Read the text of: Printed minutes PDF 408 KB (18 pages)
Minutes
RESIDENTS' SERVICES SELECT COMMITTEE
10 March 2026
Meeting held at
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
Witnesses Present:
Diane Faichney – Bell Farm Christian Centre
Melanie Aston – Hillingdon Women’s Centre
Kayci Powell – Hillingdon Women’s Centre
Daniel Johnson (Borough Commander of Hillingdon – London Fire Brigade)
Chief Inspector Ben Wright (Metropolitan Police Service)
Officers Present:
Matt Davis (Director – Strategic & Operational Finance)
Daniel Ferrer (Licensing Team Manager)
Fiona Gibbs (Stronger Communities Manager)
Dave Holmes (ASB Team Leader – Response)
Dan Kennedy (Corporate Director of Residents Services)
Ceri Lamoureux (Head of Finance - Residents Services)
Liz Penny (Democratic Services Officer)
Richard Webb (Director Community Safety & Enforcement)
Others Present:
Councillor Wayne Bridges – Cabinet Member for Community & Environment
147. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1)
There were no apologies for absence.
148. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING
(Agenda Item 2)
None.
149. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3)
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting dated 18 February 2026 be
agreed.
150. 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 as Part I and would be
considered in public.
151. COMMUNITY COHESION (Agenda Item 5)
Fiona Gibbs, Stronger Communities Manager, was in attendance, together with
representatives of Bell Farm Christian Centre (Diane Faichney) and of Hillingdon
Women’s Centre (Kayci Powell and Melanie Aston).
Diane Faichney of Bell Farm Christian Centre was inv ited to address Members of the
Select Committee. It w as explained that the Centre was a charitable organisation
based on the Bell Farm Estate in West Drayton, established in 2000, which had
delivered a wide range of community projects over many years in re sponse to local
needs. Members were informed that the charity operated a long -standing advice
centre, which had been running for approximately 25 years and was partly funded
through the Hillingdon Advice Partnership (HAP). This service was delivered in
partnership with Nucleus, DASH and Age UK and operated t wice weekly alongside the
food bank. The organisation was also a founding partner of the UB7 Foodbank,
established in 2017, and worked holistically to enable referrals between services.
Members heard th at additional activities included an older people’s dining and social
centre providing weekly freshly cooked meals, social activities, and trips, as well as
children’s events, summer holiday clubs and year -round family activities. Over the
previous three years, the charity had also undertaken work supporting asylum seekers
accommodated in local hotels.
It was reported that, over the preceding six months, the organisation had experienced
harassment directed at staff and volunteers due to its work with asylu m seekers. This
included significant criminal damage to the premises, with windows and doors
repeatedly smashed, resulting in substantial financial costs. These incidents were
attributed to a small minority of individuals and had caused division and intimi dation
within the estate. As a result, the delivery o f asylum seeker support services had been
adapted and relocated away from Bell Farm, although the work itself had continued. An
application for Home Office funding to improve building security had been s ubmitted in
December, but a decision was still awaited, and it was noted that existing security
infrastructure was outdated and difficult to upgrade due to limited charitable resources.
Despite these challenges, it was highlighted that the organisation ha d recently secured
funding to become a “Loved and Wanted” Centre, supported by the Mayor of London in
partnership with the National Lottery. This programme focused on community building
and the creation of safe community spaces across London and would cont ribute to
enhancing existing activities at Bell Farm until March 2028. The initiative aimed to
embed social mixing and cohesion programmes and was expected to reach
approximately 3,000 people per year. Delivery partners, including REAP and HACS,
would provide additional activities such as wellbeing courses as part of the project.
It was emphasised that this funding had been secured at a critical time of heightened
community tension in West Drayton and increasing financial pressures on the voluntary
sector, alongside rising demand for services that exceeded current capacity. It was
expressed that the Loved and Wanted Centre would help to restore hope, strengthen
community cohesion and foster togetherness over the coming years. The organisation
confirmed its intention to continue working collaboratively with co uncil officers and
partners and to build on its long -standing role in reducing hardship, strengthening
belonging and supporting vulnerable and newly arrived residents. Overall, the charity
aimed to promote inclusion, resilience and cohesion by addressing social, cultural and
economic barriers and restoring hope in the south of the Borough in a compassionate
and meaningful way.
Kayci Powell and Melanie Aston of Hillingdon Women’s Centre were also in attendance
and addressed the Select Committee confirming t hat the charity was approaching its
40th anniversary in April 2026. It was outlined that the primary focus of Hillingdon
Women’s Centre was to support women across the Borough, with the most prevalent
needs relating to domestic abuse, poverty, destitution, isolation, loneliness and a lack
of access to support and resources. It was reported that approximately 85% of women
supported by the service had experienced domestic abuse, with this proportion having
increased year on year. Although the organisation was not solely commissioned to
deliver domestic abuse services, this area represented the most significant demand.
Members heard that the Centre’s domestic abuse services were described as being
delivered by a small team of specialist caseworkers who provided safety and crisis
support, assisted women to access safer accommodation, worked with partner
professionals, and undertook risk assessments and safety planning. Support was
provided on both a short -term and long -term basis, depending on individual
circumstances, and it was noted that domestic abuse cases were often complex and
multifaceted. In addition, a domestic abuse recovery programme was offered to women
who were no longer in abusive relationships a nd were living safely. This programme
comprised a six -week group intervention aimed at supporting recovery, reducing the
risk of re-victimisation, promoting goal setting, and reinforcing that survivors were not to
blame.
