022 HI15 Skip Lane, Harvill Road Thames Materials Ltd Treatment Lawful over time 2015 HI16 Unit 1, Wallingford Road Recycling Facility Uxbridge Recycling Ltd Treatment Permanent Permission 2012 HI17 Crows Nest Farm Country Compost Ltd Compost Permanent Permission 2005 HI18 High View Farm West London Composting Ltd Compost Permanent Permission 1995 HI19 Hillingdon Clinical Waste Incinerator Medisort Ltd Incin - 2021 HI20 Cranford Lane WTS, Heathrow Heathrow Airport Ltd WTS Lawful over time 1981 HI21 Waybeards Farm, Hill End Road, Harefield FJ Heppelthwaite Solutions Ltd WTS Lawful over time 2008 Cabinet – 20 November 2025 (Part 1 Public) HI24 Heathrow Depot FM Conway Treatment Permanent Permission 2015 HI25 Central Depot Harlington Road Hillingdon Council WTS Permanent Permission 2023 HI27 Unit 1 & 2 Pump Lane Industrial Estate Personnel Hygiene Services Ltd WTS Lawful over time 1999 HI28 Hayes Transfer Station Rigby Lane Suez Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd WTS Permanent Permission 1993 HI29 Victoria Road WTS Suez Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd WTS / RDF Permanent Permission 2014 Acronyms: WTS – Waste Transfer Station Incin – Incinerator MRS – RDF – Refuse Derived Fuel CLEUD – Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development

Official Official Regulation 18 Draft Updated West London Waste Plan LPA Member Sign Off October 2025 Logos Appendix C Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Draft Plan Version: LPA Member Sign Off 07.10.2025 Official Official Contents 1. Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................1 2. Introduction and background ................................................................................................3 What is the West London Waste Plan? .............................................................................3 The need to replace the current waste plan .......................................................................4 The process of preparing the West London Waste Plan ....................................................5 Key elements of the West London Waste Plan .................................................................6 This stage of preparing the WLWP ....................................................................................6 Supporting documents .......................................................................................................7 How to comment on the Regulation 18 Draft WLWP .........................................................7 3. The Plan Context ..................................................................................................................8 Spatial Portrait ...................................................................................................................8 Local Planning Authority-Level Summaries .......................................................................8 Common Themes ............................................................................................................ 11 Proposed Planning Strategy ............................................................................................ 11 4. Waste Management in West London .................................................................................. 13 Scope of the new WLWP ................................................................................................ 13 Local Authority Collected Waste (mainly household waste) (LACW) .............................. 13 Commercial & Industrial Waste (from businesses & industry) (C&I waste) ...................... 13 Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste (C, D & E waste) .................................. 14 Hazardous Waste. ........................................................................................................... 14 Existing Management Arrangements for West London's waste ...................................... 15 Management Profiles ...................................................................................................... 15 Flows to and from West London ...................................................................................... 18 Existing Waste Management Sites in West London ........................................................ 20 5. The Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 21 National Policy ................................................................................................................. 22 Climate change ............................................................................................................... 27 The Proximity Principle and Net Self Sufficiency ............................................................. 29 Regional Policy – The London Plan ................................................................................. 30 London Environment Strategy (May 2018) ...................................................................... 33 London-wide Climate Emergency .................................................................................... 34 Local Policy ..................................................................................................................... 35 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Draft Plan Version: LPA Member Sign Off 07.10.2025 Official Official LPA Local Plans and Related Plans and Guidance ......................................................... 35 West London Waste Authority ......................................................................................... 37 6. Vision and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 38 The Vision ....................................................................................................................... 38 Strategic Objectives ........................................................................................................ 39 West London Waste Plan Strategic Objectives ............................................................... 39 7. Future Requirements for Waste Management Capacity ...................................................... 40 Management Capacity for Apportioned HIC Waste ......................................................... 40 Management Capacity for C, D & E Waste ...................................................................... 40 Management Capacity for Hazardous Waste ................................................................... 41 Requirements for landfill .................................................................................................. 41 Providing for Unmet Needs for Waste Capacity from Elsewhere within London ............. 41 8. Future Waste Management Capacity in West London ........................................................ 43 9. Proposed Policies ............................................................................................................... 44 10. Policies Map ........................................................................................................................ 69 11. Glossary ............................................................................................................................. 70 Appendices Appendix 1 – Monitoring Framework ....................................................................................... 81 Appendix 2 – List of Safeguarded Sites ................................................................................... 89 Appendix 3 – Maps of Safeguarded Sites (see Separate Document) ..................................... 101 Appendix 4 – Replacement of Policies in the West London Waste Plan ................................ 102 All map data from OpenStreetMap contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2010 to 2023. Contains national statistics data © Crown copyright and database right 2024 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Regulation 18 Draft Plan Version: LPA Review 28.08.2025 Official Official Table of Tables Table 1: Anticipated Timetable for Preparation of the West London Waste Plan ..........................8 Table 2: London Plan Forecast Waste Arisings for the West London Boroughs ........................ 24 Table 3: Non-hazardous C, D & E Waste arisings from West London 2020-2023 Mean ............ 26 Table 4: Non-hazardous C, D & E Waste in West London - Waste Management Profile 2023 .. 27 Table 5: Principal Hazardous Waste Component Arisings in West London 2023 ...................... 29 Table 6: Adjusted Tonnages of West London waste managed in permitted facilities within West London and outside West London, and tonnage of imported waste to West London facilities: ...................................................................................................................... 30 Table 7: London Plan Forecast HIC Waste Arisings & Apportionments for the West London Boroughs ..................................................................................................................... 