Residents' Services SC

Lloyd White Head of Democratic Services London Borough of Hillingdon, 3E/05, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW www.hillingdon.gov.uk Residents' Services Select Committee Councillors on the Committee Councillor Peter Smallwood OBE (Chair) Councillor Daniel Singham (Vice-Chair) Councillor Kamal Preet Kaur (Labour Lead) Councillor Tommy Balaam Councillor Navnit Dhesi Councillor Riley Russell Councillor Paul Capps Date: WEDNESDAY, 9 SEPTEMBER 2026 Time: 7.00 PM Venue: CR6 Meeting Details: The public and press are welcome to attend and observe the meeting. For safety and accessibility, security measures will be conducted, including searches of individuals and their belongings. Attendees must also provide satisfactory proof of identity upon arrival. Refusal to comply with these requirements will result in non- admittance. This meeting may be broadcast on the Council’s YouTube channel. You can also view this agenda online at www.hillingdon.gov.uk Published: Tuesday, 1 September 2026 Contact: Liz Penny, Democratic Services Officer Email: epenny@hillingdon.gov.uk Useful information for residents and visitors Travel and parking Bus routes 427, U1, U3, U4 and U7 all stop at the Civic Centre. Uxbridge underground station, with the Piccadilly and Metropolitan lines, is a short walk away. Limited parking is available at the Civic Centre. For details on availability and how to book a parking space, please contact Democratic Services. Please enter from the Council’s main reception where you will be directed to the Committee Room. Accessibility An Induction Loop System is available for use in the various meeting rooms. Please contact us for further information. Attending, reporting and filming of meetings For the public part of this meeting, residents and the media are welcomed to attend, and if they wish, report on it, broadcast, record or film proceedings as long as it does not disrupt proceedings. It is recommended to give advance notice to ensure any particular requirements can be met. The Council will provide a seating area for residents/public, an area for the media and high speed WiFi access to all attending. The officer shown on the front of this agenda should be contacted for further information and will be available at the meeting to assist if required. Kindly ensure all mobile or similar devices on silent mode. Please note that the Council may also record or film this meeting and publish this online. Emergency procedures If there is a FIRE, you will hear a continuous alarm. Please follow the signs to the nearest FIRE EXIT and assemble on the Civic Centre forecourt. Lifts must not be used unless instructed by a Fire Marshal or Security Officer. In the event of a SECURITY INCIDENT, follow instructions issued via the tannoy, a Fire Marshal or a Security Officer. Those unable to evacuate using the stairs, should make their way to the signed refuge locations. Terms of Reference Residents’ Services Select Committee To undertake the overview and scrutiny role in relation to the following Cabinet Member portfolio(s) and service areas: Remit Cabinet Portfolios Officer Directorates Service Areas Residents Services Residents Services Green Spaces Crematorium Services Waste Services Highways (incl. Highways strategic assessment & safety, Highways Policy and infrastructure including EV) Transportation (incl. road safety, traffic management and parking management schemes) Car Park operations, street parking Fleet Management Library Services Leisure Services Theatres, Museums & Cultural Services Adult Social Care & Health Mortuary Community, Environment & Enforcement Residents Services Climate Action / Air Quality Flooding & watercourses Environmental Projects Planning Enforcement Community Safety & Cohesion CCTV Anti-Social Behaviour Street Scene Enforcement Trading Standards, Environmental Health & Licensing (incl. Safety of Sports Grounds) Imported Food Office Parking Enforcement Emergency Response Strategic Climate Action Plan (cross-cutting) Voluntary Sector (cross-cutting) Corporate Services, Resident Experience (cross-cutting) Digital & Transformation STATUTORY COMMITTEE Statutory Crime and Disorder Scrutiny This Committee will act as a Crime and Disorder Committee as defined in the Crime and Disorder (Overview and Scrutiny) Regulations 2009 and carry out the bi-annual scrutiny of decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge by the responsible authorities of their crime and disorder functions. Duty of partners to attend and provide information The Crime and Disorder (Overview and Scrutiny) Regulations 2009 permits this Select Committee to make a request in writing for information to bodies who form the local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (Safer Hillingdon Partnership), which includes the Police. The Committee should scrutinise the work of the partnership at least once a year and may also require the attendance before it of an officer or employee of a responsible authority or of a co-operating person or body in order to answer questions. The Committee may not require a person to attend unless reasonable notice of the intended date of attendance has been given to that person. Members Agenda 1 Apologies for Absence 2 Declarations of interest in matters coming before this meeting 3 To receive the minutes of the previous meeting 1 - 10 4 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 Part I - Members, Public and Press 5 Woodland Management 11 - 22 6 Safer Hillingdon Partnership Performance 23 - 32 7 Environmental Enforcement Service To Follow 8 Proposed Review Scoping Report - Unlocking Hillingdon Heritage: Growing Membership, Engagement and Income 33 - 44 9 Forward Plan 45 - 50 10 Work Programme 51 - 54

