Residents' Services SC

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

Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public BUDGET & SPENDING REPORT – SELECT COMMITTEE MONITORING Committee name Residents’ Services Select Committee Corporate Director(s) responsible Daniel Kennedy, Corporate Director, Residents Services Papers with report Appendix 1 – Tables 3-7 Ward All RECOMMENDATION That the Committee: 1. Note the budget monitoring position as of January 2026 (Month 10) for the Council; and 2. Note the budget monitoring position as of January 2026 (Month 10) for the services within the remit of the Residents Services Select Committee. HEADLINES 3. This monitoring report provides an update on the Month 10 budget monitoring position for the Council and an update on the Month 10 budget monitoring position for the services relevant to the Select Committee. Corporate Directors, supported by their Head of Finance , will attend the meeting to provide further details and clarifications. GENERAL FUND 2025/26 MONTH 10 BUDGET MONITORING POSITION (COUNCIL) 4. As at Month 10, the Council is forecasting a net overspend of £3 6.3m on its core operating activities, an adverse movement of £0. 3m from Month 9. This includes overspends of £26.0m across Service Operating Budgets, a £4.2m pressure against the budgeted use of reserves and a £6.5m pressure across centralised and Corporate Budgets including Corporate Funding. These pressures are partially mitigated by £0.5m of interventions, which are expected to benefit the revenue position through measures such as spend control and increased grants. 5. This position has remained stable overall since month 6 (September), but with a number of underlying favourable and unfavourable movements. Much of the overspend relates to adverse variances on savings delivery, unbudgeted growth and inflation, assumed use of reserves and reduced application of flexible capital receipts against transformation expenditure, offset by the release of contingency. 6. As at Month 10, the Council’s General Fund is reporting an overspend of £36.3m after allowing for the anticipated delivery of £0.5m through interventions including tighter spend controls, and the remaining £1.8m contingency. This position includes a £14.9m write out against the total £38.8m savings target, and a reduction in the level of capital receipts being used to fund transformation activity. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public Table 1 – General Fund Overview 7. On 23 February 2026 the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) announced that they have agreed in-principle to provide the council with Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) of £88.0m in 2025/26 to help manage its financial pressures. This funding will cover the expected overspend in year and support the Council to replenish its depleted reserv es back to a sustainable level. SAVINGS (COUNCIL) 8. The savings requirement for 2025/26 is £34.0m as set out in the Council’s budget strategy. This was increased by a further £4.8m of savings carried forward from 2024/25 as set out in the outturn report presented to July Cabinet, resulting in an overall programme target of £38.8m savings for the year: Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public Table 2 – Savings Tracker 9. As of Month 10, £18.6m (48%) of the savings and interventions are being recorded as banked or on track for delivery. A further £1.1m (3%), shown as amber, are in delivery but may not deliver in full this financial year. Of this, £0.9m is currently anticipated to slip but deliver in 2026/27. There are £4.2m (11%) of savings reported as red and now likely to slip into 2026/2 7 but still ultimately expected to be delivered. A further £14.9m of savings are now considered to be undeliverable and have been written out of the Council’s budget from 2026/27 – this comprises £7.1m of cross - cutting savings and £7.8m of service held savings. 10. Where savings are at risk of not being delivered in full during 2025/26, the associated pressures have been factored into the monitoring position with compensating actions being implemented where possible to offset the impact. RISKS AND MITIGATIONS 11. As part of the Month 10 review, the Council has continued its analysis of exposure to risks and opportunities. The updated risks total is £5.8m against identified opportunities of £2.6m. Risks not able to be quantified include the cost of redundancies that may arise from any savings implementation (redundancies would precede any savings generated). 12. Opportunities reflect £2.6m within Residents Services which includes additional Waste funding not budgeted for. 13. The risk of further overspend against homelessness costs remains high given the rising levels of homeless presentations and the challenges in securing suitable alternative accommodation to prevent homelessness, particularly in the private rented sector. This position continues to be reviewed. 14. Additional details regarding the Council’s general fund revenue position are available in the most recent Month 10 budget monitoring report: Final Cabinet Report M10 2025/26 MONTH 10 BUDGET MONITORING POSITION (SELECT COMMITTEE PORTFOLIO) 15. Table 3 summarises the Committee’s Month 10 budget monitoring position by directorate, showing a projected overspend of £ 7.4m which represents a £0.4m adverse movement from Month 9. Place has seen a favourable movement of (£0.4m) collectively, due to favourable staffing movements across the Greenspaces , Waste and Planning Regeneration and Environment Blue Green Amber I Amber II Red Write Banked Delivery in progress Early stages of delivery Potential problems in Serious problems in Out £'m £'m £'m £'m £'m £'000 £'m Finance (0.8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.2) (0.1) (1.1) Adult Services & Health (3.5) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) (2.7) (1.7) (8.3) Children & Young People's Services (4.5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (4.5) Place (3.5) (0.6) 0.0 (0.6) (0.8) (1.1) (6.6) Homes & Communities (1.7) (0.3) (0.1) (0.2) (0.1) (4.8) (7.2) Corporate Services (2.8) (0.3) 0.0 0.0 (0.4) (0.1) (3.6) Chief Executive Office (0.1) (0.3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.4) Cross-Cutting 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (7.1) (7.1) (16.9) (1.7) (0.2) (0.9) (4.2) (14.9) (38.8) 44% 4% 1% 2% 11% 38% 100% (16.1) (2.6) (0.2) (1.1) (3.9) (14.9) (38.8) 41% 7% 1% 3% 10% 38% 100% (0.8) 0.9 0.0 0.2 (0.3) 0.0 3% -3% 0% -1% 1% 0% Total 2025/26 Savings Programme M9 Change Corporate Director Total Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public services. Homes and Communities is projecting an overspend of £ 7.2m for 2025/26. This is primarily due to higher-than-expected demand for homelessness support throughout the year . This overspend is an increase of £0.8m from Month 9. The position shown in table 3 also reflects adjustments for Earmarked Reserves, Provisions and Transformation Capitalisation 16. Residents Services: Place 17. Resident Services: Place – Are reporting an overspend of £ 0.2m at Month 10, representing a (£0.4m) favourable movement from Month 9 as detailed above. £0.8m of this variance relates to income, the largest driver for which is the forecast shortfall against the Garden Waste subscription fee £0.9m, with further pressures across other income streams including the delivery of the Trade Waste income target rolled forward into 2025/26. This has been partially mitigated with improved Planning income of £0.3m. Expenditure is forecast to be underspent by £0.5m mainly driven by reduced Waste Disposal costs of £0.5m due to reduced tonnages. 18. Residents Services: Homes and Communities 19. Resident Services: Homes & Communities – Are reporting a net overspend of £ 7.2m, representing an adverse movement of £0.8m from Month 9. The overspend is driven by a gross expenditure pressure of £17.7m offset by additional income of (£10.5m). 20. The pressure reported by Housing Services is £6.3m, an adverse movement of £0.7m from Month 9. The gross pressure is largely driven by temporary accommodation and homelessness support pressures. This reflects a national pressure . However, Hillingdon is particularly impacted by Heathrow having a material effect on local supply and demand economics. The additional income is linked to the same driver whereby the additional demand for temporary accommodation attracts Housing Benefit Subsidy payments and g rant funding where applicable. The adverse movement is from reduced recharges against S106 funding and an increased provision against bad debts. 21. Community Safety and Enforcement is reporting a £0. 8m overspend at Month 10, an adverse movement of £0.2m. This pressure is driven by fire safety concerns in a privately owned residential building in the borough and the need to provide a waking watch service to ensure resident safety. There are minor over and underspends within this area however these have been offset by increased income for Parking and enforcement at Heathrow. 22. Community Services is showing a favourable net variance of £0.2m, a favourable movement from Month 10 of (£0.1m), mainly due to small underspends across the Museum and Libraries services. 23. Table 4 provides a detailed breakdown o f the budget m onitoring position by service area and shows forecast changes for Earmarked Reserves, Provisions and Transformation Capitalisation. 24. SAVINGS (SELECT COMMITTEE PORTFOLIO) 25. The savings requirement for 2025/26 relating to the services overseen by this Committee is £11.2m, as outlined in the Council’s budget strategy and detailed in Table 5 of this report, which provides a breakdown of the savings position by directorate. Table 5 additionally presents the savings slippage incorporated into the forecast position. 