47 Table 8: Combined apportionment for West London Boroughs compared to Estimated Apportionment Capacity in West London (after release of sites)................................. 57 Table 9: Existing Waste Sites Proposed for Release from Safeguarding .................................... 60 Table of Figures Figure 1: Area Covered by the updated West London Waste Plan and wider context .................4 Figure 2: Flows of Waste for Management at Permitted Facilities ............................................. 19 Figure 3: Map of West London Existing Waste Sites Proposed to be Safeguarded ................... 20 Figure 4: The Policy Context for the new WLWP ........................................................................ 21 Figure 5: The Waste Hierarchy ................................................................................................... 23 Figure 6: Circular Economy ........................................................................................................ 24 Figure 7: Residual Waste ............................................................................................................ 54 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Review 02.09.25 Official Official Abbreviations AMR Authority Monitoring Report BAP CCC CCS Biodiversity Action Plans Climate Change Committee Carbon Capture and Storage CE Circular Economy C, D & E Construction, Demolition and Excavation C&I Commercial and Industrial HRA Habitats Regulation Assessment LACW Local Authority Collected Waste LNR Local Nature Reserve Mtpa Million tonnes per annum MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment NPPF National Planning Policy Framework OPDC Old Oak & Park Royal Development Corporation OS RBMP RDF RWS SIL Ordnance Survey River Basin Management Plan Refuse Derived Fuel Resources and Waste Strategy Strategic Industrial Location SA Sustainability Appraisal SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SPA Special Protection Area tpa Tonnes per annum WDI Waste Data Interrogator WLLPAs WLWA West London Local Planning Authorities West London Waste Authority WLWP West London Waste Plan WLWP 2015 West London Waste Plan 2015 WPA Waste Planning Authority Page 1 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Review 28.08.25 Official Official 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Managing waste is a key part of a well-functioning modern society. If waste is not handled in the right facilities or locations, it can harm both the environment and local communities. The National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) requires all waste plans to follow the waste hierarchy, which prioritises prevention, reuse, recycling, and then recovery over disposal. It also encourages managing waste close to where it is produced. Because of this, the future management of waste needs to be carefully planned for, and it is a statutory requirement for each waste planning authority to have a ‘waste local plan’ that sets out how and where waste is to be managed. 1.2 In west London, the adopted waste local plan, known as the ‘West London Waste Plan 2015’ (WLWP 2015), was adopted in 2015. It plans for the management of waste through to 2031 within the following London boroughs: Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond upon Thames. Those parts of the boroughs of Brent and Ealing that fall under the planning jurisdiction of the Old Oak & Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) are also included. Together these seven local planning authorities are referred to as the West London Local Planning Authorities (WLLPAs). 1.3 Since 2015, both planning policy and the national waste management policy has changed. New waste management technologies, collection methods and understanding of the impacts of different approaches have also improved. Because of this, the WLLPAs decided to update the WLWP. 1.4 The updated version of the WLWP will cover all types of waste expected to be produced within west London during the Plan period. It will focus especially on the management of Household, Industrial, Commercial (HIC) waste, Construction, Demolition and Excavation (C, D & E) waste and Hazardous waste. In doing so the updated WLWP will take account of the requirements of the London Plan and the West London Waste Authority’s strategy for managing Local Authority Collected Waste (LACW). 1.5 This document is the draft version of the updated WLWP published for public consultation. Once adopted, the WLWP will replace the WLWP 2015 and form part of each authority’s wider development plan. It will sit alongside their adopted Local Plans, the London Plan and any relevant neighbourhood plan(s). The updated WLWP is designed to support existing planning policies rather than repeat them. Page 2 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Review 28.08.25 Official Official 1.6 This draft emerging updated WLWP includes a Vision and five Strategic Objectives, along with six policies that will guide decisions about waste related planning applications, or applications for planning permission which would impact on safeguarded waste sites as follows: • Policy WLWP 1 – Safeguarding and Optimising Waste Site Network • Policy WLWP 2 – Provision of additional Waste Management Capacity • Policy WLWP 3 – Residual Waste Management & Energy Recovery • Policy WLWP 4 – Ensuring High Quality and Resilient Waste Facilities • Policy WLWP 5 – Recovery and Disposal of Waste to Land. • Policy WLWP 6 – Circular Economy & Resource Efficiency 1.7 These policies aim to ensure that waste related development, such as new or expanded waste management facilities, is well located and does not cause harm to local communities or the environment. They provide a clear framework to support waste management development to meet targets, protect existing capacity and allow for the release of land from waste use where appropriate. 1.8 A recent assessment shows that west London has more than enough capacity for the management of current and forecast future waste arisings, other than for landfill. This includes the amounts of HIC waste apportioned for management by each London Borough through the 2021 London Plan. Therefore, there is no immediate need for more waste management requirements within the Plan area. 1.9 The London Plan is under review. Once the new version is adopted, this updated WLWP may also need to be reviewed to ensure it aligns with it. For now, this draft version is considered to be in general conformity with the requirements of the 2021 London Plan. 1.10 The updated WLWP proposes to protect most existing waste sites in west London. It also supports additional waste development where such development will help achieve the Plan's goals. However, it does not identify specific areas of land for the development of additional waste management capacity. 2 Introduction and background What is the West London Waste Plan? 2.1 The efficient and effective management of waste is an important aspect of a well-functioning society. While essential, waste management has the potential to cause impacts on the environment and communities if it is not undertaken in the right facilities located in the right place. Page 3 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Review 28.08.25 Official Official 2.2 It is a statutory requirement for each area to have a ‘waste local plan’ that sets out how and where waste expected to be produced within the area is to be managed. Policies in waste local plans are used by the responsible decision maker, usually the Local Planning Authority (LPA) alongside policies contained in other development plan documents, to determine applications for planning permission relating to waste management development. 2.3 In West London, the current waste local plan, known as the ‘West London Waste Plan’ (WLWP 2015), was adopted in 2015 and plans for the management of waste over the period until 2031 within the following LPA areas located in west London (‘the WLLPAs’): a. London Borough of Brent b. London Borough of Ealing c. London Borough of Harrow d. London Borough of Hillingdon e. London Borough of Hounslow f. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames g. plus those parts of Brent and Ealing that fall under the jurisdiction of the Old Oak & Park Royal Development Corporation. 2.4 Once adopted the updated joint West London Waste Plan (WLWP or ‘the Plan’), will replace the adopted 2015 West London Waste Plan taking account of changes in policy and taking the planning horizon forward for another 15 years. The new West London Waste Plan will form part of each authority’s Development Plan. 2.5 A map of the area covered by the Plan (‘the Plan area’) is presented in Figure 1. The other areas of London have either prepared, or are in the process of preparing, their own waste plans and planning policies so the requirements of the London Plan are met. Page 4 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official Figure 1: Area Covered by the updated West London Waste Plan (‘The Plan Area’) and wider context The need to replace the current waste plan 2.6 Waste management is a rapidly evolving sector, shaped by new initiatives aimed at reducing waste generation and ongoing innovation in the way it is managed. 