Minutes RESIDENTS' SERVICES SELECT COMMITTEE 9 September 2026 Meeting held at Committee Members Present: Councillors Peter Smallwood (Chair), Daniel Singham (Vice -Chair), Kamal Preet Kaur (Labour Lead), Tommy Balaam, Navnit Dhesi, Riley Russell and Paul Capps Officers Present: Dan Kennedy (Corporate Director of Residents Services) Liz Penny (Democratic Services Officer) Davina Smith (Head of Community Safety & Resilience) Fiona Sweet (Museums & Heritage Manager) Ian Thynne (Head of Environmental Specialists) Richard Webb (Director Community Safety & Enforcement) and Chris Wheeler (Director of Environment) Chris Wheeler (Director of Environment) Others Present: Supt. Albon-Massey (Metropolitan Police) Mark Morgan (Treasurer / Chair to Ruislip Woods Trust) 186. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) There were no apologies for absence. 187. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) There were no declarations of interest. 188. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 7 July 2026 be approved. 189. TO CONFIRM THAT THE ITEMS OF BUSINESS MARKED AS PART I WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC AND THOSE MARKED PART II WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PRIVATE (Agenda Item 4) It was confirmed that all items of business were marked Part I and would be considered in public. 190. WOODLAND MANAGEMENT (Agenda Item 5) Ian Thynne (Head of Environmental Specialists), Chris Wheeler (Director of Environment) and Mark Morgan (Treasurer/Chair to Ruislip Woods Trust) were in attendance t o present their reports and respond to any questions or requests for clarification from the Committee. Mr Morgan outlined his extensive involvement with Ruislip Woods over more than 40 years, including 27 years managing the Local Nature Reserve. Members heard that, during this time, he had developed management plans, established the Friends of Ruislip Nature Reserve, secured funding, led monthly volunteer workdays and actively participated in the Ruislip Woods Management Advisory Group. The Committee was informed that, since 2013, Mr Morgan had served as Treasurer of Ruislip Woods Trust and had also been Chair since 2018. It was explained that Ruislip Woods Trust had been established in 1997 in response to concerns that there were insufficient resources t o properly manage the woods and that existing advisory bodies lacked the ability to influence decision -making or hold funds. The Trust, which was a non -political charity made up largely of neighbouring residents' associations, had been created to provide a stronger voice for the woods and to raise and manage funds independently. It was noted that the Trust had played an active role in seeking solutions to the long - term funding and management of Ruislip Woods. In 1999 it had initiated discussions with the Council and commissioned reports to help identify future management options, including exploring partnerships with organisations such as the National Trust, Woodland Trust and the Corporation of London. Although funding and staffing levels had improved duri ng the early 2000s, subsequent budget reductions had led to a gradual decline in resources as staff had not been replaced when they left or retired. Mr Morgan expressed concern that the woods were now facing challenges similar to those experienced in the late 1990s, with insufficient resources available to maintain the standards expected of a Site of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserve. He therefore reiterated the Trust's support for exploring partnership arrangements to help secure the long-term future of the woodland. Mr Morgan also highlighted the significant role played by volunteers, who regularly assist the woodland ranger with practical conservation work. He thanked Councillors and officers who had supported efforts to develop pa rtnership opportunities and acknowledged the important contribution made by local volunteers. Finally, Mr Morgan described a recent collaborative project with Affinity Water to restore grassland adjacent to the National Nature Reserve. Members heard that the project had already delivered substantial habitat improvements and biodiversity benefits, with surveys recording more than 400 insect species. It was confirmed that Affinity Water had also offered funding for further projects within the woods, includin g hedgelaying work at Copse Wood, with the Trust coordinating materials and volunteers. Mr Morgan noted that this project was one of several successful initiatives supported by the Trust over the years, including the refurbishment of the Woodland Centre and other improvements to the reserve. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Morgan explained that Ruislip Woods comprised approximately 755 acres and contained a diverse range of habitats, including ancient, coppiced hornbeam woodland, species -rich grassland, and a variety of notable birds, insects and plant species. He highlighted the significance of the site's designations as both a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a National Nature Reserve (NNR), noting that these reflected its ec ological importance and the need for ongoing management to protect its biodiversity. Mr Morgan expressed concern that inadequate resources were resulting in some habitats, particularly grassland, becoming degraded and stressed the importance of maintaining the site's conservation status for the benefit of Hillingdon residents and future generations. Mr Morgan also advised that failure to manage the site appropriately could result in intervention from Natural England and potentially lead to additional costs for the Council. He emphasised that considerable efforts by volunteers and the Council had secured the National Nature Reserve designation and that it was important to retain this status. When asked about external partnerships, Mr Morgan outlined the Tru st's history of working with organisations including Colne Valley Regional Park. He referred to the successful Landscape on the Edge Lottery -funded project and explained that funding from the National Lottery, Entrust and the Council had contributed to the refurbishment of the Woodland Centre, which had reopened in September 2021. He also noted that discussions were taking place regarding a further lottery -funded project in the Colne Valley area, including potential improvements to Bayhurst Wood. Mr Morgan explained that establishing strong relationships with partner organisations had enabled opportunities for external funding and project development. He added that the Trust had also received donations from local businesses and residents and had used these funds to support practical initiatives, including the purchase of tools and equipment for volunteers, thereby providing additional support for the management of Ruislip Woods. In response to questions from the Committee regarding the Trust's relationship with the Council, Mr Morgan advised that positive working relationships had been established with officers, including Jordan Groves, Chris Wheeler and, more recently, Sophie Coughlan. These officers were described as proactive, supportive and willing to collaborate on projects within Ruislip Woods, including works at Copse Wood and initiatives relating to the Woodland Centre. Mr Morgan stated that the service provided had improved significantly compared with previous years, during which engagement with officers had been more challenging. When asked to assess the Council's performance in delivering its statutory responsibilities for managing the National Nature Reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest, including activities such as grassland management , coppicing and footpath maintenance, Mr Morgan advised that performance varied across different areas. Grassland management was assessed at approximately three out of ten due to the absence of conservation grazing for three years and the encroachment of s crub and secondary woodland. Coppicing was assessed at approximately one out of ten because no coppicing work had been undertaken for around five years. In contrast, maintenance of statutory footpaths was assessed more favourably, at around eight out of ten, reflecting the work undertaken by volunteers in partnership with the woodland ranger. Mr Morgan advised that natural flood management was outside his area of expertise and therefore no comment was offered on that aspect. Members observed that the discu ssion had highlighted areas where improvements were required and noted that officers were now aware of many of the concerns that had been raised. Mr Morgan offered to provide further information and more detailed evidence if required, noting that his written report had been intentionally concise. A question was raised regarding what the Trust could realistically contribute over the next year and what practical support could be provided by the Council. Mr Morgan advised that the Trust had helped establish a nd support the Classroom in the Woods programme, which had originally been delivered by the woodland officer. Discussions had been held with officers regarding alternative funding mechanisms to sustain and expand the programme. It was suggested that, were sufficient resources available, the appointment of an Education Officer and daily opening of the Woodland Centre would significantly enhance educational provision. Mr Morgan explained that grant funding had previously been sought to support such a role, al though an appointment had not been made. In response, officers advised that work was currently underway to commission a revised Woodland Management Plan. It was anticipated that the plan would help secure additional external funding and support the develo pment of new management approaches for the site. Officers also clarified that, although the original grant funding for the Woodland Centre had ended, access to the facility had been facilitated for individuals who continued to deliver educational activitie s independently. It was explained that the Council's approach was to support volunteer and community initiatives wherever possible and seek external funding opportunities in addition to utilising existing Council resources. Members sought clarification on the expected timetable for the new Woodland Management Plan. Officers advised that the inception meeting with the appointed contractors had taken place and that preparatory work was underway. Site visits involving the Trust were expected to commence short ly. While no definitive