26. Of the savings identified within the Residents Services select committee, £ 4.4m ( 40%) are classified as banked or on track, £0.9m (8%) are marked as amber and currently in delivery but may not be fully delivered this financial year and £1.0m ( 9%) are reported as red and having challenges in delivery, with mitigations being sought in-year where feasible. A further £4.9m (43%) of savings are considered to be undeliverable and will need to be written out of the Council’s Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public budget from 2026/27. These savings can be further broken down as follows: 27. Residents Services - Place is on target to achieve £2.8m (62%) of the planned savings. £0.6m (13%) are classified as amber due to delivery challenges this year; however, these are anticipated to be fully delivered next year. An additional £0.8m (17%) is tracking as red and £0.4m (8%) of savings are considered undeliverable and will require removal from the Council’s budget for 2026/27. 28. Residents Services – Homes and Communities is on target to achieve £1.6m (24%) which are banked or on track to be delivered in the year. £0.5m (8%) are facing problems with delivery and £4.5m (68%) are considered undeliverable and will be removed from the council’s budget for 2026/27. 29. HRA 30. 2025/26 MONTH 10 BUDGET MONITORING POSITION 31. The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) continues to forecast a breakeven position. Operating costs including rental income are showing an in -year pressure of £2.0m, before financing charges, representing a £0.3m increase from Month 9. The pressures are primarily driven by staffing costs – higher agency and contingent labour costs offset by vacancy savings, increased reactive and void repairs, together with an under-recovery of rents due to delays in acquisitions becoming operational. These pressures are offset by a reduction in the revenue contributions to the capital programme, ensuring the HRA remains balanced. 32. Rental and other income has a forecast pressure of £0.4m. The annual void loss was budgeted at £0.8m (1% of dwelling rent) but is now expected to be £1.1m (1.4% of dwelling rent) for the year. 33. The revised HRA Operating Costs budget is £38.8m and at Month 10 is forecast to overspend by £1.6m, due to staffing pressures including in tenancy management where there are also increased gas and electricity costs, removal costs and council tax levies on empty properties. The staffing variance of £523k is mainly due to agency staff covering posts whilst restructures are being implemented. This variance should reduce by the first quarter in 2026/27. Energy cost variance of £382k is mainly due to an expectat ion that electricity and gas prices would each reduce by 25% in 2025/26. Moving tenants into and out of Bed and Breakfast accommodation is costing an additional £259k in hotel costs and £95k in removal costs. Empty properties are incurring a council tax levy of £330k, part of which may be reimbursed. 34. Operational Assets are forecast to underspend by (£100k) in the year. This is due to higher levels of capitalisation for void properties (c£600k) and of gas maintenance works (c£300k) offset by overspend pressures including higher reactive repairs spend c£800k. 35. At Month 10 the capital programme financing budget of £46.9m is forecast lower by £2.0m. This budget includes £31.0m (depreciation and revenue contributions) to fund the HRA capital programme, and £15.9m for repayments of loans and interest on borrowing. This position is closely monitored throughout the year with clear linkages to the commissioning plan. PERFORMANCE DATA 36. N/A RESIDENT BENEFIT 37. Regular monitoring of financial performance is used to assess whether spending and savings Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public targets are being met, thereby supporting the efficient delivery of services to residents. By closely tracking expenditure and identifying variances, the council can take timely corrective actions to address o verspending and mitigate risks. This also enhances public transparency and accountability, providing residents with confidence that their Council is managing finances prudently and prioritising their needs. Overall, regular monitoring supports safeguarding the Council's finances and the delivery of quality services to residents. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 38. This is primarily a finance report and the implications are set out in the main body of the report above. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 39. There are no direct legal implications arising from regular monitoring of the council’s finances by select committees. 40. Democratic Services advise that effective overview and scrutiny arrangements require access to the information under the committee’s purview and, in accordance with the 2024 Statutory Scrutiny Guidance, such information includes finance and risk information from the Council, and its partners where relevant. BACKGROUND PAPERS 41. NIL APPENDICES 1 – Tables 3-7 Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public Appendix 1 – Tables 3-7 Table 3 – 2025/26 Month 10 Budget Monitoring Position by Directorate Directorate Directorate Approved Budget Underlying Forecast Earmarked Reserves Provisions Transform ation Capitalisat ion Management Action Forecast Outturn Final Forecast Variance Forecast Variance Prior Month Change in Variance Expenditure 56,330 56,342 (269) 0 (292) (122) 55,659 (671) (151) (520) Income (23,253) (22,799) 55 0 0 377 (22,367) 886 733 153 Sub-Total 33,077 33,543 (214) 0 (292) 255 33,292 215 582 (367) Expenditure 41,603 59,383 (237) 0 (554) 693 59,285 17,682 17,386 296 Income (33,914) (44,630) 0 0 0 233 (44,397) (10,483) (10,991) 508 Sub-Total 7,689 14,753 (237) 0 (554) 926 14,888 7,199 6,395 804 Expenditure 97,933 115,725 (506) 0 (846) 571 114,944 17,011 17,235 (224) Income (57,167) (67,429) 55 0 0 610 (66,764) (9,597) (10,258) 661 Total 40,766 48,296 (451) 0 (846) 1,181 48,180 7,414 6,977 437 P lanning , Housing & GrowthResidents Services (Homes and Communities) Residents Services Total Commuity & E nvironment Residents Services (Place) Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public Table 4 – 2025/26 Month 10 Budget Monitoring Position by Service Service Ares Service Area Approved Budget Underlying Forecast Earmarked Reserves Provisions Transform ation Capitalisat ion Management Action Forecast Outturn Final Forecast Variance Forecast Variance Prior Month Change in Variance Expenditure 47,419 46,939 (53) 0 (26) (176) 46,684 (735) (431) (304) Income (17,923) (16,583) 3 0 0 377 (16,203) 1,720 1,530 190 Sub-Total 29,496 30,356 (50) 0 (26) 201 30,481 985 1,099 (114) Expenditure 2,302 1,936 (80) 0 0 0 1,856 (446) (425) (21) Income (582) (393) 0 0 0 0 (393) 189 223 (34) Sub-Total 1,720 1,543 (80) 0 0 0 1,463 (257) (202) (55) Expenditure 516 951 0 0 (266) 0 685 169 178 (9) Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 516 951 0 0 (266) 0 685 169 178 (9) Expenditure 6,093 6,516 (136) 0 0 54 6,434 341 527 (186) Income (4,748) (5,823) 52 0 0 0 (5,771) (1,023) (1,020) (3) Sub-Total 1,345 693 (84) 0 0 54 663 (682) (493) (189) Expenditure 56,330 56,342 (269) 0 (292) (122) 55,659 (671) (151) (520) Income (23,253) (22,799) 55 0 0 377 (22,367) 886 733 153 Sub-Total 33,077 33,543 (214) 0 (292) 255 33,292 215 582 (367) Expenditure 19,634 35,269 (237) 0 (214) 500 35,318 15,684 15,431 253 Income (11,239) (20,899) 0 0 0 233 (20,666) (9,427) (9,878) 451 Sub-Total 8,395 14,370 (237) 0 (214) 733 14,652 6,257 5,553 704 Expenditure 15,783 17,490 0 0 (310) (259) 16,921 1,138 967 171 Income (20,368) (20,684) 0 0 0 0 (20,684) (316) (369) 53 Sub-Total (4,585) (3,194) 0 0 (310) (259) (3,763) 822 598 224 Expenditure 6,355 6,845 0 0 0 0 6,845 490 604 (114) Income (2,307) (3,014) 0 0 0 0 (3,014) (707) (711) 4 Sub-Total 4,048 3,831 0 0 0 0 3,831 (217) (107) (110) Expenditure (319) (452) 0 0 0 452 0 319 319 0 Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total (319) (452) 0 0 0 452 0 319 319 0 Expenditure 150 231 0 0 (30) 0 201 51 65 (14) Income 0 (33) 0 0 0 0 (33) (33) (33) 0 Sub-Total 150 198 0 0 (30) 0 168 18 32 (14) Expenditure 41,603 59,383 (237) 0 (554) 693 59,285 17,682 17,386 296 Income (33,914) (44,630) 0 0 0 233 (44,397) (10,483) (10,991) 508 Sub-Total 7,689 14,753 (237) 0 (554) 926 14,888 7,199 6,395 804 Expenditure 97,933 115,725 (506) 0 (846) 571 114,944 17,011 17,235 (224) Income (57,167) (67,429) 55 0 0 610 (66,764) (9,597) (10,258) 661 Total 40,766 48,296 (451) 0 (846) 1,181 48,180 7,414 6,977 437 H&C T otal Residents Services (Homes and Communities) Total Residents Services Total P lace T otal Residents Services (Place) Total Residents S ervices (Homes and Communities) Housing Community Safety And Enforcement Community Services Director Homes and Communities Health & Safety And Emergency Residents S ervices (P lace) Director Environment And Leisure Residents Head of Transport & Town Centres Projects Corporate Director Place Director Planning Regeneration and Environment Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public Table 5 – 2025/26 Savings Position by Directorate RAG Rating 2025/26 & B/fwd savings Total 2025/26 Slippage Directorate B/fwd 2025/26 Total B G A1 A2 R W/O £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 R esidents S ervices - P lace Develop C ommercial T rade 260- - 260- - - - - - 260- 260- 260 R esidents S ervices - P lace R eview of G olf Delivery Model 267- - 267- - 267- - - - - 267- - R esidents S ervices - P lace Household recycling centre 100- - 100- - - - - - 100- 100- 100 R esidents S ervices - P lace C harging for G arden W aste - 2,500- 2,500- 1,621- - - 100- 779- - 2,500- 779 R esidents S ervices - P lace C hristmas L ighting G rowth - 230- 230- 230- - - - - - 230- - R esidents S ervices - P lace F ees & C harges Inflationary - 58- 58- - 58- - - - - 58- - R esidents S ervices - P lace G reen F lag A ward S cheme - 43- 43- 43- - - - - - 43- - R esidents S ervices - P lace Hillingdon in B loom and the - 17- 17- 17- - - - - - 17- - R esidents S ervices - P lace