It was further explained that the Centre also delivered general advice services,
providing support in relation to benefits, basic housing issues and access to legal
advice through referrals to solicitors, operating as a one -stop support service. The
Centre was based in the same building it had occupied for 40 years and operated as a
women-only safe space. It was confirmed that a range of group activities and events
were delivered to promote inclusion and connection, including weekly wellbeing groups
such as “Positive Energy”, which focused on wellbeing activities and skills
development.
Reference was also made to the Women’s Hub, previously funded by the Greater
London Authority, through which support had been provided to grassroots women’s
groups offering community connection, such as the Austin Sewing Club and the Afghan
Women’s Support Group. This support included assistance with basic funding needs,
such as venue hire, and guidance to group leaders to help sustain their activities and
fundraising efforts.
It was highlighted that demand for domestic abuse support within the Borough
continued to increase and that cases were frequently complex. The Centre worked
closely with the Council’s Hillingdon Domestic Abuse Service (HDAS), which was
identified as its largest referral partner. Strong partnership working with the Council
was maintained through operational groups and contractual arrangements with the
local authority.
Councillors sought clarification as to how effectively the Council was supporting these
organisations, given the complexi ty and multi -agency nature of their services, and
where the Council could improve its contribution.
In response, Diane Faichney of Bell Farm Christian Centre explained that experiences
varied across individual projects but identified ongoing difficulties in contacting Council
officers by telephone, particularly in relation to housing and benefits matters. She
stated that significant time was often spent attempting to reach officers, sometimes for
several hours, which diverted resources away from supporting clients who were waiting
to be seen. It was noted th at this issue had existed for several years and was
exacerbated by staff turnover, redundancies and retirements, which made it harder to
maintain established relationships with officers. Ms Faichney suggested that the
provision of more direct contact numbers for advice services, including those working
under the Hillingdon Advice Partnership (HAP), would enable issues to be resolved
more efficiently. It was acknowledged that the Council could not resolve all cases,
particularly given the scale of homelessness pressures locally and nationally, but it was
emphasised that advice services could assist by signposting clients to appropriate
contacts if communication with officers was improved.
Melanie Aston of Hillingdon Women’s Centre stated that her organisation shared
similar concerns. She explained that one approach which had worked well at the
Women’s Centre was the attendance of a Council housing officer at a weekly housing
drop-in specifically for domesti c abuse survivors. This arrangement had made it easie r
to navigate housing challenges and prioritise cases. It was highlighted that navigating
the housing system could be particularly difficult for survivors of domestic abuse, noting
that issues such as perceptions of intentional homelessness and other survivor-specific
barriers could place women at increased risk and potentially force them to return to
perpetrators.
Members asked Hillingdon Women’s Centre whether it provided domestic violence
funding to a ssist women who had left abusive situations, specific ally asking whether
the organisation could help with rebuilding a home or providing essential items such as
furniture. In response, it was confirmed that the Centre did not have direct funding for
this p urpose. It was explained that the organisation was exploring the possibility of
securing hardship funding in the future but that such funding was difficult to obtain. In
the meantime, caseworkers supported women to search for individual grants and,
where possible, accessed limited support such as free SIM ca rds. Members heard that
small allocations from the Centre’s wider funds were sometimes used to assist with
essential costs such as travel or top -ups, but it was confirmed that the organisation did
not currently have the funding capacity to provide furniture or similar support, although
this was an area it was working towards.
The Committee directed a question to the Stronger Communities Manager regarding
references to a noticeable increase in community tensions and visible street -based
issues, asking what data or baseline metrics underpinned this assessment.
It was explained that this observation related primarily to recent protests, particularly
those associated with the placement of asylum seekers in hotels. Members were
advised that the assessment was informed by a combination of anecdotal feedback
from communities, discussions with colleagues, the police and schools, and reports of
increased fear and concern among residents regarding their experience s in public
spaces. The Stronger Communities Manager added that this was supported by
reporting data relating to hate crime statistics, as well as direct observations of protest
activity. She further noted that, at a national level, there had been an incre ase in
inflammatory rhetoric in online spaces. From a Prevent perspective, it was explained
that this was reflected in the nature of referrals received, as well as lower -level
concerns and conversations that did not meet referral thresholds but nonetheless
indicated worrying changes in attitudes and behaviou rs. The Stronger Communities
Manager concluded that these combined factors contributed to ongoing concern and
were likely to persist for the foreseeable future.
Diane Faichney requested that if any members became aware of funding opportunities
for work with children, particularly for holiday clubs and children’s events, this
information be shared with her organisation. She explained that previous Council grant
funding for this work had ceased, that no ch arges were made for children’s activities
due to high levels of deprivation in the area, and that there was a pressing need for
funding to continue delivering services for children, including those from specialised
groups.
The Chair confirmed that this re quest would be passed on and suggested that ward
councillors or other members might be able to share ideas or funding opportunities
identified within their wards or communities. The Chair thanked the speakers for
attending the meeting and for their invaluable input.
RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee:
1. Noted the activity undertaken to build stronger communities and promote
community cohesion particularly in light of the challenges emerging from
national and global events, a national r ise in hate crime and threats from
extremist influence and the impacts on local communities; and
2. Noted the activity that had been undertaken during the past year in relation
to delivering against the Prevent duty.
152. SAFER HILLINGDON PARTNERSHIP (Agenda Item 6)
Chief Inspector Ben Wright of the Metropolitan Police Service, Daniel Johnson
(Borough Commander for Hillingdon - London Fire Brigade) and Richard Webb,
Director of Community Safety and Enforcement were in attendance to respond t o
Members’ questions regarding the Safer Hillingdon Partnership update report.
Councillor Wayne Bridges, Cabinet Member for Community & Environment, was also in
attendance.