2.7 Since the current plan was adopted in 2015, a number of changes have occurred which include: a. Changes in the planning policy landscape including: i. a new London Plan published in 2021; ii. several updates to national planning policy; iii. new Local Plans adopted by WLLPAs; and, b. Changes in the national waste management policy landscape including the introduction of Simpler Recycling requirements and a target to halve residual waste produced in England by 2042. c. Evolution of waste management technologies, collection methods and better understanding of the impacts of different approaches. Page 5 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official d. Current and emerging local conditions including pressure to release existing waste sites to alternative development, in particular that relating to alleviating the pressures in London for more housing. e. Changes in patterns of waste production. f. Emergence of the ‘Circular Economy’ as a concept to be embedded into planning policy to promote the management of waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy in priority order and thereby driving it up the hierarchy. 2.8 The WLLPAs will use the policies in this draft emerging WLWP when determining planning applications relating to waste management development, so it is essential that the Plan provides an up-to-date policy framework that reflects these changes to support the more sustainable management of waste that is produced. 2.9 Through safeguarding existing capacity and ensuring that additional waste management capacity provided within the Plan area is of the right type and in the right locations and contributes towards more sustainable management of waste when it is needed, this draft emerging WLWP will ensure that there continues to be sufficient capacity to manage waste in west London over the Plan period. The process of preparing the West London Waste Plan 2.10 The process by which a Local Plan is prepared is prescribed in legislation1 and policy2 and Table 1 shows the related various stages with regard to the preparation of the new WLWP. The different stages provide opportunities for residents, businesses and other key stakeholders to comment and be involved in determining the content of the Plan. A ‘Consultation Protocol’ has been prepared that sets out in more detail how the WLLPAs are seeking to engage with communities and stakeholders during the preparation of the Plan. 1 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Town and Country (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 2 National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024 Page 6 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official Table 1: Anticipated Timetable for Preparation of the West London Waste Plan Key Stage Timeline Draft emerging WLWP – 6/8-week public consultation (‘Regulation 18’) End 2025 ‘Final’ Submission WLWP published for representations (‘Regulation 19’) Mid 2026 WLWP submitted for independent examination Late 2026 Examination hearings (if needed) Early/Mid 2027 Main modifications (if needed) published for representations Mid 2027 Inspector’s Report Late 2027 Adoption Late 2027/Early 2028 Key elements of the West London Waste Plan 2.11 The key elements of the emerging updated West London Waste Plan are: i. Vision ii. Strategic Objectives iii. Policies iv. Policies Map v. Monitoring Framework 2.12 Together, these elements will set out how and where the WLLPAs intend the management of waste to take place in West London 2.13 The Vision and Strategic Objectives set out how it is proposed that waste be managed to ensure it benefits, protects and enhances communities and the environment of west London. The Policies and Policies Map are intended to ensure the Vision is realised and the Strategic Objectives are achieved. To ensure the objectives of the Plan are being met and the Policies are working effectively, certain indicators will be monitored on a regular basis as set out in Appendix 1. Page 7 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official This stage of preparing the WLWP 2.14 Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 requires the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) to notify and invite representations from key stakeholders and communities on the content of the plan. 2.15 This draft emerging updated WLWP is the first formal opportunity for stakeholders to contribute to the draft emerging updated WLWP. The Topic Papers published alongside this draft emerging Plan explore the issues that affect the delivery of waste management capacity in West London. 2.16 The consultation, on this first draft of the emerging Plan, will run for a minimum period of eight weeks during December 2025 and January 2026. A ‘Consultation Protocol’ has been prepared that sets out how the WLLPAs are seeking to engage with communities and stakeholders during the preparation of the Plan.3 Following closure of the consultation period, the WLLPAs will publish a statement summarising the comments received and how each, if necessary, will be addressed in changes to the content of the emerging WLWP. Supporting documents 2.17 This draft emerging updated WLWP is underpinned by supporting evidence including: a. Waste Capacity Assessment and Arisings Estimates b. Strategic Waste Flows Report c. Existing Safeguarded Sites for Release – Assessment Report d. Integrated Impact Assessment comprising: e. Sustainability Appraisal f. Habitats Regulation Assessment g. Climate Change Topic Paper h. Circular Economy Topic Paper i. Waste Management in West London Topic Paper j. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2.18 The draft emerging WLWP and all evidence base documents can be found on the following website: http://www.wlwp.net/. 3 See Consultation Protocol October 2025. This is based on a distillation of each LPAs' own Statements of Community Involvement. Page 8 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official How to comment on the Regulation 18 Draft WLWP 2.19 A questionnaire has been prepared to help all stakeholders in West London respond to this consultation. The questionnaire is available online and at the Borough’s main offices (and certain libraries in some LPA areas). There is also the potential for respondents to raise other issues that they consider the emerging Plan needs to take account of, which may need to be reflected in revisions to this draft emerging updated Plan. This includes inviting stakeholders to nominate sites for waste management facilities, either new or expansion to existing. 2.20 You can respond during the consultation period between December 2025 and January 2026 via the following email address: info@wlwp.net Page 9 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official 3 The Plan Context Spatial Portrait 3.1 This section sets out the key spatial characteristics and constraints affecting development involving the management of waste in West London, providing the context for the updated West London Waste Plan (WLWP). 3.2 West London is a diverse sub-region comprising dense urban centres, established industrial hubs, strategic transport corridors, and extensive green spaces. Waste management development in this area is shaped by a combination of opportunities and challenges. Strategic industrial areas provide essential locations for waste management facilities, while major regeneration areas are delivering new homes and employment space that will increase waste generation but also create opportunities for innovative and sustainable management solutions. 3.3 Waste management development is constrained by the presence of residential areas and other sensitive land uses particularly, Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), heritage and conservation designations, ecological protections, and widespread Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs). 3.4 Transport infrastructure, including road, rail, and waterborne freight networks, also plays a critical role in determining where waste produced in West London ends up being managed. 