R emove S easonal Hanging - 92- 92- 92- - - - - - 92- - R esidents S ervices - P lace R eview of B urial C harges - 200- 200- - - - 200- - - 200- - R esidents S ervices - P lace R eview of C rematoria & - 300- 300- - - - 300- - - 300- - R esidents S ervices - P lace P roposal 1: E nvironmental - 66- 66- 66- - - - - - 66- - R esidents S ervices - P lace P roposal 2: V acant P ost - 39- 39- 39- - - - - - 39- - R esidents S ervices - P lace P roposal 3: B uilding C ontrol - 16- 16- 16- - - - - - 16- - R esidents S ervices - P lace P roposal 4: Discretionary - 13- 13- - 13- - - - - 13- - R esidents S ervices - P lace P roposal 5: F ast T rack - 60- 60- 60- - - - - - 60- - R esidents S ervices - P lace P roposal 6: S tatutory P lanning F ee Increase - Householders - 300- 300- 150- 150- - - - - 300- - Residents S ervices - P lace T otal 627- 3,934- 4,561- 2,334- 488- - 600- 779- 360- 4,561- 1,139 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesC ommunity run L ibrary 135- - 135- - - - - - 135- 135- 135 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesB eck T heatre P arking - 50- 50- - - - 20- 30- - 50- 30 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesDecentralised Operating Model for C orporate P olicy & P rojects- 77- 77- - - - - - 77- 77- 77 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesIncrease MV F by 1% - 139- 139- - - - - 139- - 139- - R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesF ees & C harges Inflationary - 58- 58- - 58- - - - - 58- - R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesHillingdon W omen's C entre - 30- 30- 30- - - - - - 30- - R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesIncrease in C ar P ark R evenue - 50- 50- 50- - - - - - 50- - R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesL ibrary S tock B udget - 30- 30- 30- - - - - - 30- - R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesMeeting R oom Hire R evenue - 40- 40- - - - 40- - - 40- - R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesOut of Hours Noise Nuisance - 220- 220- - - 50- 170- - - 220- - R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesP arking fine level change – - 600- 600- 600- - - - - - 600- - R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesP ay and Display Machine - 66- 66- - 66- - - - - 66- - R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesP B H -Domestic A buse S upport - 79- 79- 79- - - - - - 79- - R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesP latinum J ubilee L eisure - 80- 80- - - - - 80- - 80- 80 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesP arking F ees & C harges - 411- 411- - - - - - 411- 411- 411 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesR eview of P arking - 140- 140- 140- - - - - - 140- - R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesS tronger C ommunities S ervice - 79- 79- 79- - - - - - 79- - R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesE nvironmental E nforcement - 110- - 110- - - - - - 110- 110- 110 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesC ommunity & V oluntary 175- - 175- - - - - - 175- 175- 175 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesUse of s106 F unding for R evenue 500- - 500- - - - - - 500- 500- 500 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesA dditional L eased temporary - 1,600- 1,600- - - - - - 1,600- 1,600- 1,600 R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunitiesT emporary A ccommodation - re-negotiate to reduce rates - 500- 500- 500- - - - - - 500- - R esidents S ervices - Homes & C ommunities T emporary A ccommodation C ommissioning - Z ero / L ow S ubsidy A ccommodation - 1,500- 1,500- - - - - - 1,500- 1,500- 1,500 Residents S ervices - Homes & Communites T otal 920- 5,749- 6,669- 1,508- 124- 50- 230- 249- 4,508- 6,669- 4,618 Residents S ervices T otal 1,547- 9,683- 11,230- 3,842- 612- 50- 830- 1,028- 4,868- 11,230- 5,757 Description Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public Table 6 - HRA Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public Table 7 – HRA Savings

Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public UPDATE ON THE COUNCIL’S LEGAL AND POL ICY FRAMEWORK FOR HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION Committee name Residents’ Services Select Committee Officer reporting Stephanie Waterford, Head of Public Protection & Enforcement Michelle Greenidge, Private Sector Housing Manager Julia Johnson, Director of Planning & Sustainable Growth Papers with report None Ward All HEADLINES This report provides an overview of Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMOs) in Hillingdon, including the legal controls and Council policy framework relating to HMOs, to support discussion on HMOs at the Residents’ Services Select Committee. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Committee: 1. Notes the information provided on housing tenure and HMOs in the Borough and the legal and policy framework applying to HMOs; 2. Notes the implementation of additional controls on HMOs in the Borough by the Council; and 3. Asks questions to clarify any matters of interest. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. Background The Council is committed to ensuring that homes in the private rented sector are safe, well managed and well maintained. Houses of Multiple Occupation provide an important source of affordable housing in the Borough, and it is acknowledged that they fulfil a need within the overall housing stock of Hillingdon. However, it is recognised that poor housing conditions and poorly managed HMOs can lead to adverse impacts on local neighbourhoods , ranging from poor appearance and waste issues to more serious instances of anti -social behaviour and nuisance, and on tenants. An HMO is defined differently under housing legislation and planning law, but both frameworks describe forms of shared living where unrelated people occupy the same property. Under the Housing Act 2004, an HMO is any property lived in by three or more unrelated Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public individuals who share basic facilities such as a ki tchen, bathroom or toilet. This definition underpins licensing requirements , the purpose of which is the regulation of housing standards, reflecting concerns about safety, overcrowding and the management of shared accommodation. In planning terms, HMOs a re categorised through the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order. A small HMO falls under Use Class C4, covering shared homes occupied by 3 –6 unrelated residents. These were historically permitted changes from standard dwellinghouses (Use Class C3) , but in Hillingdon, an Article 4 Direction has been put in place which removes those rights. Larger HMOs, i.e. those with 7 or more occupants , do not fall within a standard use class and are treated as sui generis, meaning they have always required planning permission due to their more intensive use and potential impact on residential areas. The purpose of planning laws and policies is to control the land-use implications of shared accommodation. 2. The Private Rented Sector in Hillingdon In order t o obtain a greater understanding of the private rented sector in Hillingdon, the Council commissioned a Housing Tenure Survey in 2025. Key findings from this survey were as follows: a) There is a total of 113,124 residential properties within the London Borough of Hillingdon. Of this number , 29,099 properties are within the private rented sector (PRS). b) Hillingdon saw London’s joint second largest percentage point rise in the proportion of privately rented homes from 19.1% in 2011 to 25.9 in 2021. This growth is consistent with long term nationwide and regional trends. c) There are an estimated 2,537 HMOs in Hillingdon, of which only 666 were licensed at the time the survey was undertaken, indicating approximately 1,871 ‘hidden’ HMOs (i.e. those not known to the Council due to being unlicensed). d) 30% of HMOs in Hillingdon are predicted to have serious housing hazards, three times the national average. e) 3,850 ASB incidents were linked to HMOs over five years, with repeat ASB indicating poor management. f) HMOs are dispersed across all wards, not concentrated in specific areas 3. Legal Controls Article 4 Direction For many years, Hillingdon operated with a part -borough Article 4 Direction that applied only to the former Brunel and Uxbridge South wards, an area surrounding Brunel University. This targeted restriction was introduced in 2013 in response to growing pressures from student accommodation, where large numbers of family homes were being converted into small HMOs. These changes were affecting the amenity and character of local neighbourhoods, and the Article 4 Direction removed permitted development rights so that conversions from C3 dwellinghouses to C4 sm all HMOs required planning permission within that defined area. By 2025, evidence showed that HMO growth and associated impacts such as anti-social Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public behaviour and rising enforcement complaints were no longer confined to the Brunel/ Uxbridge South area. HMOs had expanded significantly across all wards in the Borough, with notable concentrations and impacts in the central, western, and southern areas. As a result, the Council concluded that a borough-wide planning response was needed. A report to November Fu ll Council therefore recommended the introduction of a new Immediate Borough-Wide Article 4 Direction, removing permitted development rights for changes from C3 to C4 throughout the whole of Hillingdon. The existing part -borough direction would then be cancelled once the new direction was confirmed. Full Council approved the recommendation, and the new borough-wide Article 4 Direction came into force on 11 December 2025, taking immediate effect. From that date forward, all new conversions to small HMOs anywhere in Hillingdon require planning permission, replacing the