Councillors sought clarification on when the Safer Hillingdon Partnership Strateg y,
approved by Full Council, would begin to be implem ented. Officers explained that the
Strategy had now been formally adopted and published, and that work had already
begun through the Safer Hillingdon Partnership on developing a delivery plan agreed
by a ll partners. This delivery plan set out priority themes, associated activities, and
performance measures to track progress. It was also reported that partners had
reviewed a more comprehensive data dashboard, drawing together information from
council servi ces and partner organisations to provide a clearer pi cture of crime and
disorder across the Borough and to assess the effectiveness of interventions. It was
confirmed that, once outstanding details had been finalised, the delivery plan would be
published a nd presented at a future meeting to allow Members to monitor progress
against the agreed priorities.
Members asked about the London Fire Brigade’s preparedness for incidents relating to
Heathrow Airport. It was confirmed that the Fire Brigade routinely tr ained and prepared
for a wide range of scenarios, inc luding those associated with Heathrow. It was stated
that six - and eight -minute response times for first and second fire engines were
maintained across London in more than 95 per cent of cases. Local fir e stations also
undertook regular training programmes to ensure readiness for the broad range of
incidents that could arise in and around the airport.
The Committee enquired how intelligence was shared between agencies where crime
risks and fire hazards overlapped, such as in cases involving cannabis factor ies. It was
explained by the Police that joint working arrangements with the London Fire Brigade
were well established, particularly through shared command, control, and
communications structures used fo r major and critical incidents. While electricity
providers were often the primary agency involved in cannabis factory cases, close
liaison existed and the Fire Brigade would be involved where fire risk was present. The
London Fire Brigade Borough Commande r confirmed regular engagement with senior
police officers, participation in borough security review meetings, and close alignment
of borough risk management plans with identified threats. In addition, it was confirmed
that the Brigade’s fire safety regula tion team was working alongside police partners
locally to identify and mitigate risks wherever possible.
Members sought further clarification regarding police visibility, noting that residents
frequently reported rarely seeing uniformed police patrols, a concern often raised at
Safer Neighbourhood Team (SN T) meetings. They asked how often local police
officers were abstracted from the Borough to support protests and events in central
London. Clarification was sought on the scale of this abstraction, inclu ding any
available figures or percentages indicating how much officer time was spent outside the
Borough.
In response, the Chief Inspector explained that the level of abstraction fluctuated
depending on national and international events, including geopoli tical issues and
protests linked to matters such as i nternational conflict, asylum, and broader political
activity, much of which manifested in central London. It was confirmed that, over the
past three years, significant work had been undertaken to reduce the abstraction of
dedicated ward officers from their local areas. Whereas abstraction had previously
reached peaks of around 35%, it had since been reduced substantially. On average,
abstraction was now estimated at approximately 10 –15%, and this figure included time
spent on training and other duties, not solely deployments to central London.
The Chief Inspector further explained that the police service remained focused on
crime-fighting outcomes rather than visibility alone, with productivity having in creased
significantly. Improvements were reported across key measures including arrests,
charges, cautions, and convictions, reflecting increased operational effectiveness. It
was acknowledged, however, that visibility continued to be challenging due to
sustained resource pressures. Reductions in police numb ers had occurred, with
approximately 3,000 officers cut in the current year following prolonged reductions over
the past 15 years, and further reductions were anticipated. Despite these challenges, it
was noted that officers were working intensively to address residents’ concerns, while
recognising that public expectations around visibility remained understandably high.
Members raised further enquiries regarding the uptake of the Met Engage platform,
noting that it had replaced the previous system and that Hillingdon had historically seen
high engagement levels. Clarification was sought on current take -up rates and whether
the new platform had achieved comparable levels of participation.
The Chief Inspec tor confirmed that Met Engage was a key communication tool,
enabling two-way engagement between the police and residents. It was used to share
crime prevention advice, provide information, and receive intelligence from the
community. It was reported that s ubstantial work had been undertaken over the
preceding 12 months, including collaboration with Neighbourhood Watch, to increase
registrations. While the previous platform had achieved approximately 20%
engagement, Met Engage had not yet reached that level; however, current trajectories
suggested this would be achieved by the two -year mark. It was noted that this would
represent a refreshed and more active membership base. The volume and quality of
interaction on the platform were reported to be strong, with some wards identified for
further targeted engagement. Met Engage performance formed part of regular monthly
performance monitoring, and it was reported that Hillingdon was ranked at or near the
top across London in terms of sign-ups and overall registrations.
The Committee formally placed on record its thanks to Dave Ludlow, Kevin Mappam,
and all those involved in Neighbourhood Watch. It was noted that Neighbourhood
Watch volunteers attended the Hillingdon Safer Neighbourhood Board, worked closely
with the Police, and gave their time voluntarily to support community safety.
Councillors questioned the Police regarding the operating hours of Safer
Neighbourhood Team (SNT) officers. While expressing strong praise for the local ward
team and its officers, co ncern was raised that SNT shifts ended at 11.00pm, despite
the ward containing late -night activity and licensed premises operating until 2.00am.
Councillors reported receiving complaints from residents about antisocial behaviour,
noise, and late -night drin king, and asked whether SNT shifts could be made more
flexible to provide a visible policing presence later into the night where issues
persisted.
In response, it was explained that designated ward officers were not the only policing
resource available an d that emergency response teams operated on a 24 -hour basis,
365 days a year. It was confirmed that incidents at late -night venues could be dealt
with by these teams as required. The Chief Inspector stated that licensed premises
were not a significant driv er of crime within the Borough and highlighted the
effectiveness of joint working between the Council’s licensing team and the Police in
preventing and managing issues associated with licensed premises. It was explained
that police resourcing was deployed based on risk, and that other issues, such as
acquisitive crime at locations including Lombardy Retail Park, currently posed a greater
risk and required daytime ward officer presence to achieve the greatest impact.