completion date could be provided, it was anticipated that a draft management plan would be available for consultation around the New Year, with adoption potentially taking place during the following spring. Officers emphasised that the plan would be developed collaboratively with the Trust and other stakeholders. Further questions were asked regarding the purpose and operation of the Woodland Centre. It was explained that the facility supported the Classroom in the Woods programme by providing both indoor and outdoor educational experiences for visiting school groups. The centre had been developed through substantial external fundraising and was designed as an interpretive facility to help visitors learn more about the woodland environment. It was acknowledged that public access was currently limited, with the centre open only at specific times due to funding and staffing constraints. When asked about public uptake of the Woodland Centre, Mr Morgan advised that visitor numbers of ar ound 10 to 12 people had been observed during public opening sessions. He further explained that the Trust organised several bat walks each year, attracting up to 30 participants at a time. These events began at the Woodland Centre and provided opportunities for visitors of all ages to access educational displays, maps, interactive exhibits and information relating to local wildlife and habitats. A concern was raised by Members regarding the reduction in staffing levels from four officers to one and how fu ture staffing needs would be addressed through the management plan. Officers acknowledged that increased staffing would be beneficial but advised that the future model was unlikely to rely solely on direct Council staffing. Instead, the revised management plan would examine opportunities for delivery through partnerships with external organisations and stakeholders. It was stated that a more collaborative approach would be pursued in future, reflecting changing resources and circumstances. Members also enq uired whether partnership arrangements with organisations such as the National Trust and Woodland Trust, which had been explored previously, could be revisited. It was confirmed that other Council -owned woodland sites were already managed through partnersh ips with organisations such as the Woodland Trust and Wildlife Trust. It was stated that comparable arrangements could be considered as part of the management planning process, although no commitments could be made at that stage. Mr Morgan highlighted the potential benefits of the Trust's relationship with Affinity Water, noting that funding had already been secured for hedge -laying works at Copse Wood and that further opportunities for financial support may become available in the future. He suggested that these relationships demonstrated how external funding could contribute to implementing woodland improvements. Councillors subsequently raised questions regarding stakeholder involvement in developing the new Woodland Management Plan and whether the Trus t and advisory bodies had been adequately consulted. Mr Morgan advised that the Trust had initiated a multi -stakeholder meeting in June 2025 due to concerns regarding woodland management and staffing levels. Representatives from the Council, councillors, t he Woodland Trust, the local Member of Parliament and other organisations had been invited to attend. It was explained that this meeting had helped stimulate discussions that ultimately led to the commissioning of the revised management plan. Officers confirmed that the Trust had been invited to provide input into the tendering process and that future site visits and discussions with trustees would form part of the next phase of work. It was emphasised that the expertise and local knowledge held by the Trust would be an important component of the partnership approach. Mr Morgan also referred to the role previously undertaken by the Ruislip Woods Management Advisory Group and expressed concern that Council representation had not attended meetings since Octo ber 2023. In response, officers advised that initial engagement would focus on the Trust before considering how wider partnerships and advisory arrangements should be developed as the management plan progressed. In concluding the discussion, the Chair pro posed that the Committee receive a written update within six months on progress with the Woodland Management Plan. It was also suggested that a collaborative forum be re -established involving the Trust, advisory groups and other interested parties in order to strengthen partnership working, share expertise and explore external funding opportunities and examples of good practice from comparable sites. It was agreed that the Corporate Director for Residents Services would lead on this. The Chair thanked Mr Morgan for his contribution, recognising both the expertise he had brought to the discussion and the constructive manner in which concerns had been presented. Appreciation was also expressed for the work undertaken by the Ruislip Woods Trust, volunteers and partner organisations. Mr Morgan thanked the Committee for the opportunity to present the Trust's case and expressed his hope that positive progress could be made through continued partnership working. RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Commi ttee noted the verbal update on Ruislip Woods Trust, reviewed the information in the officer report and commented or sought clarifications as appropriate. 