old , more restricted approach limited to Brunel and Uxbridge South. The Article 4 Direction was subsequently confirmed by Full Council in February 2026, following a statutory consultation period. Since 11th December 2025, the Council has received 22 planning applications for C4 HMOs for up to 6 persons. A total of 17 have been determined, with 12 refused, 4 approved, and one withdrawn. There are a further 5 applications still under consideration. This demonstrates that the Article 4 Direction is already having an immediate impact, with over 70% of applications now being refused. Key grounds for refusals have included impacts on neighbours' amenity, the living conditions of future occupiers, and highways considerations. Licensing The Housing Act 2004 and supporting regulations require that an HMO be licensed if it is occupied by five or more persons living in two or more separate households (‘Mandatory Licensing’). There are currently 522 licensed HMOs in Hillingdon. Local authorities may require further categories of HMOs to be licensed (‘Additional Licensing’) where there is a justification for introducing those additional legal controls on HMOs which are outside the scope of mandatory l icensing. The legal requirements that have to be met for the introduction of additional licensing are set out in the Housing Act 2004. In February this year Cabinet agreed to implement additional licensing controls on HMOs in Hillingdon following the deve lopment of an assessment against the Housing Act legal requirements. The introduction of additional licensing controls also followed an extensive public consultation. This new additional licensing policy will require HMOs occupied by 3 or more persons comprising 2 or more households to be licensed. The formal statutory designation for additional licensing was made on 19th February 2026. There is a 3-month period before this designation can come into effect under the Housing Act 2004. Therefore, landlords can submit applications for new licences where required under these additional licensing controls from 20th May 2026 and the deadline for landlord applications and full compliance by properties within scope of those controls is 23rd August 2026. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public 4. Frequently Asked Questions What are the core differences between Licensing and Planning regimes for HMOs Aspect HMO Licensing Planning Law Primary Purpose Safety & management inside the property Land use & neighbourhood impact Key Focus Internal standards (fire safety, amenities, room sizes, waste management) External impacts (parking, concentration, amenity) When required? Based on number of occupants & council schemes (Mandatory/Additional) Currently if a property has 5 or more occupant s from 2 or more household Based on change of use from a single family dwelling (C3) to a multi -household property: - Small HMO (C4) for up to 6 persons - Large HMO (Sui Generis) for 7 or more persons Triggers Number of occupants and households Material change of use Can an HMO lawfully operate without the relevant approval Yes – if it is currently a smaller HMO but this will change with the additional licensing requirements from 24 August 2026 when all HMOs must be licensed Yes – if it was a small HMO (C4) in operation be fore 11 December 2025. RESPONSIBILITIES Making sure that the HMO is safe and well run Permission to use the property as an HMO Controlling authority/ service Private Sector Housing team Local Planning Authority Does having an HMO licence mean planning permission is in place? No. An HMO licence does not give planning permission. They are two completely separate legal requirements, and a landlord must have both if the law requires them. Does planning permission remove the need for an HMO licence? No. Even with planning permission, a landlord still needs an HMO licence if the property meets the licensing criteria. Planning approval does not replace licensing requirements. Who investigates suspected planning breaches? The Planning Enforcement Team investigates any suspected planning breaches, such as a property being converted into an HMO without planning permission. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public Who investigates poor conditions or management issues? The HMO Licensing Team (part of the Council’s Private Sector Housing Team) investigates reports of overcrowding, safety, condition issues, and unlicensed HMOs. Why doesn't the Council stop the use of the premises as an HMO until and if a licence is granted? The law does not allow the Council to automatically stop a property being used as an HMO while a licence application is being processed. A landlord can legally operate the property as a HMO if they have submitted a valid licence application. The Council can only intervene if no application has been made or if there are serious safety risks. If planning approval for an HMO is approved, can the licence be withheld? Yes. Even if planning permission is approved, the Council can still refuse an HMO licence. Planning and licensing are separate processes, and a property must meet al l licensing standards - including safety, room sizes, amenities, and the landlord being “fit and proper” - before a licence can be granted. If the HMO is operating after the Article 4 date but the licence status only starts in August, does that mean the property can be used for an HMO and the Council has no powers to stop it? No. Even before additional licensing starts, the Council can act through planning enforcement if the property is operating as an HMO without the required planning permission. Planning and licensing are separate, so planning rules still apply. However, it should be noted that the new planning requirements for smaller HMOs cannot be applied retrospectively so planning approval is only required for these types of HMO if they were occupied after 11th December 2025. If a planning enforcement notice has been issued does that mean the HMO licence must be refused? No. A planning enforcement notice does not automatically mean the licence will be refused. Planning and licensing are separate processes, but planning issues may still be taken into account when the Council assesses the licence application. 5. Additional Information Many of the provisions of the Renters’ Rights Act come into force in 2026. This Act has been introduced to strengthen protections for tenants and enhance transparency in the private rented sector. It expands the duties of local authorities in relation to the private rental sector and many of the new requirements also apply to HMOs. The Act introduces a range of new requirements and restrictions on landlords (e.g. prohibitions on requiring rent payments in advance). In many instances, local authorities will have duties to ensure compliance with those requirements and restrictions. Thi s will require communications and engagement with landlords as well as case handling and enforcement processes for reported and suspected non-compliance. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public 6. Workforce Plans With both the additional licensing controls and new legal duties under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 commencing in 2026, a new workforce plan has been agreed for the Council’s Private Sector Housing team. This workforce plan utilises the licensing fees expected to be received from HMO licensing and the new burdens funding for the additional responsibilities under the Renter’s Rights Act to significantly enhance the capacity of this team, with 7 new permanent roles and 4 temporary roles. There are significant challenges in recruiting qualified and experienced officers for private sector housing enforcement and inspection roles and therefore new trainee roles have also been created in the Private Sector Housing team. The Council has also expanded its Planning Enforcement team to manage the increase in planning enforcement cases associated with the new legal restrictions on small HMOs. The recruitment process for these officers is currently underway. RESIDENT BENEFIT Requiring planning permission for all HMOs strengthens the Council’s ability to improve housing quality, as evidence shows HMOs are far more likely to contain serious hazards compared with the wider private rented sector. By enabling better oversight and reducing the growth of poorly maintained or unsuitable conve rsions, the Direction supports the Council’s objectives around raising housing standards, protecting vulnerable residents, and ensuring neighbourhoods remain attractive and balanced places to live Introducing additional licensing for small HMOs will ensur e that the Council has knowledge and oversight of most HMOs in the Borough, enabling the Council to ensure good management arrangements are in place and maintained for a wider range of HMOs. BACKGROUND PAPERS NIL

Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public Council Provision of Sport and Physical Activity for Young People Committee name Residents’ Services Select Committee Officer reporting Priscilla Simpson, Sport & Physical Activity Team Manager Kim Truelove, Senior Officer – Sport & Physical Activity Mekaya Gittens, Sport & Physical Activity Officer Papers with report Appendix A – Data and Figures Ward All HEADLINES This report outlines the provision of the Council’s Public Health team sport and physical activity programme for young people, and women and girls, living in Hillingdon covering the period 2024 – 2025. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Select Committee: 1. Notes the provision of current delivery within the Council’s Public Health team; and 2. Notes the Public Health review of the sport and physical activity model that uses a whole systems approach to programme delivery SUPPORTING INFORMATION This report outlines the provision of the Council’s sport and physical activity programme for young people, and women and girls, living in Hillingdon. The programme is currently managed by a small team that sits within the Public Health team with the goal of encouraging children and young people and women and girls to move more either through unstructured play, structured programmes in and outside of a school environment, or through opportunities to engage in sport pathways. Officers would like residents o f all abilities to develop their skills, abilities and confidence through the healthy and impactful medium of sport and physical activity. Over the last 9 years, the programme of activities for residents of all ages has been managed by the Sport and Physical activity team, delivered through a model of commissioned instructors and has included the following activities: London Mini Marathon, London Youth Games, Multi -Sport for young people with disabilities, and a new initiative for Hillingdon, Junior parkrun; in addition to Led Walks, Couch to 5k, park run, Our Parks and parks tennis programmes for families and adults. The focus of these activities is inclusion and participation utilising the GLL leisure centre facilities, Hillingdon’s numerous parks (team sports) and green spaces (cricket, tennis) and strong links with the Borough’s sports clubs and schools. The driving principle is playground to podium through which young residents are welcomed and selected as complete beginners and supported into regular participation through to Borough or London wide competition events. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public Promotion and publicity of t hese activities has been through the Council website, Hillingdon People, directly with schools (including PE leads and School Games Organisers), local sports clubs and partners in the Council including our leisure operator GLL. The team represents Hillingdon at the quarterly held London Physical Activity for Health Network (supported by London Sport) and regularly receive s information, latest evidence, publicity and updates on how to improve access and opportunities to improve sport and physical activity in local areas Over the last 8 years, the Council’s scope, provision and funding for children and young people’s sport and physical activity programmes have reduced. This follows an approach that seeks to be more outcome focussed, data driven and sustainable as to how resources are used to ensure sport and physical activity programmes for Hillingdon’s young residents support inactive residents to be more active. Officers use Active Lives data as the measure and have a process of continuous review to ensure this approach delivers outcomes and is value for money. PERFORMANCE DATA Physical Activity and Inactivity data for Children and Young People The Chief Medical Officer’s (CMO) recommendations for physical activity for 6 – 18-year-olds is on average 60 minutes a day across the week1 and for children and young people with disabilities 220 minutes of physical activity per day in bitesize chunks with c hallenging but manageable strength and balance activities three times per week. To get a better understanding of the metrics and how many young residents are being active or not being active enough, officers can track data provided by the Active Lives Children and Young People Survey. This data source is the most consistently used measure in the UK and captures the following subjective states: ‘Physically Active’ (an average of 60 minutes a day); ‘Fairly Active’ (an average of 30 – 50 minutes a day); and ‘Inactive’ (less than an average of 30 minutes a day). The survey is given to children and young people aged 5 to 16 and is carried out through participating schools and captures how young people engage with physical activity both in and out of school. Schools are selected randomly within each local authority (10 primary and 10 secondary schools) with samples ranging between 105,000 and 125,000 ; pupils complete the survey online, either at school or at home . The results are published every December. Tables showing physical activity and inactivity data for young Hillingdon residents are in Appendix 1. The most recent data - Academic Year 24/25 - from the Active Lives Children and Young People Survey shows the following headlines:  Hillingdon has slightly lower Physical Activity levels than the London average:44.6% Hillingdon, 47.1% London  Hillingdon has marginally higher Physical Inactivity levels than the London average:30.9% Hillingdon, 30.2% London. 1 Physical activity guidelines: children and young people (5 to 18 years) - GOV.UK 2 Physical activity guidelines: disabled children and disabled young people - GOV .UK Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public  Over the last 8 Academic years, Hillingdon’s physical activity rates and inactivity rates have not improved (compared to the London average); however, there has been a small improvement in levels of young residents being ‘Fairly Active’: an increase of 0.5%  The trend shows a decline in physical activity levels, attributable to the pandemic ; however, those achieving the required physic al activity levels has returned to pre - pandemic levels  Physical Activity levels for girls in Hillingdon are lower than boys. This follows the national trend; however, the rate for Hillingdon girls is comparatively the same as the London average: 44.1% Hillingdon, 44.4% London  Levels of inequality across Hillingdon impact how physically active young people are. These rates have been negatively impacted by the pandemic and follow a similar pattern across London: Least Deprived 52.2%, Most Deprived 24.0% RESIDENT BENEFIT The table below shows the current provision, the insights captured and opportunities for making improvements to deliver on the Council’s priority of making movement, play, physical activity and sport accessible and easier for young residents. Provision for children and young people in Hillingdon Disability Sport: 6 – 12-year-olds. Physical disabilities, wheel-chair users, living with autism and neurodivergence Demonstration of Inclusivity Outputs and Impact Multi-sport provision offered free to provide activities designed to improve coordination, strength, balance and fitness for children living with disabilities including autism. Weekly sessions are held at Botwell Leisure Centre and Hillingdon Sport and Leisure Centre 16 young people attend each session with two specialist instructors Number of sessions between Jan – Dec 2025: -80 sessions -1280 attendance throughout figures -12 referral pathway into sports club settings -2 new ‘Friends Of’ groups established -3 instructor CPDs achieved -4 new sports trialled Benefit to Residents Social and communication Skills : Improved peer interactions during sessions, increased attention – taking turns, having conversations, enhanced non -verbal communication (eye contact, gestures), greater willingness to participate in group activities and team-based tasks. Motor Skills and Physical Health: Development in motor skill abilities (coordination, balance, running, jumping), improved fine motor skills through activities like ball handling, throwing and catching, better overall fitness, endurance and energy Emotional Regulation: provision of structure which can reduce anxiety and improve emotional regulation, the sessions aid with coping strategies and frustration levels through tasks Self Esteem: a sense of achievement through participants completing goals and challenges, participants feel a positive self -perception as they achieve as an individual or as a team in Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public activities. Through attending the weekly sessions participants feel motivated to engage with wider interests. Parent quote: “As a parent of three children, each with their own disabilities, these sessions have been invaluable. Being able to bring two of my children at the same time has made a huge difference to our family routine. The sessions are truly inclusive and adaptable, carefully considering each of my children’s individual needs. Not only do the children benefit, but I do as well. While staying present in the session, I still get a sense of respite. I have the chance to talk with other parents who are in similar situations, sharing challenges and supporting one ano ther. This connection and understanding give me real reassurance. These sessions don’t just support my children — they support me as a parent too.” London Youth Games: 11 – 17-year-olds 23 sports trials and training for new and experienced young athletes competing against the 32 other London Boroughs. Up to 900 young residents go through the trials, training and competitions utilising GLL facilities at Botwell and Hillingdon Sport and Leisure Complex (HSLC) along with local sports clubs and school facilities Demonstration of Inclusivity Outputs and Impact Engagement, participation and performance Across the two -year period, Hillingdon engaged: -1,984 young people in trials and training -663 athletes in LYG finals competitions This demonstrates strong sustained reach across the Borough’s youth population, ensuring broad and inclusive access to sports. -Entered 44 competitions across the two years, averaging high participation despite operational and budgetary pressures. -Continued engagement across a wide sporting programme including team, individual, and pathway sports. -Achieved Most Improved Borough in 2024, highlighting significant growth in performance and coordinated delivery. -In 2025, Hillingdon improved its West London regional ranking to 2nd, reinforcing competitive strength despite entering fewer competitions 2024 Participation -Sports Competitions Offered: 28 -Events Entered by Hillingdon: 23 -Young People Attending Trials & Training: 1,041 -Athletes Competing at Finals: 361 -Overall, Borough Ranking: 15th of 33 -West London Ranking: 4th -Awards: Most Improved Borough – 1st across all London boroughs 2025 Participation -Sports Competitions Offered: 28 -Events Entered by Hillingdon: 21 -Young People Attending Trials & Training: 943 -Athletes Competing at Finals: 302 -Overall, Borough Ranking: 19th of 33 -West London Ranking: 2nd -Talent & Leadership: 3 young people selected for the LYG33 development programme Benefit to Residents: Coach: As a cricket coach working within the London Youth Games pathway, I support young people of all backgrounds and abilities, including those who have experienced the UK care system and faced significant challenges in their personal lives. Quote circulated separately to Members for data protection reasons. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public Mini Marathon: 11 – 17-year-olds 33 London boroughs and the home nations are invited to compete at the 2.6km event (part of the actual marathon route) for females and males in the following categories: Under 12s, 14s, 16s and 18. Demonstration of Inclusivity Outputs and Impact Hillingdon supports the aim to provide a fair, inclusive route for talented children and young people to compete at a London wide level, representing their Borough with pride. A total of 36 athlete spaces is available, distributed across three age categories, male and female, and covering six race groups. (these categories are changing for 2026) Hillingdon’s purpose to enter -identify emerging talents -provides competitive opportunities -promotes long term engagement in physical activity -increases Borough representation in major sporting events 2025 -83 athletes submit entry forms -36 athletes selected to represent -2 staff and 6 volunteers and 3 organisations/clubs supporting the event Benefit to Residents Young athlete: “Being selected to represent Hillingdon in the TCS London Mini Marathon is a really proud moment for me. It’s an opportunity to push my limits, experience a major sporting event, and run against athletes I wouldn’t normally compete with. Most of all, it makes me feel connected to my community and proud to represent the place I call home.” NEW Junior parkrun: 4 – 14-year-olds Junior parkrun is a free, weekly, timed 2k running, jogging, or walking event for children aged 4 to 14, held on Sunday mornings at Lake Farm Country Park. It is a supportive, community-focused event organised by volunteers Demonstration of Inclusivity Outputs and Impact A soft launch in January 2026 and official launch on 22nd February 2026 held at Lake Farm Country Park. Four practice events held - 39 children and young people have participated and 33 adult volunteers. Benefit to Residents: Newly launched; evaluation feedback being collected. Free Park Tennis: Open to all – children under the age of 11 must be supervised by an adult. A volunteer led free weekly tennis sessions for residents to turn up and play as individuals, as a family or group. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public Coached Tennis sessions in park tennis courts: All age groups The council's tennis operators NTA deliver paid coaching opportunities at 3 out of the 10 newly renovated courts Demonstration of Inclusivity Outputs and Impact Three sessions take place weekly in Harmondsworth, Rosedale in Hayes and Northwood Recreation Ground, ensuring a good spread of North, South and Central opportunity. Sessions are free, equipment is provided. 40% of participants have been families with children under the age of 14. 888 people attended Free Park Tennis in 2025 (386 at Northwood / 502 at Rosedale), up from 483 total in 2024. NTA linked with 17 schools following successful relationship building in 2025 with the School Games Organiser with the help of Council (up fro m 0 in 2024 where provision was getting established) NTA have delivered 91 coaching sessions in 2025, and 451 junior participants have received coaching sessions Big Tennis Weekends (free open days) delivered at all 3 venues with 163 participants across the events. Benefit to Residents - Increased use of green spaces in the Borough – feeling safe while exercising in a group and an improved knowledge of the area in which they live in. - Increased levels of fitness and mobility - An opportunity to meet new people within the same community - Increase self-efficacy and confidence to exercise independently with facilities provided – e.g. tennis courts and outside gyms “I have always wanted to learn tennis, we tried Free Park Tennis as a family for the first time in 2025, me and my son are now attending weekly sessions with a coach. It’s given me confidence to just book courts and play with my friends and family. I still drag my family out on weekends to the Free Park Tennis sessions and to think I didn't even know that Rosedale (Park) was around the corner from us a couple of years ago.” Schools: Primary School Aged children Walking and running pathways from school premises to local parks. Demonstration of Inclusivity Outputs and Impact Schools were selected using the multiple indices of deprivation data and inactive rates inside and outside of school. Two schools engaged with the Mayor of London’s Healthy School London Programme to develop their Daily Mile offer. This formed Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public part of their whole school approac h to improving child healthy weight prevalence, specifically increasing physical activity levels inside and outside of school, in line with CMO guidelines. A cohort of 180 pupils in school year 5 were actively engaged and their participation monitored and evaluated. This cohort was chosen as the schools wanted to adopt a universal approach to try and impact the number of children identified as above a healthy weight in the following year 6 National Child Measurement Programme data. In addition, both schools delivered a targeted led Couch to 2k programme to 60 children identified as high risk, meaning they were already above a healthy weight. Benefit to Residents - Increased use of green spaces in the Borough – children improving their walking/jogging/running skills in school and then going on to try the Junior Park Run in the park next door. - Increased levels of fitness, mobility, energy levels, concentration and access to external PA opportunities. - The incentivisation programme educated parents on where they could find opportunities for their children to exercise – so an increased level of awareness of opportunities to improve physical activity outside of school. - Improved activity levels of children within school as well as outside of school. Play Day Annual Event: up to 8-year-olds and their families Celebration of National Play Day held early August. Recognises and promotes a child’s right to play. Held at Hillingdon Sports Athletics track , it offers parking and public transport access with several partners and service providers hosting stalls Demonstration of Inclusivity Outputs and Impact Encouragement and opportunities for children and families to play (structured and unstructured), a free day event is held at the Athletics track at HSLC each year. Health & Wellbeing Outputs -Various NHS and community health services delivered screenings, demos, and advice. (E.g., blood pressure checks, asthma support, dietitian activities, breastfeeding support.) Activity & Engagement Outputs 2024: 2,777 tickets booked; 1,872 arrived. 2025: 3,460 tickets sold; 2,123 arrivals; 519 cars parked. Stallholder Engagement -2024: 76 invited, 55 confirmed, 43 attended. -2025: 83 invited, 57 confirmed, 47 attended. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public -Wide mix of spor ts (BMX, squash, basketball), creative zones, storytelling, eco activities, and more. -High engagement with stamp card reward system in both years. Benefit to Residents Both years saw high resident engagement, with 1,872 attendees in 2024 and 2,123 in 2025, demonstrating Playday’s continued value as a borough-wide family event. There is consistently positive feedback from the event supported by the Mayor’s attendance each year. -Significant health promotion coverage, with various NHS partners and health providers offering screenings, advice, demonstrations, and wellbeing activities, blood pressure checks, diabetes and asthma advice, and mindfulness activities. -The focus on healthy eating and active play (e.g., smoothie bikes, sports activities) aligns strongly with Hillingdon’s public health priorities, especially tackling childhood obesity. -Cultural and creative activities (crafts, performances, clay making, storytelling, puppet shows) encouraged creative expression and cultural engagement. -Environmental education was enhanced t hrough recycling challenges and sustainability initiatives. Attendee quotes: “Excellent interactions and super engaged children and heartwarming event. Great talks about asthma and healthy eating with whole families” - Local Health provider - "It was heartwarming to see so many people from different backgrounds coming together. My kids made new friends, and I connected with other parents too. It truly felt like a celebration of our community." - parent WOMEN AND GIRLS Our Parks: 18+ Free instructor lead fitness sessions that take part in parks for residents to access Demonstration of Inclusivity Outputs and Impact Predominantly attended by women, these sessions are free for participants to attend and located in areas of deprivation or where inactivity levels are lowest. 3 sessions delivered weekly – in Barra Hall, Hillingdon Court Park and Harefield Green. 1059 attendances between April and December 2025, 83% of the participants have been female Benefit to Residents - Increased use of green spaces in the Borough – feeling safe while exercising in a group and an improved knowledge of the area in which they live in. - Increased levels of fitness and mobility - Managing long term health conditions or weight without medical invention. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public “The Our Parks classes have become my weekly escape...We have now formed a family, and honestly, I would have never known how enjoyable exercise could be!” Couch to 5k: 18+ although younger participants (secondary school age) have been accepted with adult supervision. Couch to 5K is a n 8-week coach led running plan for absolute beginners which helps them to gradually work up towards running 5 kilometres. This supported programme aids residents to build confidence in exercising independently and in their local area Demonstration of Inclusivity Outputs and Impact Predominantly attended by women, these sessions are free for participants to attend and located in an area of deprivation or where inactivity levels are lowest. Sessions are regularly attended by service users such as Talking Therapies and used by patients referred by their GPs. For each course, an average of 30 participants (over 70% who have not exercised for more than 30 mins a week) attend per course. 9 local volunteers upskilled to expand capacity and access. Benefit to Residents "I was struggling with mental health. In August I decided to start running again after 10 years, I joined the HHRR C25K programme which I successfully completed ..HHRR are an amazing group of people with a mixture of different running capabilities and made me feel welcome. They have given me the confidence to keep on running and I’m now a member of the club. I’m looking forward to signing up to runs in the future with HHRR and I can confidently say that without the club I would still be struggling with my mental health. “ " Thanks for all your support these 8 weeks, I couldn't have achieved the run without the group” FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Hillingdon Public Health Grant has funded the Sport and Physical Activity programme. The total funding allocation which includes provision for all age delivery, is up to £250k. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS NIL BACKGROUND PAPERS NIL Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public APPENDIX A Figure 1: Levels of Physical Activity: Hillingdon and London Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public Figure 2: Physical Activity Levels for London over 8 Academic years Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public Figure 3: Physical Activity Levels for Hillingdon over 8 Academic years Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public Figure 4: Physical Activity Levels for Boys This shows that boys levels of activity is slightly lower than the London average: 50.1% London and 46% Hillingdon Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public Figure 5: Physical Activity Levels for Girls This shows the levels of activity for girls in Hillingdon is like the London Average: 44.4% London and 44.1% Hillingdon

Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public UPDATE REPORT - REVIEW OF HOMELESS PREVENTION AND THE CUSTOMER JOURNEY Committee name Residents’ Services Select Committee Officer reporting Adam Stephenson Papers with report None Ward All HEADLINES In June 2025 Cabinet received and welcomed the final report detailing the major review conducted by the Residents’ Services Se lect Committee which considered Homeless Prevention and the Customer Journey . This report provides a progress update on the implementation of the recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Committee: 1. Notes the progress in implementing the Committee’s recommendations relating to the major Homeless Prevention and Customer Journey Review. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. During 2024 the Council’s Residents’ Services Select Committee undertook a major review of homeless prevention, with a particular focus on the residents’ journey through the system and experience of customer service. The Committee’s primary aims were to identify ways to improve the experience of those presenting as homeless, to better manage their expectations, enhance satisfaction, streamline processes and ultimately provide improved support to prevent homelessness. The Committee was mindful of the need to find cost effective, workable solutions to improve performance going forward. In June 2025 Cabinet accepted and resolved to implement the Select Committee recommendations. Key findings 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 2. The Review was carried out at a time of immense pressure for homelessness services. Since 2022/23, homelessness presentations and demand for Temporary Accommodation (TA) have more than doubled, alongside continued increases in housing costs. The number of households in nightly-paid TA is forecast to stabilise at approximately 1,000 in 2026/27, with an estimated cost of £30m, even with the existing mitiga tions and service improvements in place. Without these mitigations and a service restructure, TA costs are projected to increase by a further £6.7m in 2026/27. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public 3. Since completing the review, interim management arrangements have been in place and work has been underway to take forward the following Medium-Term Financial Strategy ( MTFS) Action Plan Workstreams: 1: Increase prevention and reduce new TA placements 2: Increase access to alternative housing options 3: Reduce the cost of TA 4: Increase move-on into social housing 5: To deliver the MTFS programme through service modernisation 4. Workstream 5 includes a significant investment being made to restructure the service. The current service structure, which has remained largely unchanged since 2016, has not evolved in line with rising demand, legislative developments, or the increasing complex ity of cases. This has resulted in:  Unsustainably high caseloads, averaging approximately 60 per officer against a target of 30  A continued reliance on agency staff  Significant financial pressures 5. The existing structure is no longer sufficient to effe ctively manage demand, d eliver MTFS savings, meet statutory obligations, transition to a more proactive, prevention -focused and data-led service providing high quality services. 6. A new organisational structure is proposed and is being consulted on until 24 April 2026 to ensure the service is fit for purpose from 2026 onwards. The proposal includes an increase in staff and is designed to strengthen leadership, enhance operational capacity, and support long-term financial sustainability. 7. The proposed structure introduces enhanced senior leadership which will strengthen oversight and accountability, improve governance and data reporting, improve stability replacing interim leadership arrangements with permanent roles , and enhance supervision and decision making. 8. An increase in frontline staff will enable a reduction in caseloads towards a target of 30 , improve preventions activity and earlier interventions, enable faster and more consi stent decision-making and is a precursor to further enhancing outcomes and experience for residents. The introduction of clearer service pathways (e.g. Families and Specialist teams) will also support more consistent case management and improved support for complex cases. 9. Additional benefits from the proposed restructure are:  Strengthened Private Rented Sector (PRS) Function – significant expansion of PRS procurement and Home Finder functions  Enhanced T A Management – dedicated and expanded teams to improve operational oversight and resilience  Expanded Allocations Service – strengthened team to reduce backlogs, i mprove policy compliance and decision-making and improve customer experience  Modernisation and Strategic Capacity – dedicated modernisation and strategy functions to support the transition to a more data-driven and compliant service Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public 10. The Cabinet meeting on 19 March 2026 approved Hillingdon’s Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy for 2026 – 2030 following a statutory homelessness review and consultation with residents, staff and partner organisations. Cabinet will receive annual progress updates. The strategy places prevention a t its core, recog nising that preventing homelessness is the best outcome for residents and the most sust ainable way to manage TA pressures. It has a strengthened focus on resident centred services , early intervention, access to safe and sustainable housing, clearer pathways for rough sleepers and vulnerable residents and improved use of data and performance moni toring. The Homelessness Strategy has taken account of the findings of the Select Committee Review of Homelessness Prevention and the Customer Journey and these have been reflected in the Vision and Strategic Priorities and elsewhere in the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy. 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.  Sound financial management, ensuring that resources are used effectively and sustainably to maximise impact.  Empowerment and partnership , helping res idents 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. Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategic Priorities 1. Resident focussed homelessness services 2. Early and sustained prevention of homelessness 3. Support access to safe suitable and sustainable accommodation 4. Targeted housing pathways for single homeless, rough sleepers and other groups 5. Modern, data-led and cost effective services 11. The development of the Homele ssness and Rough Sleeping Strategy is aligned with the MTFS workstreams. The Strategy implementation, MTFS workstream delivery and the completion of the Service Restruc ture will provide the direction, governance and capacity to Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public carry out the Select Committee Review recommendations. Progress to date is shown in the following section. Select Committee Review Recommendations and Progress Update Enhancing Resident Experience 1. All staff to refer to those applicants who approach the service for help as ‘residents’ rather than ‘customers’ or ‘clients’. This has been adopted across the service. 