However, it was confirmed that if specifi c intelligence identified an emerging or serious
issue at a licensed premise, shifts could be adjusted accordingly. It was emphasised
that resourcing decisions took a borough -wide view of risk rather than relying solely on
ward-based teams.
The Committee directed a question to the London Fire Brigade representative
regarding the Fire Cadets and Junior Citizens programmes, noting that around 3,000
Year 6 pupils participated annually. Members asked for further information on the
programmes, their impact on b uilding resilience and fire safety awareness among
young people, and how education was carried into the home to help prevent fires.
In response, it was explained that no direct statistical evidence was available on the
long-term impact of the Junior Citi zens and Fire Cadets programmes, noting that their
benefits were largely anecdotal. It was noted that educating young people was believed
to have lasting value, as lessons learned could carry into adulthood and be shared
within families, particularly suppo rting those who may not have been familiar with UK
fire prevention practices. The primary aim of the Year 6 programme was to help
children identify fire hazards and understand potential risks, enabling them to recognise
similar hazards in their own homes. This included awareness of risks associated with
electrical appliances, candles, cooking practices, and the safe use of lithium -ion
batteries. The sessions were described as highly visual and interactive to ensure
engagement and formed part of a wider prog ramme of activities delivered through the
Junior Citizens Scheme.
In response to further questions from the Committee, the Chief Inspector explained that
the Police Service had faced a £460 million budget deficit in the previous year, part of
which had been addressed through funding provided by the Mayor, leaving a remaining
shortfall of around £200 million that resulted in a series of cuts. It was confirmed that
the underlying structural deficit remained unresolved, and that funding arrangements
for the f ollowing year were still unclear. It was stated that the lack of certainty around
future funding made long -term strategic planning difficult and clarity was needed to
allow the organisation to plan effectively.
Members expressed concern that the public na rrative around police funding appeared
inconsistent, noting reports of an increase in the Mayor of London’s council tax precept
for policing and announcements of additional officers and PCSOs, which contrasted
with perceptions of reduced capacity at a loca l level. It was queried whether policing
resources were increasing or decreasing, as the situation on the ground appeared to
differ from the broader strategic picture.
In response, the Chief Inspector acknowledged that the public narrative was often
confusing. It was explained that, within Hillingdon, some increases had occurred over
the previous four years, including additional sergeants, strengthened neighbourhood
teams, and increases in certain PCSO numbers, with two dedicated ward officers
continuing to be retained per ward. However, it was noted that a former support team
of ten staff providing key administrative functions had been removed, resulting in
additional pressures being placed on ward officers. Members heard that e mergency
response teams and headquarters functions across the Basic Command Unit had also
been reduced as part of wider organisational cuts, including the removal of
approximately 3,000 police officer posts across the Metropolitan Police during the year.
While reference was made to p ossible future funding to address these reductions, i t
was confirmed that no such information had yet been communicated through internal
channels.
The Committee sought further clarification as to whether recent increases and
decreases in certain crime typ es were specific to Hillingdon or reflected wider London
trends. It was explained that increases in reported offences relating to violence against
women and girls were partly attributable to improved reporting and increased
confidence among victims, includ ing the reporting of historical offences. It was
highlighted that additional resourcing had been directed towards public protection,
leading to improved detection rates and positive outcomes, with particularly strong
performance noted locally in comparison to other boroughs.
It was further explained that theft of motor vehicles reflected a national trend, with both
national and local initiatives underway to address the issue, and that recent local
figures had begun to decline. Burglary was reported to have peaked around December
but had since reduced signifi cantly following arrests and charges related to recent
offending. Increases in violence with injury were attributed in part to stricter crime
recording standards and were largely associated with domestic abuse rather than
public-space violence, which was described as rare and closely monitored.
In relation to domestic violence, Councillors enquired whether there were mechanisms
for receiving referrals from schools, neighbours, or other agencies on a pre ventative or
pre-offence basis, similar to referral p athways used for terrorism -related concerns. In
response, the Chief Inspector confirmed that reports were regularly received from
neighbours, third parties, and partner agencies. It was explained that so cietal
awareness and intolerance of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls
had increased, although further progress was still required. It was confirmed that strong
intelligence mechanisms were in place, including for more technical offences, and that
members of the public and partner agencies w ere encouraged to report any suspicious
concerns, whether relating to domestic violence or other matters.
Members requested further detail on stop and search, noting that while the published
statement was positive, residents and young people often sought clearer explanations
of how the process operated. The Chief Inspector responded that stop and search was
an important policing tool, while acknowledging that it could be harmful if used
improperly. It wa s reported that over the previous three years the num ber of stop and
searches had increased gradually, while positive outcomes had risen significantly.
Approximately 40% of searches were resulting in a positive outcome, meaning
prohibited items had been found. It was further explained that around 90% of stop and
searches were video recorded and independently audited through dip sampling by an
external panel, with findings reported to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.
Members of the public were able to complain at any time, with footage available for
review. The Chief Inspector stated that stop and search was being used appropriately
across the Basic Command Unit and expressed a desire to see its use continue to
increase while maintaining high detection rates, as it was effective in preventing violent
crime, drug-related crime, and theft.