3.5 These unique spatial characteristics determine the location of existing waste management facilities within each local planning authority area, and availability of land to support expansion of the network where needed. Page 10 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official Local Planning Authority-Level Summaries London Borough of Brent 3.6 In Brent, Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL) and Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS) in Wembley, Neasden and Alperton currently host waste management facilities. Growth and regeneration across the borough are driving high-density development, which requires integrated waste solutions. Road transport is supported by the A406, A5, and M1 corridors, though congestion is a major challenge. Railheads for materials transportation exist in Wembley and Neasden. Environmental and land-use constraints include AQMA coverage, flood risk along the River Brent, and the protected Welsh Harp Reservoir (SSSI). Brent currently accommodates 13 existing waste facilities adjudged to be lawful (excluding those located in OPDC), and its overarching strategy is to protect and modernise them while promoting low- carbon transport solutions. Three existing waste sites identified within the adopted Brent Local Plan for comprehensive, residential-led redevelopment are put forward in this Waste Plan to be considered for release from safeguarding, as their continued safeguarding and use for waste is likely to conflict with wider planning and regeneration objectives of the Local Plan. London Borough of Ealing 10.1 Ealing’s strategic industrial areas — including Greenford, Perivale, Northolt, and Southall — host several waste management facilities. The Southall Opportunity Area is expected to generate significant additional waste, highlighting the need to embed circular economy principles into development. The A40, A406, and Uxbridge Road provide vital transport routes, with further potential for rail-based waste movement. Future development is constrained by AQMA coverage, Green Belt land, and flood risk in Southall and Acton. With 14 existing waste management facilities in operation adjudged to be lawful (excluding those located in OPDC), Ealing’s strategy is to safeguard existing suitable sites, establish circular economy hubs, and expand rail- based freight transport. London Borough of Harrow 3.7 Harrow has limited industrial land, with only Wealdstone and Honeypot Lane designated as SIL or LSIS. Regeneration in Wealdstone and Harrow Town Centre will increase waste production, but space for new waste management facilities is scarce. The borough lacks major highways or rail freight links, making it reliant on local road transport. Additional constraints include AQMA coverage and significant areas of Green Belt. Harrow currently hosts only two existing waste management facilities adjudged to be lawful, and its strategy is to protect and intensify their use where needed, while integrating waste infrastructure into any major non-waste developments and supporting localised recycling facilities. Page 11 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official London Borough of Hillingdon 3.8 Hillingdon benefits from industrial and transport hubs, including Heathrow Airport, Stockley Park, and the Hayes and West Drayton Corridor, which generate substantial commercial and industrial waste. Existing infrastructure includes the West Drayton Waste Transfer Station, the South Hillingdon Recycling Centre, and former mineral sites such as Harmondsworth Quarry. Transport strengths include access to the M4, A40, M25, and West Drayton Rail Freight Terminal, as well as the Grand Union Canal, which offers potential for non-road waste movement. However, Green Belt, AQMA coverage, and flood risk from the River Colne and canal present constraints. With around 23 existing waste facilities adjudged to be lawful, Hillingdon’s strategy is to modernise and intensify existing sites where needed, expand sustainable transport use, and safeguard key facilities from displacement by redevelopment. London Borough of Hounslow 3.9 Hounslow’s Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL), including in Brentford along the Great West Road, and the North Feltham Trading Estate, and other local sites (LSIS), accommodate a number of existing waste management facilities. Growth pressures from the Great West Corridor and Heathrow Opportunity Areas are expected to increase demand for waste management capacity. The M4 provides a strategic road link, supplemented by rail freight at Transport Avenue and potential river transport via the Thames. Constraints include high air pollution along the A4/M4, flood risk in Brentford and Feltham, and extensive Green Belt. With 11 existing waste management facilities adjudged to be lawful, the borough aims to expand low-carbon waste management, modernise and intensify existing sites where needed, and increase sustainable waste movements through utilising river and rail-based waste transport options. One existing waste site identified within the adopted Hounslow Local Plan for comprehensive, residential-led redevelopment is put forward in this Waste Plan to be considered for release from safeguarding, as its continued safeguarding and use for waste is likely to conflict with wider planning and regeneration objectives of the Local Plan. Old Oak & Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) 3.10 The OPDC area includes London’s largest Strategic Industrial Location, accommodating around 2,000 businesses in sectors such as logistics, food production, and creative industries. It is also one of the UK’s largest regeneration projects, supporting the delivery of tens of thousands of new homes and jobs. Existing waste management facilities are located within Park Royal SIL as well as in areas planned for new mixed-use neighbourhoods. Page 12 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official Transport links are strong, with the A40, A406, multiple rail connections, and the Grand Union Canal offering multimodal opportunities. However, constraints include AQMA coverage, the proximity of Wormwood Scrubs MOL, High Speed 2 (HS2) construction impacts, and flood risk from the canal. With five existing waste facilities adjudged to be lawful, the OPDC’s strategy is to safeguard existing waste infrastructure when it doesn’t conflict with wider development aspirations, embed waste solutions into regeneration, and promote rail and canal-based waste transport. Page 13 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official London Borough of Richmond upon Thames 3.11 Richmond upon Thames has the smallest industrial base in West London, with just four existing waste management facilities adjudged to be lawful, most notably the Townmead Road Council Depot, a Household Waste & Recycling Centre, a composting site in Kew Gardens and a dormant waste oil treatment site at Arlington Works. Regeneration in Mortlake, Twickenham, and Richmond will increase waste generation, but opportunities for developing additional capacity are extremely limited. The borough’s constraints include extensive protected land, such as Richmond Park and Kew Gardens, alongside Green Belt, MOL, and flood-prone riverfront areas. The Borough is rich in built heritage and has a number of protected vistas/views. Transport capacity is constrained, though there may be limited scope for river-based waste movement on the Thames. Richmond’s strategy is to safeguard existing facilities, integrate waste solutions into redevelopment where possible, and develop Circular Economy hubs. Common Themes 3.12 Several themes emerge from the above Plan area analysis. 3.13 First, competition for land and conflicting uses highlight the need to safeguard existing waste management facilities, particularly where they are located on industrial sites. Waste management facilities are often under residential and commercial redevelopment pressure, while other brownfield land is productively used and designations such as Green Belt and MOL apply to greenfield areas and limit opportunities for expansion. This means intensification and modernisation of existing waste sites should be prioritised. 3.14 Second, regeneration projects and circular economy initiatives present opportunities for integration of waste management. Growth areas will generate significant additional amounts of waste, but could also create opportunities for circular economy hubs, facilitating reuse and recycling of materials, and possible co-location of compatible industries. 