2. Create a clearer Residents’ Charter: a more accessible guide explaining each stage of the homelessn ess support process for new applicants, from intake to case closure. This guide will set expectations, reduce confusion, and address common questions. Consider new technologies for instant translation requirements. Development of a Residents’ Charter has been included as an action in our Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy which was approved by Cabinet in March 2026. This will be completed during 2026/27. The service uses a translation service. Case processing targets are now embedded in the service. 3. Reconfigure the Housing Reception Centre to provide a more welcoming and empathetic environment within existing budget plans. The service is transitioning to a more proactive appointments based system rather than the previous reactive service. 4. Continue unannounced random checks/management oversight of calls and correspondence ensure a high -quality, professional, empathetic, and resident focused service. The service is operating on this basis. 5. Continue to gather feedback from residents regarding homeles sness services using a simple anonymous feedback form. This will be established during 2026/27. 6. Actively promote the current suggestion box system to encourage staff to submit suggestions for improving service efficiency and resident interactions. The sug gestion box system is publicised periodically to encourage staff suggestions for improving services. Managing Expectations and Process Efficiency 1. Consider incorporating ways to help applicants check their eligibility online for assistance before applying formally. Preventative avoidance can stop unnecessary applications from those who are not entitled, saving time and resources for both the applicants and the Council. The Council’s web pages have been update d to incorporate additional information regarding homelessness and housing options. These will be reviewed again over the coming year. 2. For applicants in the process, to avoid processing delays, to explore the possibility of using automated text reminders for appointments and deadlines. This is not done at present but will be kept under review. 3. Explore the feasibility of introducing a self- check-in system for applicants at reception linked to service transformation. This w ill be considered in line with budget availability. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public 4. Continue to review and update current documentation, guides and resident facing processes in relation to eligibility, case preparation and action planning. The first priority within the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy is Resident Focused Homelessness Services , reflecting our commitment to deliver homelessness services that are compassionate and empowering and to be responsive to the needs of our residents. Our Strategy has three goals under this priority:  Residents are clear about their rights and responsibilities and are respected, understood and supported  Staff are equipped to provide excellent services  Strengthening Partnerships Staff Support and Training 1. Ensure all Housing staff receive regular casework supervision and promote current Staff Welfare policies. This is part of our working process. T eam management has been increased to provide the capacity to do this and is being further strengthened as part of the current restructure. 2. Consider implementing a comprehensive peer support and training pro gramme in collaboration with a partner organisation. This programme should include access to peer mentors with lived experience of homelessness and offer refresher training to staff. The training should also incorporate 'walk-in-my-shoes' sessions to build understanding and connection with residents. A comprehensive training programme will be implemented as part of the modernisation programme and restructure. 3. Create a learning set of resources for staff to encourage the sharing of good practice. This will also be implemented as part of the modernisation programme and restructure. Partnerships and Collaboration 1. Build on existing partnerships and further develop these with local organisations to create a wider support network for residents to access. A Homelessness Forum was held 9 February 2026 as part of the consultation for th e Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy. This will continue to be held on at least an annual basis. The modernisation programme and restructure will build on existing partnership arrangements. 2. Assign named officers to be liaisons for relevant partner agencies for accountability and, to aid effective communications going forward, introduce a generic email as the primary contact and communication tool This will be done as part of the modernisation programme and restructure. Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 2026 Classification: Public between them and the Council. PERFORMANCE DATA The following Key Performance Targets are included for Strategic Priority 1 of the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy – Resident focussed homelessness services.  Number of Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaints and resolution time  Number/percentage of reviews upheld  Number/percentage of triage cases over 14 days  Number/percentage of relief duty cases over 56 days  Number/percentage of cases with Personal Housing Plan  Annual Personal Housing Plan review for main duty cases RESIDENT BENEFIT Implementation of the review recommendations will improve the experience of residents when they approach the Council for help in relation to homelessness. BACKGROUND PAPERS Select Committee Review Homelessness and the Customer Journey Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Review 2025 Hillingdon Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2026 to 2030

Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 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 – 22 April 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 – 22 April 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) 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 23 April Cllr Steve Tuckwell - Planning, Housing Growth / Cllr Jonathan Bianco - Corporate Services & Property Residents' Services Sam Strong Dan Kennedy 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 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 * BOROUGH LOCAL ELECTIONS - 7 MAY 2026 * APRIL 2026 MAY 2026 Decision-Maker Cabinet Member Lead & Officers 1 Status Ref Business Item Further information Ward(s) NEW ITEM CABINET meeting Cabinet Member Shareholder Committee Full COUNCIL Cabinet Member(s) Responsible Relevant Select Committee Report Author Corporate Director Responsible Public or Private (with reason) Decision-Maker Cabinet Member Lead & Officers SI 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 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 25 June TBC Residents' Services Gavin Polkinghorn Dan Kennedy Private (3) 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 25 June TBC TBC TBC Gavin Polkinghorn Dan Kennedy Public JUNE 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 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 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 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 127 Provision of Tree Maintenance Service Following a procurement competitive process, Cabinet will consider a contract recommendation for a tree maintenance service which also include provision for reactive tree maintenance. N/A NEW ITEM 23 July TBC TBC Sophie Coughlan and Allison Mayo Dan Kennedy Private (3) 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 23 July TBC TBC Sam Strong / Debbie Weller Dan Kennedy Public JULY 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 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 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 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) 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 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, which may be ratified at Cabinet later. 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 for capital spend and projects requires formal Member approval over £100k (or may be referred to the Cabinet) 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 Each month, Cabinet Members will consider a number of petitions received by local residents and decide on future action. Some petitions may be referred to a Petition Hearing where the lead petitioner and ward councillors can have their say directly to the Cabinet Member. These hearings will be scheduled on the Council's meeting calendar. 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 Procurement Decisions To accept quotations, tenders, contract extensions and contract variations valued between £100k and £750k 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) 5 Status Ref Business Item Further information Ward(s) NEW ITEM CABINET meeting Cabinet Member Shareholder Committee Full COUNCIL Cabinet Member(s) Responsible Relevant Select Committee Report Author Corporate Director Responsible Public or Private (with reason) Decision-Maker Cabinet Member Lead & Officers SI 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 Constitution. 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 under this initiative. 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 6

Residents’ Services Select Committee – 22 April 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 – 22 April 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 longer coming to my SC Monthly Budget and Spend Report (Dan, Steve Muldoon, Matt Davis, Ceri and Nish) 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 and nuisance (SW) X Review of Statement of Gambling Policy - policy framework consultation Sport for Young People - how the Council encourages participation in deprived areas - 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 2026 HS2 Site Visit Dogs Trust Residents' Services Select Committee