In relation to stop and search, Councillors asked whether any groups were
disproportionately represented and, if so, whether engagement work had been
undertaken wit h those communities. It was confirmed that disproport ionality existed
when measured against population size, with Black residents more likely to be stopped
per head of population, although White residents accounted for the highest overall
number of stops. It was stated that those being stopped were doing so on legitimate
grounds, as evidenced by detection outcomes, and that complaints were very rare. The
Chief Inspector emphasised that stop and search was conducted based on behaviour
and intelligence rather than identity, and that officers were trained to exp lain grounds
clearly. It was also explained that the use of broader powers, such as Section 60, was
accompanied by extensive communication with communities through media,
Independent Advisory Groups, and Safer Neighbourhood Boards, with figures
scrutinised regularly. Reference was made to consultation on the stop and search
charter, during which Hillingdon residents had expressed strong support for increased
use of stop and search.
The Chief Inspector cl arified that preventing crime was the primary objecti ve of stop
and search and confirmed that extensive engagement work was taking place. This
included regular meetings with faith leaders, close partnership working with the
Council, schools, and third -sector organisations, and participation in initiatives such as
Junior Citizens, where pupils received education on stop and search, individual rights,
and legal responsibilities. Additional engagement was noted with asylum
accommodation providers and through H ome Office -led programmes to ensure new
arrivals understood legal expectations. It was stated that these combined efforts were
intended to reduce offending and improve understanding across communities.
In response to further questions from the Committee r egarding fires caused by electric
bikes, electric scooters, and lithium -ion batteries, and whether these incidents were
becoming a significant issue , the London Fire Brigade representative confirmed that
such fires were an increasing trend and stated that this issue had become a major
focus of the Charge Saf e campaign. It was explained that the growth in lithium -ion
battery use, particularly through online -purchased kits for bikes and scooters, had
contributed to the rise in incidents. Although precise stat istics were not provided, it was
confirmed that every lithium-ion battery fire was reviewed by the fire investigation team.
The rapid and hazardous nature of these fires was highlighted, with emphasis placed
on education and risk reduction through public awareness.
The Committee asked the Fire Brigade wheth er a non -emergency reporting option
existed for situations such as bonfires producing heavy smoke, noting that the only
available option appeared to be calling 999, which could result in a full emergency
response. The Borough Commander for Hillingdon acknowledged the concern and
explained that responses depended on the assessed level of risk, as fires could
escalate rapidly. It was stated that crews aimed to educate residents where possible
rather than si mply extinguishing fires. Issues relating to clean ai r legislation were
identified as falling under local authority enforcement. While community engagement
requests could be made through general enquiries, it was explained that there was no
current evidenc e locally or across London to justify a separate non -emergency fire
response line, and that rapid attendance remained important for public safety.
In response to Members’ questions regarding hoarding, the Borough Commander for
Hillingdon explained that ho arding cases were managed through joint working with
partners such as social services, the London Ambulance Service, and the Metropolitan
Police. Where concerns were identified, crews provided home fire safety advice and
engagement. It was confirmed that p roperties presenting increased fire risk due to
hoarding were recorded on an operational risk database, enabling fire crews across
London to be alerted to associated hazards and to tailor their response accordingly.
Members sought further clarification a s to how Council officers worked collaboratively
with the Fire Brigade and the police to ensure the safety of high-rise buildings, and how
partnership working with the police was used to address antisocial behaviour (ASB) in
parks, particularly following t he decision not to lock park gates. It was asked how data
and incidents relating to parks were shared, how the police supported this work, and
how joint working could further improve responses to ASB.
Officers explained that a range of partnership arrange ments were in place. In relation
to parks and ASB, in formation on trends, patterns, and hotspots was routinely shared
with the police. Where repeated complaints or emerging patterns of antisocial
behaviour were identified, the Council’s relevant team initi ated targeted work and
engaged directly with neighbourhood policing teams. This approach was driven by
evidence and patterns rather than isolated incidents. It was further explained that daily
reviews of violent crime reports were undertaken jointly with t he police and the fire
service, enabling recurring is sues or location -based risks to be identified. These
reviews informed decisions on additional preventative measures such as improved
lighting, CCTV provision, and environmental changes, including vegetat ion
management.
In relation to fire safety in high -rise buildings, officers explained that the Council
operated a high-rise fire safety programme aligned with national definitions and funding
arrangements set by central government. The programme involved identifying high-rise
buildings, understanding associated risks, and implementing mitigation measures. This
work was undertaken in close partnership with the Fire Brigade. Specialist expertise
was applied to assess building access and construction, while t he Fire Brigade
provided detailed input on fire safety measures in communal areas. A comprehensive
register of high -rise buildings was maintained, recording risk status and mitigation
activity. Where necessary, enforcement notices were used to compel remed ial action,
although it was noted that such cases cou ld involve lengthy processes, including
appeals and long -term construction works. Referrals and inspections by the Fire
Brigade often triggered further Council involvement where additional risks were
identified.
The Borough Commander for Hillingdon confirmed that legislative changes had
strengthened requirements for high -rise and other higher -risk buildings, defined as
those over 18 metres or six storeys. It was explained that building emergency
evacuation plans were now required and were being developed a nd stored
electronically through a high -rise portal, with the local authority housing team
overseeing this work. The Fire Brigade had, for several years, maintained detailed
operational risk plans for al l high -rise premises on its database, including building
layouts, to support effective emergency responses. Any call to a high -rise building
attracted an enhanced attendance due to the elevated risk. It was also confirmed that
where residents required spec ific evacuation arrangements, those details were
recorded to ensure prioritisation during incidents.
The Chair raised concerns regarding reports of conflicts between local secondary
schools. While acknowledging that such issues were not new and had histor ically
amounted largely to playground discussion, the Chair noted that recent reports
suggested a more organised nature, including the involvement of individuals from
outside schools and the potential presence of weapons. It was therefore asked what
preventative work was being undertaken with schools to addr ess and mitigate this
apparent escalation.