3.15 Third, environmental challenges such as climate change require resilient infrastructure and low-emission technologies to protect air and soil quality, mitigate flood risk, and deliver biodiversity net gain. 3.16 Finally, transport and logistics remain a central concern. Congestion on key routes, including the A40, A406, A316, M4, and the North Circular hampers efficiency, while opportunities for rail and river freight at locations such as West Drayton, Brentford, the Grand Union Canal, and the River Thames should be fully exploited. Page 14 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official Proposed Planning Strategy 3.17 To address these issues, the planning strategy for waste management in west London focuses on two key areas: a. First, maintaining sufficient suitable management capacity by safeguarding key existing waste sites and allowing for the use of such sites to be intensified to meet emerging requirements where appropriate. b. Second, high standards of environmental protections in line with best practice be applied to all facilities whether new or expanded, including robust emissions controls, enclosed operations, sustainable drainage systems, and climate resilience measures, ensuring that waste management safeguards health, enhances local amenity, and supports wider environmental goals. Finally, encouraging the increased use of low- carbon transport, with greater use of rail and river freight supported by electric and low-emission vehicles for road-based transport. Page 15 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official 4 Waste Management in West London 4.1 The legal definition of waste, set out in section 75(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 19904, is “..any substance or object which the holder discards, or intends or is required to, discard”. The key concept relates to the producer or holder's intention regardless of whether the waste may have a value to the recipient. Scope of the emerging updated WLWP 4.2 The emerging updated WLWP will focus on providing for the principal types of waste produced within West London, which are as follows: Local Authority Collected Waste (mainly household waste) (LACW) 4.3 Local Authority Collected Waste (LACW) consists of waste which comes into the possession of, or under the control of, the local authority including waste collected from households (household waste). LACW collected by or on behalf of the Boroughs can include household waste (residual, dry mixed recycling and food waste), street sweepings, green waste from maintenance of open spaces, and a small quantity of clinical waste5. Depending upon the local arrangements, LACW can include commercial waste collected by trade waste operations. Commercial & Industrial Waste (from businesses & industry) (C&I waste) 4.4 Waste produced by businesses. A significant proportion of commercial waste (c60%) is also classed as 'municipal waste' and is therefore subject to statutory management targets that also affect LACW set out in a subsequent section of this draft Plan. 4.5 These first two categories (of LACW and C&I) are combined into a single category of 'household, industrial and commercial' waste in the London Plan (‘HIC waste’ for short). The London Plan apportions quantities of HIC waste arisings to each Borough within London for provision of management capacity through to 2041. It is this categorisation that is used throughout this Plan to reflect the influence of the London Plan on its approach/trajectory. 4 Transposing the Waste Framework Directive as amended 2008/98/EC. 5 Household clinical waste is not deemed hazardous unless a particular risk has been identified (based on medical diagnosis). Page 16 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste (C, D & E waste) 4.6 Construction, Demolition & Excavation (C, D & E) waste comprises waste arising from construction and demolition activity, including excavation during construction activities, and is made up of mainly inert6 materials such as soils, stone, concrete, brick and tile. However, non-inert elements such as wood, metals, plastics, cardboard, and offcuts of plasterboard may also be present in this waste stream. Due to their weight, the inert elements make up the majority (c.80%) of the total tonnage. 4.7 The London Plan deals with Construction and Demolition waste separately to excavation waste, as excavation waste is not normally suited to recycling, and this distinction is recognised in the waste evidence reports produced to support production of this Plan. The London Plan does not apportion quantities of C, D & E waste for management, but LPAs are still required to plan for this waste stream to meet national planning policy. Hazardous Waste 4.8 Hazardous wastes are categorised as those that are harmful to human health, or the environment, either immediately or over an extended period of time. In West London, hazardous waste arises mainly from: construction and demolition activity, vehicle maintenance and/or dismantling activity and healthcare. Hazardous waste may also be present in C,D & E waste particularly when development takes place on brownfield sites that have been affected by historical contamination 4.9 The London Plan states that hazardous waste arising in the HIC waste stream (to which apportionments relate) includes hazardous waste, and therefore does not distinguish its management needs from the non-hazardous component of HIC waste. However, for the purposes of this Plan, all hazardous waste has been considered and planned for separately. Therefore, to some degree there will be an element of double counting between the London Plan apportionment values and the hazardous waste management capacity needs identified. 6 Inert waste is defined as “waste that does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations”. Page 17 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official Existing Management Arrangements for West London's waste 4.10 This section sets out how the main waste streams relevant to the draft emerging WLWP are currently managed. Management Profiles Local Authority Collected Waste 4.11 In 2023/24 0.65 million tonnes of LACW was generated in West London, of which 0.43 million tonnes is managed through incineration with Energy from Waste (EfW) (at facilities outside of West London), 0.2 million tonnes recycled or composted, and only 101 tonnes managed through disposal to landfill. Commercial & Industrial Waste 4.12 Data for the amount of C&I waste produced is not readily available as businesses are not currently required to report on waste produced. The London Plan 2021 estimates that this waste stream represented 28% of total waste arisings in London in 2015. This compares with household waste at 17% and C,D & E waste at 54%. If that % is applied to the LACW arisings for West London above, it indicates that arisings in the Plan area may be in the region of 1 million tonnes per annum. 4.13 The London Plan provides Borough level forecasts for arisings of HIC waste combined and these are presented in Table 2 below: Table 2: London Plan Forecast Waste Arisings for the West London Boroughs Borough Waste Arising (tonnes per annum) 2021 2041 Brent 259,000 274,000 Ealing 291,000 306,000 Harrow 188,000 205,000 Hillingdon 347,000 365,000 Hounslow 260,000 275,000 Richmond upon Thames 179,000 190,000 Total 1,524,000 1,615,000 Given the known amount of LACW in 2023/24 was 0.65 million tonnes, that confirms the estimate for C&I waste arisings in West London to be c1 million tonnes. However, the management profile of this waste stream is not fully understood because it is not reported on separately. Page 18 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste 4.14 The production of C, D & E waste is influenced by large-scale infrastructure projects, as well as commercial and residential developments, which means that peaks and troughs in its production are often observed with arisings not following a regular pattern. Given it is a bulky and heavy waste type it does not tend to travel significant distances from source for management unless moved by rail or water. Table 3: Non-hazardous C, D & E Waste arisings from West London 2020-2023 Mean (tonnes) Category Type Tonnes C&D waste Inert 538,506 1,134,622 Non-inert 596,116 Excavation waste Inert 2,128,422 2,132,006 Non-inert 3,584 Total Non hazardous C, D & E waste: 3,266,628 4.15 Different types of C, D & E waste require different forms of management. For example, hard inert materials (such as concrete, brick and road planings arising from demolition and road maintenance) can be recycled for use as an aggregate, while soft materials such as soils and sub-soils can be used for beneficial purposes such as the restoration of minerals workings and in other engineering projects. The non-inert component includes timber, plasterboard and plastics which may be recycled if separated. Ultimately there is very little C, D & E waste that cannot be recycled or recovered in some way. 4.16 Excavation waste will mainly be managed through the deposit on land for beneficial purposes. This may in certain cases be consented as non-waste development and, either be subject to an Environmental Permit as a recovery to land operation, or managed as non-waste under the CL:AIRE definition of waste protocol. 4.17 The management profile for Non-hazardous C, D & E waste (including inert waste) arising in West London in 20237 is set out in Table 4 below. 7 At the time of writing 2023 Waste Data Interrogator (WDI) was the most current dataset available. Page 19 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official Table 4: Non-hazardous C, D & E Waste in West London - Waste Management Profile 2023 (% of Total Arisings) Category Waste Type Recycling Recovery Landfill Transfer Mobile Plant C&D Waste Inert 25% <1% 7% 7% 0% Non-inert 25% <1% <1% 35% 0% Subtotal C&D 50% 1% 7% 42% 0% Excavation Waste Inert 14% 65% 0% 21% <1% Non-inert <1% 0% <1% 0% 0% Subtotal Excavation 14% 65% <1% 21% <1% 4.18 To summarise the management profile for non-hazardous C&D waste managed at permitted facilities is as set out below: • At least 51% was managed through recycling or recovery; • With 7% disposed at permitted landfills; and • 42% transferred on for recovery or disposal. 4.19 Waste going for re-use may not be managed through permitted sites, plus a substantial proportion of C&D waste that constitutes hardcore may be converted into recycled aggregate and either used on site or sold offsite8. Hence the recycled/recovery value of 51% should be taken to be a minimum. 4.20 The management profile for non-hazardous excavation waste is as below: • Just less than 80% was managed through recycling or recovery; • With <1% disposed at permitted landfills; and • c.21% transferred on for recovery or disposal. Given that disposal would only be to landfill, and backfilling of mineral workings and other uses would be classed as recovery, it is considered highly unlikely that the inert fraction of this stream would end up being disposed of. 4.21 This compares with the targets for C, D & E waste management in Policy SI7 of the London Plan, Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy: meet or exceed the targets for each of the following waste and material streams: • construction and demolition – 95 per cent reuse/recycling/recovered; 8 Data provided by the National Federation of Demolition Contractors. Page 20 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official • excavation – 95 per cent beneficial use overall and 100% of inert excavation beneficial used.9 Hazardous Waste 4.22 It has been estimated that around 52,500 tonnes of hazardous waste was produced in West London in 2023. The term 'hazardous waste' covers a wide range of waste types which each may require management at specialist facilities, and given they generally arise in relatively small amounts, such facilities are usually developed to manage quantities greater than that which would arise in a single Plan area. 4.23 The principal types of hazardous waste arising in West London making up 90% of the total arisings in 2023 are presented in Table 5 below. The five principal hazardous waste streams arose from construction activity, oil/ water separator cleaning, vehicle maintenance/ELV depollution, infectious clinical waste and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Table 5: Principal Hazardous Waste Component Arisings in West London 2023 Source: HWI 2023 (Environment Agency) Hazardous Waste Type/Source 2023 C, D & E Waste 22,721 Oil/Water Separator Waste 7,159 Infectious Clinical Waste 6,323 WEEE 5,499 Vehicle Maintenance & ELV depollution 4,018 Total 45,72010 Flows to and from West London 4.24 Analysis of the best available data shows that significant quantities of waste are routinely transported between West London and other Waste Planning Authority (WPA) areas11. This cross- boundary movement is typical of the way in which waste is managed in general. Table 6 shows the balance between waste exported from West London and received at West London waste management facilities in 2023. This indicates that overall, a balance is achieved with the exported amount equating to the imported amount. The totals shown in Table 6 do not correspond to the arisings totals given for each waste stream above. This is because an additional tonnage of C,D & E waste has been accounted for, that is not actually attributed to West London in the source dataset12, the Waste Data Interrogator (WDI), and therefore cannot be 9 London Plan Footnote 164 10 Totals less than the 52,500t total above as these are the principal waste components. 11 See ‘Identification of Strategically Significant Cross Boundary Waste Movements from West London’, BPP Consulting, October 2025 12 See Construction, Demolition & Excavation Waste Arising in West London to 2041 BPP Consulting Page 21 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official allocated by management location. Table 6: Adjusted Tonnages of West London waste managed in permitted facilities within West London and outside West London, and tonnage of imported waste to West London facilities Source: WDI 2023 West London arisings Managed in West London West London waste managed outside West London West London waste managed in West London Waste imported to West London Total Managed in West London 2,806,945 869,932 2,796,481 3,666,413 Total West London waste managed 3,676,877 4.25 Figure 213 displays the balance between imports and exports by waste management method and waste type to and from West London in 2023. Figure 2:: Flows of Waste for Management at Permitted Facilities October 2025 13 Note that Figure 2 only includes waste managed at permitted sites in England and does not include any waste exported to Wales, Scotland or further afield as this is not reported in the WDI. Page 22 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official 4.26 Certain flows of waste from West London have been assessed to be of such a strategic nature to the management of waste arising in West London over the Plan period. The WPAs hosting the receiving facilities of this waste will be contacted to confirm that such flows may continue over the Plan period. Existing Waste Management Sites in West London 4.27 There are a range of existing waste management facilities located in West London that manage waste both arising within and outside West London. It is intended that 68 sites would be safeguarded through the Plan for ongoing waste management uses and their location is shown in Figure 3 below. Figure 3: Map of West London Existing Waste Sites Proposed to be Safeguarded Page 23 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official 5 The Policy Context 5.1 The policy context within which the new WLWP sits is illustrated in Figure 4 below. 5.2 To be found sound the updated WLWP will need to be in general conformity with the London Plan and consistent with national policy. The WLWP is also aligned with the policies of the adopted Local Plans in West London. The WLWP may update relevant aspects of the Development Plan and where any conflict between policies exists the policy to have been adopted most recently generally takes precedent in decision making. Once adopted, the policies in the updated WLWP will supersede the policies in the existing WLWP. Appendix 4 sets out how the existing WLWP policies will be replaced by those set out in the updated WLWP. 5.3 Once adopted the updated WLWP will form part of the statutory development plan for the WLLPAs, to guide decision-making on planning applications in relation to waste management and related developments. The WLWP is in accordance with national policy by applying a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that “... for the purpose of making any determination under the planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. Figure 4: The Policy Context for the new WLWP Page 24 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official 5.4 The development plan is to be read as a whole. Most adopted plans within a borough’s Development Plan, such as a Local Plan, are likely to have policies which are also relevant to a waste application. Each borough may also have adopted Supplementary Planning Documents which may be relevant. Furthermore, applications will also be decided according to the policies in the London Plan, which also forms part of the development plan. Therefore, when proposing waste related development, a number of adopted plans and supplementary planning documents will have to be consulted. National Policy 5.5 The key objective of national policy for waste14 is to protect the environment and human health by: • preventing or reducing the generation of waste; • where its production is unavoidable, reducing the adverse impacts of its generation and management; and • reducing the overall impacts of the use of resources from which waste may arise and improving the efficiency of such use. 5.6 The National Planning Policy for Waste 2014 (NPPW)15, associated Planning Practice Guidance16 and the Resources and Waste Strategy for England 2018 (RWS) 17 currently set the national policy context for waste planning in England. Whilst the NPPF does not contain policies specific to waste, its principles remain relevant. The Waste Management Plan for England 18 signposts policies concerning waste management in England. 5.7 The ‘Waste Hierarchy’ is one of the keystone principles of sustainable waste management and is enshrined into English Law. This categorises different methods of managing waste and ranks them in order of preference. This is illustrated in Figure 5 below. This shows that ‘Prevention’ is the most preferred option with ‘Disposal’ at the bottom being the option of last resort. Application of the Waste Hierarchy in priority order i.e. from the top down is a legal requirement19. 