The Chief Inspector responded that there was a risk of overstating the situation, noting
that similar issues had occurred historically. It was confirmed that t he individuals
responsible for the online posts that had circulated widely across London had been
arrested and were being dealt with appropriately. The Chief Inspector stated that there
had been strong joint working between the police, the Council, schools, and parents,
particularly in relation to informatio n sharing to inform an effective policing response. It
was confirmed that no significant incidents had occurred within Hillingdon and that
intelligence-led activity, supported by a proactive and well -informed community, had
enabled potential issues to be prevented. The matter was reported to have subsided,
and it was suggested that further attention could risk unnecessarily reigniting concerns.
The Chief Inspector commended the community response and conf irmed that those
responsible for initiating the issue were being addressed, with the expectation that this
would conclude the matter.
The Chair welcomed the reassurance provided and thanked the officers in attendance
for their contributions, expressing ap preciation on behalf of the Committee and the
wider Council for the work undertaken by police and fire services to keep residents in
Hillingdon safe, and asked that thanks be passed on to frontline officers.
RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select C ommittee noted the contents
of the reports and asked questions in order to clarify matters of concern or
interest in the Borough.
153. ENFORCEMENT OF PUBLIC SPACES PROTECTION ORDERS, STREET TRADING
& FIXED PENALTY NOTICES (Agenda Item 7)
Richard Webb, Director of Community Safety and Enforcement, Daniel Ferrer,
Licensing Team Manager, and Dave Holmes, ASB Team Leader, were in attendance
to respond to Members’ queries and requests for clarification in relation to the report
included in the agenda pack. Councillor Wayne Bridges, Cabinet Member for
Community & Environment was also in attendance.
Members commented that the Council’s website did not provide an option for reporting
littering from a vehicle, noting that they had personally witne ssed such an incident and
had been unable to report it online. The Chair responded that this feedback would be
noted and advised that the relevant Cabinet Member was present and would have
heard the comment, particularly in relation to improvements to the Members’ enquiries
process and the “Clean Up My Streets” application.
Councillors asked how the Council’s use of fixed penalty notices (FPNs) compared with
neighbouring boroughs. Officers replied that Hillingdon was broadly comparable,
explaining that FPN s were a mechanism to avoid prosecution and that the Council
focused on maintaining high standards and working with available evidence. It was
noted that while some boroughs issued higher numbers of tickets, officers could not
comment on comparative success rates.
The Committee asked what steps had been tak en to improve signage, clarity of
restrictions and public awareness in areas with high volumes of enforcement activity,
particularly in relation to engine idling and footway obstructions. Councillors cited cases
where residents felt signage was inadequate or absent when entering enforcement
zones. Officers responded that signage was an ongoing challenge; efforts were made
to install signage where required, though signs could be removed or deteriorate and
were replaced when possible. Officers added that information was also available on the
Council’s website and that enforcement measures were subject to consultation
processes with relevant organisations.
Members raised concerns about FPNs issued to busines ses for waste documentation,
questioning whether internal checks were undertaken where businesses used the
Council’s own waste services. It was suggested that issuing FPNs without first
checking internal records was a potential waste of officer time and re sources. Officers
clarified that FPNs were not issued immediately; instead, a notice was served allowing
seven days for documentation to be produced, with an FPN issued only if this was not
provided. Officers acknowledged past issues with inter -departmental communication
and confirmed that closer working arrangements were now in place with waste
services, including the sharing of lists of businesses with Council waste contracts. It
was explained that, following a review of processes, regular inter -team meetings had
been established across enforcement, anti -social behaviour (ASB) and licensing
functions to share information, identify problematic premises and ensure proportionate
and coordinated enforcement.
The Cabinet Member added that waste services and en forcement teams were now
working proactively together, with a programme being rolled out to visit all premises,
maintain a register of visits and actions taken, and ensure businesses held appropriate
licences and waste contracts. It was explained that inte lligence was continually
updated due to the high turn over of businesses, and enforcement activity was targeted
accordingly.
Members enquired how many FPNs issued were paid, cancelled or unpaid, and
whether proportional data was available. Officers referre d to figures in the report,
correcting an error in published data relating to June figures and explaining that total
FPNs issued were higher than initially stated. Officers explained the payment process,
including 14 - and 28 -day payment periods, and noted a lag between issue and
payment.
Councillors raised a separate question regarding Public Spaces Protection Orders
(PSPOs), expressing concern that enforcement appeared concentrated repeatedly in
the same locations and questioning whether this indicated a lack of behavioural
change. Officers responded that a significant proportion of FPNs issued related to the
relatively new PSPO introduced in February of the previous year, and that targeted
enforcement was expected during its early implementation. It was stated that
behavioural change had been observed, par ticularly in relation to the Heathrow taxi
and private hire vehicle PSPO, noting that repeat offences were low and that drivers
had altered behaviour by using appropriate waiting locations rather than re sidential
streets.
Councillors sought clarification as to how much enforcement income was reinvested
into community safety or enforcement resources. It was confirmed that income from
fines broadly covered the cost of the contracted environmental enforceme nt service,
with no significant surplus or deficit, a lthough a modest surplus had arisen due to
Heathrow PSPO volumes. It was noted that income was largely reinvested into service
delivery.
The Committee asked whether ASB data was available to assess the impact of service
closures and changes such as leaving green space gates unlocked. Officers stated that
such data had not yet been drawn together and that there was an inherent lag in data
collection, though this would be available in time. Councillors sug gested starting with
reported incidents as an initial dataset, and officers confirmed that borough -wide data
would be considered.