14 See The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 and The Waste (Circular Economy) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 15 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364759/141015_Nation al_Planning_Policy_for_Waste.pdf 16 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/waste 17 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/resources-and-waste-strategy-for-england 18 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/waste-management-plan-for-england-2021 19 Part 6 of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 sets out the duties placed on all planning authorities with regard to application of the hierarchy in decision making. Page 25 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official 5.8 The RWS was published in December 2018 and set out Government thinking on waste management in England at that time. This included five strategic ambitions: • To work towards all plastic packaging placed on the market being recyclable, reusable or compostable by 2025; • To work towards eliminating food waste to landfill by 2030; • To eliminate avoidable plastic waste by the end of 2042; • To double resource productivity by 2050; and • To eliminate avoidable waste of all kinds by 2050. 5.9 The RWS introduced the concept of Circular Economy into waste management policy for the first time. The London Plan 2021 defines Circular Economy as "..where materials are retained in use at their highest value for as long as possible and are then re-used or recycled, leaving a minimum of residual waste." (Para 9.7.1). Figure 5: The Waste Hierarchy Graphic from the Mayor's Environment Strategy (Figure 44) Page 26 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official 5.10 The central role waste management plays in the material cycle as part of more circular economy is illustrated in Figure 6 below. Figure 6: Circular Economy Source: Resources and Waste Strategy, DEFRA, 2018 5.11 The Circular Economy is also a tool for tackling the climate emergency. When applied to the built environment, circular economy principles significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by avoiding extraction of raw materials, reducing production of virgin construction materials, retaining embodied carbon and eliminating waste. 5.12 The Government set the following targets in the Environmental Improvement Plan 202320 (EIP), which build on existing recycling and landfill diversion targets: • eliminate avoidable waste by 2050 and double resource productivity by 2050; • explore options for the near elimination of biodegradable municipal waste to landfill from 2028; • eliminate avoidable plastic waste by 2042; • seek to eliminate waste crime by 2042; and, • halve ‘residual’ waste (excluding major mineral waste) produced per person by 2042. 20https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1 168372/environmental-improvement-plan-2023.pdf Page 27 of 108 Project: West London Waste Plan Document: Draft Regulation 18 Version: LPA Member sign-off 07.10.25 Official Official 5.13 The target for the reduction in residual waste is enshrined in The Environmental Targets (Residual Waste) (England) Regulations 202321 which came into force on 30 January 2023. The waste target is for the reduction of residual waste (excluding major mineral wastes) on a kg per capita 22 basis by 50% by 2042 from 2019 levels (574 kg per capita). Accordingly, the residual waste long-term target is that by the end of 31 December 2042 the total mass of residual waste for the calendar year 2042 does not exceed 287 kg per capita. Waste routes which will count as residual are: • sent to landfill in the United Kingdom; • put through incineration in the United Kingdom; • used in energy recovery in the United Kingdom; or • sent outside the United Kingdom for energy recovery. 5.14 The EIP also set the following interim targets for the residual waste target to be achieved by 31 January 2028: • Reduce residual waste (excluding major mineral waste) produced per person by 24%. • Reduce residual waste (excluding major mineral waste) in total tonnes by 21%. • Reduce municipal residual waste produced per person by 29%. In addition, the following material specific targets were set: • Reduce residual municipal food waste produced per person by 50%. • Reduce residual municipal plastic waste produced per person by 45%. • Reduce residual municipal paper and card waste produced per person by 26%. • Reduce residual municipal metal waste produced per person by 42%. • Reduce residual municipal glass waste produced per person by 48%. 21 The Environmental Targets (Residual Waste) (England) Regulations 2023 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/en/uksi/2023/92/made 22 Per head of population in England

Residents’ Services Select Committee – 18 February 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 – 18 February 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 – 18 February 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) 113 Rough Sleeper Prevention and Recovery Services Cabinet will consider the renewal or extension of contracts in relation to rough sleeping and prevention and recovery services up to March 2027, supported by external funding. N/A NEW ITEM 19 March Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing Growth Residents' Services Kellie Murphy Dan Kennedy Private (3) 116 Local Plan Scoping Consultation Cabinet will consider approving the Local Plan Scoping Consultation for public consultation. The consultation is a statutory requirement in the new plan-making system. This is a 'call for views' consultation. No planning policies or proposals will be consulted upon. The consultation asks stakeholders what the plan should contain and sets out how the Council will engage with stakeholders for the Local Plan. All NEW ITEM 19 March Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing Growth Residents' Services Gavin Polkinghorn Dan Kennedy Private (3) 124 Extension of the existing Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) for Temporary Accommodation placements. This report seeks Cabinet consideration to extend the existing Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) for Temporary Accommodation placements for a further two years, in accordance with the original procurement terms approved by Cabinet in October 2021. In addition, the report will seek continuation of the existing delegated authority to officers to approve Temporary Accommodation placements, under the DPS to enable the Council to meet its statutory homelessness duties. N/A NEW ITEM 19 March Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing Growth Residents' Services Lorrita Johnson / Adam Stephenson Dan Kennedy Private (3) 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 March Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing Growth / Cllr Jonathan Bianco - Corporate Services & Property Residents' Services Sam Strong Dan Kennedy Public Decision-Maker Cabinet Member Lead & Officers MARCH 2026 1 Status Ref Business Item Further information Ward(s) NEW ITEM CABINET meeting Cabinet Member Shareholder Committee Full COUNCIL Cabinet Member(s) Responsible Relevant Select Committee Report Author Corporate Director Responsible Public or Private (with reason) Decision-Maker Cabinet Member Lead & Officers 112 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 March 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 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 MAY 2026 BOROUGH LOCAL ELECTIONS - 7 MAY 2026 APRIL 2026 2 Status Ref Business Item Further information Ward(s) NEW ITEM CABINET meeting Cabinet Member Shareholder Committee Full COUNCIL Cabinet Member(s) Responsible Relevant Select Committee Report Author Corporate Director Responsible Public or Private (with reason) Decision-Maker Cabinet Member Lead & Officers SI Corporate Disposals Programme 2026/27 As part of the Corporate Disposal programme, Cabinet will consider recommendations on property and land disposals for the financial year 2026-2027 and make the necessary decisions on sites to be declared surplus and provide delegated authority to enable the implementation of any decisions made. Various 28 May TBC TBC Andrew Low / Richard Mortimer Dan Kennedy Private (3) SI Minor Property Transactions This monthly standing report to Cabinet covers operational property matters requiring approval. These may include: granting discounted leases to voluntary organisations; approving easements, wayleaves, or utility leases supporting capital projects; authorising academy school property issues; and agreeing leases for temporary housing or other service-related property needs. All 28 May TBC TBC Andrew Low Dan Kennedy Private (3) SI Reports from Select Committees Reports, findings and recommendations for consideration by the Cabinet, when referred from the appropriate Committee. Various 28 May TBC TBC Democratic Services 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 28 May TBC TBC Democratic Services Public SI Review of Council Constitution The Council may reviews it's Constitution on a regular basis and may make changes at any Council meeting. The Annual Council meeting in May also provides an opportuntity for such reviews at the start of the new Municipal Year, if any changes are required. N/A 14 May (AGM) N/A N/A Lloyd White Public SI Annual Report of the Select Committees This annual report sets out the important work undertaken by the Council's Select Committees during the previous Municipal Year. The Select Committee are responsible for monitoring and scrutinising council services and the Cabinet, holding to account external bodies and making recommendations on policy to the decision-making Cabinet. N/A 14 May (AGM) N/A All Mark Braddock Public JUNE 2026 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 82b West London Waste Plan (policy framework) Following consultation, Cabinet will consider regulation 19 consultation to commence on the Joint Waste Plan. This Plan forms part of the Council's development plan documents, therefore it is policy framework. N/A NEW ITEM 25 June 26 November TBC TBC Gavin Polkinghorn Dan Kennedy Public 45a Housing Strategy (Policy Framework) The Housing Strategy is a key policy framework document and provides the borough's strategic direction and priorities for housing services. Cabinet will approve commencement of formal consultation process. This is policy framework document under the Council's Constitution so it will be subject to statutory public consultation including by the relevant select committee, before further Cabinet, and ultimately full Council, consideration. All 25 June 26 November TBC TBC Debbie Weller Dan Kennedy Public 84a Local Plan - Draft for consultation (policy framework) To seek Cabinet agreement to undertake a public consultation on the Local Plan at Draft Plan stage in line with Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations. This is policy framework document under the Council's Constitution so it will be subject to statutory public consultation including by the relevant select committee, before further Cabinet, and ultimately full Council, consideration. All 25 June Date TBC TBC TBC Gavin Polkinghorn Dan Kennedy Public 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. All 25 June TBC TBC Ian Kavanagh Matthew Wallbridge Public SI Budget Outturn 2025/26 Cabinet will review the Council's budget outturn position for the previous financial year. All 25 June TBC TBC Andy Goodwin Steve Muldoon Public 4 Status Ref Business Item Further information Ward(s) NEW ITEM CABINET meeting Cabinet Member Shareholder Committee Full COUNCIL Cabinet Member(s) Responsible Relevant Select Committee Report Author Corporate Director Responsible Public or Private (with reason) Decision-Maker Cabinet Member Lead & Officers SI Corporate Disposals Programme 2026/27 As part of the Corporate Disposal programme, Cabinet will consider recommendations on property and land disposals for the financial year and make the necessary decisions on sites to be declared surplus and provide delegated authority to enable the implementation of any decisions made. Various 25 June TBC TBC Andrew Low / Richard Mortimer Dan Kennedy Private (3) SI Minor Property Transactions A regular report to Cabinet on minor property matters that may arise during the course of the year that require a Cabinet decision. These will relate to discounted leases to voluntary sector organisations and/or any easements, wayleaves and leases relating to utilities in order to support the Council's capital programmes and other such similar matters. All 25 June TBC TBC Andrew Low Dan Kennedy Private (3) 66 Reports from Select Committees A report from the Select Committee into Homelessness and the customer journey All 25 June TBC TBC Democratic Services N/A Public SI Public Preview of matters to be considered in private A report to Cabinet to provide maximum transparency to residents on the private matters to be considered later in Part 2 of the Cabinet meeting and agenda. TBC 25 June TBC TBC Democratic Services TBC Public 104 Landlord Service Annual Complaint & Service Improvement Report 2025/26 Cabinet will review the Landlord Service Annual Complaints and Service Improvement report before submission to the Housing Ombudsman. N/A NEW ITEM 23 July TBC TBC Sam Strong / 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 23 July TBC TBC Richard Webb Dan Kennedy Public JULY 2026 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 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 July TBC TBC Debbie Weller Dan Kennedy Public SI Corporate Disposals Programme 2026/27 As part of the Corporate Disposal programme, Cabinet will consider recommendations on property and land disposals for the financial year and make the necessary decisions on sites to be declared surplus and provide delegated authority to enable the implementation of any decisions made. Various 23 July TBC TBC Andrew Low / Richard Mortimer Dan Kennedy Private (3) SI Minor Property Transactions This monthly standing report to Cabinet covers operational property matters requiring approval. These may include: granting discounted leases to voluntary organisations; approving easements, wayleaves, or utility leases supporting capital projects; authorising academy school property issues; and agreeing leases for temporary housing or other service-related property needs. All 23 July TBC TBC Andrew Low Dan Kennedy Private (3) SI Monthly Council Budget - monitoring report The Cabinet receives a monthly report setting out in detail the Council’s revenue and capital position. All 23 July TBC TBC Andy Goodwin Steve Muldoon Public SI Reports from Select Committees Reports, findings and recommendations for consideration by the Cabinet, when referred from the appropriate Committee. All 23 July TBC TBC Democratic Services N/A Public SI Public Preview of matters to be considered in private A report to Cabinet to provide maximum transparency to residents on the private matters to be considered later in Part 2 of the Cabinet meeting and agenda. TBC 23 July TBC TBC Democratic Services TBC Public 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 – 18 February 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 – 18 February 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 NOTES May June July September November January February March April May June July Sept No meeting 12 15 9 6 8 18 10 22 No meeting 10 7 9 Review: CCTV Service in Hillingdon (tbc - review request from Council) Topic selection / scoping stage Topic SelectionScoping Stage Witness / evidence / consultation stage Findings, conclusions and recommendations Final review report agreement Target Cabinet Reporting Cabinet IN PROGRESS: Topic selection / scoping stage Topic SelectionScoping Stage Witness / evidence / consultation stage Witness session 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 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) X Strategic Climate Action Plan (Ian Thynne) X Section 19 Flood Investigation (Ian Thynne) X Cabinet Budget Proposals 2026/27 (Comments for Cabinet) X X X X X Cabinet Forward Plan Monthly Monitoring X X X X 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 One-off information items Community Payback Scheme - structure of the Scheme (Jo Howells / Richard Webb) Environmental Protection Service -the Council's duty to investigate noise & nuisance (SW) X Review of Statement of Gambling Policy - policy framework consultation Sport for Young People - how the Council encourages participation in deprived areas - Priscilla, Mekaya Gittens and Kim Truelove X APCOA Parking Enforcement (Richard Webb / Freddie Mohammed) X X The condition of allotments in the Borough Statement of Licensing Policy (Policy Framework) (Cabinet paper) - Dan Ferrer X West London Waste Plan (Cabinet paper) - Gavin Polkinghorn X Community Safety Strategy (Cabinet paper) - Richard Webb X 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 PSPOs & Enforcement inc Illegal Street Trading - Jo Howells, Dan Ferrer and Dave Holmes 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 (LFB and Police) X X X Past review delivery Update on Alley Gating Review Update on Homeless Prevention and the Customer Journey Review X Update on Review of Empty Homes Council Tax Premium Internal use only Report deadline 09-Feb-26 27-Feb-26 10-Apr-26 29-May-26 26-Jun-26 28-Aug-26 Agenda publication date 10-Feb-26 02-Mar-26 14-Apr-26 02-Jun-26 29-Jun-26 01-Sep-26 Committee Site Visits Graffiti Removal Waste Services (with the a.m. crew) - Wednesday 4 March (tbc) HS2 Site Visit Dogs Trust Residents' Services Select Committee