Members requested further details of how enforcement was approached for more niche
or seasonal PSPO issues, such as amplified music at Ruislip Lido, and how
enforcement activity was communicated to residents. It was explained that intelligence
was gathered to identify patterns and allocate resources accordingly. Examples were
cited such as motorbike activity in green spaces, whe re joint working with the
Metropolitan Police had res ulted in enforcement action and the issuing of explanatory
notices.
With regards to dog control requirements, Members described an incident in a green
space where dogs off leads had attacked people, and queried reporting routes where
PSPO provisions appeared unclear. It was clarified that such incidents fell outside
PSPO enforcement and constituted offences of dogs being dangerously out of control,
which were matters for the police.
The Committee sought clarity as to why no FPNs had been issued for beggin g despite
significant enforcement action for verbal abuse. It was explained that begging fell under
the Vagrancy Act, an outdated and weak piece of legislation that was no longer
routinely applied and wa s subject to legislative reform. It was clarified that some
elements of begging could be enforced where associated with intimidation or distress.
Members expressed concern that begging was widespread across the Borough and
suggested that the issue be revie wed as a priority and brought to the attention of
Cabinet Members.
The Cabinet Member for Community & Environment stated that this would be taken on
board. He acknowledged that begging had become an increasingly significant issue
across the Borough, parti cularly in town centres and high streets, and noted that the
problem had worsened in recent years. He referred to ongoing issues within his own
ward, including persistent begging around locations such as schools, and confirmed
that the matter would be discussed with officers in due course.
Officers confirme d that the issue would be reviewed. They clarified that the Public
Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) restriction applied specifically to begging for food or
money where such behaviour caused harassment, ala rm or distress to another person.
Members were informed that, in order to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN), the
witnessing officer would need to be satisfied that these additional elements were
present. It was noted that this created challenges for offic ers on the street, as simply
observing begging was not sufficient to justify enforcement action. Officers advised that
the current approach aligned with government guidance, which expected a supportive
approach to be taken initially, particularly where ind ividuals were begging due to their
circumstances rather than by choice, before moving towards punitive measures.
In response to further questions from the Committee, officers confirmed that flyposting
was included in the reported numbers of business -related FPNs and advertising
offences. They explained that advertising offences covered a wide range of activities,
including estate agents’ boards, sports advertising, advertisements on street furniture,
and flyposting of various types.
Councillors asked whet her anything could be done under the PSPO to address noise
from out-of-hours building work. While acknowledging that building work was generally
covered by building control and planning enforcement, they highlighted frequent
complaints from residents about noise on Saturdays and Sundays, such as scaffolding
work using impact drivers early in the morning. In response, officers confirmed that a
PSPO was not required, as existing legislation was already in place to deal with noise
from out-of-hours building work.
Members enquired whether any third -party support could be used to assist with the
enforcement of PSPOs, or whether there were examples from other boroughs where
enforcement had been successful. Reference was made to previous evidence from
APCOA, whic h had demonstrated successes beyond the issuing of pa rking tickets.
They asked whether individuals or organisations with relevant experience, including
those associated with community safety or enforcement, could support enforcement
activity across PSPOs, illegal street trading and related matters.
Officers responded that the issuing of FPNs could only be undertaken by authorised
persons, namely council officers, police officers or police community support officers.
They confirmed that the Council worked w ith the police to enforce PSPOs. It was
explained that, following the move from paper ticket books to electronic ticketing, police
officers were encouraged to provide a simple statement, after which the Council could
take responsibility for progressing the case, including prosecution if necessary. This
approach reduced the burden on the police and was reported to be working effectively.
It was further emphasised that PSPO FPNs were only one of several enforcement tools
available to the Council; other teams, including licensing and out -of-hours services,
operated under separate legislative powers. In relation to street trading, Members were
infromed that enforcement did not always need to begin with an FPN and could include
verbal warnings or initial engageme nt. Where necessary, prosecution could be
pursued, and licensing matters could be addressed through variation, review or
consideration by a licensing sub-committee at renewal.
The importance of cross -team working within the Council was noted. It was expla ined
that officers across services, including waste s ervices, were encouraged to act as the
“eyes and ears” of the Council when operating on the streets, supporting enforcement
teams by identifying issues and helping to build evidence. Officers highlighted the value
of proactive approaches, such as early engagement with businesses that incorrectly
left commercial waste bins on the public highway. It was noted that informal
conversations could often resolve issues quickly, with enforcement action reserved fo r
persistent non-compliance.
The Cabinet Member emph asised that enforcement relating to FPNs, particularly for
flyposting, was not solely about issuing penalties but also about adopting different and
more creative approaches. He welcomed confirmation that FPNs had been
successfully issued for flyposting in Charville, including a case involving a business
flyposting on park land. He further referred to the Committee’s previous discussions on
flyposting associated with funfairs, where a deposit scheme had be en suggested,
noting this as a positive example of in novative and collaborative problem -solving. The
Cabinet Member highlighted the importance of cross -party working and engagement
across multiple services and departments and assured the Committee that suc h
discussions were ongoing both within the Committee and across the Council, provided
that all parties continued to work together constructively.
RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the content of
the report.
154. BUDGET AND SPEND REPORT (Agenda Item 8)
Dan Kenne dy, Corporate Director – Residents’ Services, Matt Davis, Director –
Strategic & Operational Finance and Ceri Lamoureux – Head of Finance – Residents’
Services were in attendance to respond to Members’ q ueries in respect of the Budget
and Spent report.
Members referred to point 19 of the report on page 78 and noted that the gross budget
pressure was largely driven by temporary accommodation and homelessness support,
with Heathrow having a material effec t on local supply and demand. It was highlighted
that 82% of rough sleepers were not Heathrow -driven, and clarification was sought on
what actions were being taken to ensure the remaining target was achievable and how
overall homelessness numbers were being reduced.
In response, it was explained that a proactive approach had been adopted. Members
heard that officers were working closely with private sector landlords, identified as one
of the largest sources of homelessness presentations in the Borough. Eng agement
was taking place with landlords seeking to ev ict tenants to understand circumstances,
negotiate, and mediate wherever possible to prevent evictions. Where eviction could
not be prevented, including cases involving friends and family, domestic abuse , or
private sector evictions, efforts were being made to secure alternative suitable
accommodation, usually within the private rented sector, through work with other
landlords. It was further stated that, with Cabinet support, a significant increase in
council-owned social rented properties had been deliver ed during the year. This had
helped to alleviate pressures by enabling eligible local residents to move from high-cost
temporary accommodation into secure, settled homes. In addition, it was confirmed
that capped or fixed rates for temporary accommodation had been successfully
negotiated over the previous 12 months, providing greater cost control in a market
where nightly rates were typically increasing by more than 10%. It was acknowledged
that the marke t remained extremely challenging, with a number of la ndlords exiting,
potentially due to forthcoming reforms and increased compliance requirements.
However, it was emphasised that all possible measures were being taken, with Cabinet
support, to prevent hom elessness and support families into settled accommodation as
quickly as possible.
Councillors requested an explanation of point 21. Officers responded that this budget
line comprised a range of measures, including some increases in income, more
efficient cost controls, and improved management practices, par ticularly within the
museum and bunkers service. It was stated that similar approaches were being applied
across the Council to ensure best value for residents and prudent financial
management.
A furthe r question was raised in relation to point 14 concerning increased fleet
insurance costs, and clarification was sought on whether the review to mitigate these
costs was still ongoing or had concluded. It was confirmed that the review was
underway and expe cted to conclude in early April. It was added that me asures to
manage insurance costs had already been in place for several years and were being
strengthened through increased training and more detailed analysis of the causes of
insurance claims. It was ac knowledged that the insurance market remained extremely
challenging, and that smarter ways of working, including improved vehicle use and
enhanced safety training for drivers and staff, were being pursued.
Councillors referred to point 16, noting a foreca st shortfall of £0.9 million against the
garden waste subscription and further pressures across income streams, with the trade
waste income target rolled over to 2025/26. Clarification was sought on how this
aligned with the £2.6 million opportunities iden tified within resident services, including
waste funding. In response, it was explained that a range of measures was being
considered across waste services. It was noted that the Council had previously been
open about commercial waste fees and charges, whi ch had allowed competitors to
undercut the service. A different approach was therefore being adopted, including a
comprehensive review of commercial waste opportunities. Confidence was expressed
that a greater market share could be secured, given the Council’s local presence and
reliability, alongside more proactive engagement with local businesses. It was also
explained that opportunities related to waste prevention were being pursued, including
promoting waste reduction among residents and businesses and ensuring waste was
disposed of through the most cost -effective streams. By way of example, it was
highlighted that more than 20,000 residents living in flats now had access to food waste
caddies, enabling significant unit cost reductions by diverting waste from household
waste streams to food waste processing. It was stated that this work would continue,
and satisfaction was expressed with the progress made and residents’ positive
engagement with food waste recycling.
The Committee sought further clarifica tion in relation to th e savings tracker at table 2,
noting that 48% of savings had been banked by month 9 and querying confidence that
savings marked as “green – delivery in progress” would be fully delivered by the end of
the financial year. Officers resp onded that, given the advanced stage of the financial
year, all savings had been critically reviewed with the support of the finance team and
confidence was expressed that they would be delivered. It was stated that remaining
issues had been resolved and t hat learning had been incorporated into future
programmes.
A further question was raised in relation to point 25, where mitigations were being
sought in-year. Clarification was requested on the nature of these mitigations and the
impact assessments being undertaken, particularly in relation to service reductions or
vacancy management. In response, it was explained that the senior management
team, working with Cabinet, had been continuously reviewing service delivery to
identify efficiencies. Mitigations we re being achieved through smarter working,
including the Council’s digital strategy, use of artificial intelligence, and improved data
and intelligence. These approaches were enabling efficiencies and service changes to
be delivered without adverse impacts on frontline service delivery, and this work was
expected to continue.
The Chair commented on the attendance of finance officers at monthly budget
monitoring meetings, noting that while the reports were important, finance officers were
often present with out being asked questions. It was suggested that the arrangements
be reviewed to ensure effective use of officer time, particularly given the
service-focused nature of the Committee’s discussions. The Chair proposed that this
be discussed offline with the relevant Labour Lead and officers to agree a more
balanced approach, and this suggestion was acknowledged.
RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee:
1. Noted the budget monitoring position as of December 2025 (Month 9) for
the Council; and
2. Noted the budget monitoring position as of December 20 25 (Month 9) for
the services within the remit of the Residents’ Services Select Committee.
155. FORWARD PLAN (Agenda Item 9)
RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee not ed the Cabinet
Forward Plan.
156. WORK PROGRAMME (Agenda Item 10)
The Chair introduced the work programme and reported on a recent visit undertaken
with Councillor Davies and refuse services staff at Harlington Depot. It was stated that
the visit had been informative and had included obser ving recycling crews in operation.
The professionalism of staff was noted, and it was reported that feedback previously
raised by the Committee regarding post-collection practices, including the clearing and
stacking of bags and the obstruction of pavements, had been heard and positively
received. Discussions had taken place with crew leaders, who were described as
highly engaged in their work. Particular
Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Only the start of this long document is shown here. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.