191. SAFER HILLINGDON PARTNERSHIP PERFORMANCE (Agenda Item 6) Richard Webb, Director of Community Safety and Enforcement; Davina Smith, Head of Community Safety and Resilience and Superintendent Jacob Albon -Massey of the Metropolitan Police were in attendance to present the report and respond to Members’ questions and requests for clarification. The Chair opened the item by recognising the contribution of former police representative Ben Wright. Appreciation for his service was expressed, and it was requested that these comments be passed on to him in his new role at Heathrow Airport. Superintendent Jacob Albon -Massey, who had responsibility for uniformed policing across Hillingdon, introduced the Safer Hillingdon Partnership Performance report. He highlighted several key challenges currently affecting the Metropolitan Police. Significant budgetary pressures were reported, with an affordability gap anticipated for the following year. It was explained that substantial savings had already been achieved over the previous decade through measures including the disposal of police buildings and the use of reserves, making further savings increasingly difficult to identify. While no decisions had yet been taken, it was considered unlikely that local uniformed policing would be significantly affected. The impact of international conflicts on p olicing in London was also discussed. It was explained that large -scale protests held across the capital during the first part of the year had required substantial police resources and had resulted in officers being abstracted from their local duties. Although protest-related demand had reduced during the summer months, it was noted that international developments could result in further activity in the future. Reference was also made to recent legislative and sentencing changes, including early prisoner release arrangements and revisions to remand criteria. It was explained that, although the full impact of these changes had yet to become apparent, a greater number of offenders were likely to be present within the community. Particular concern was expressed regarding offences such as shoplifting and burglary, where offenders who might previously have been remanded in custody were now more likely to be released pending court proceedings. It was noted that the effects of these changes would continue to be monitored and reported upon. Turning to local performance, the Superintendent reported that police demand within Hillingdon had increased, with incidents attended rising by 4.7% compared to the same period in the previous financial year. Despite this increas e in demand, neighbourhood crime had reduced by 11.2%. This category included offences such as personal robbery, theft from the person, residential burglary, vehicle theft and theft from motor vehicles. Improvements had been recorded across most offence ca tegories, although residential burglary had increased by 24.5%. Shoplifting offences had also increased by 15%; however, this increase was attributed in part to improved reporting by retailers and enhanced confidence in police responses. It was reported t hat positive outcomes for shoplifting offences had improved significantly, with strong prosecution and detection rates being achieved across parts of the Borough. The Committee was also advised that stop and search activity had increased by 24.2% over the preceding 12 months. Positive outcomes arising from stop and search had likewise improved, with criminality being detected in nearly 40% of cases. It was further reported that body-worn video was used in almost all stop and search encounters and that external monitoring arrangements remained in place to ensure accountability and provide opportunities for public scrutiny. In concluding his presentation, the Superintendent advised that policing demand within Hillingdon continued to grow and that external pr essures, including international events, protests and budgetary constraints, remained significant challenges. Nevertheless, reductions in neighbourhood crime and improvements in enforcement outcomes demonstrated strong local performance despite those pressures. Members thanked the Superintendent for the report and sought clarification on a range of crime and community safety issues. A question was raised as to whether serious violence figures included hate crime offences. It was confirmed that they did an d that reported hate crime had decreased by 2.9% during the current financial year. Members also asked about preparedness for large-scale protests similar to those seen elsewhere in the country. It was advised that intelligence relating to protest activity was monitored daily, there was currently limited intelligence of concern for Hillingdon, and sufficient public order resources were available across London to respond if required. Concern was expressed regarding the increase in residential burglary. Memb ers asked about the causes of the rise and what actions were being taken to reduce offending. It was explained that the increase had reduced from approximately 36% to 24.5%, although it remained a key concern. Factors contributing to the increase included comparison against unusually low figures from the previous year, the accessibility of outer London boroughs via major road networks, and a burglary series involving properties under renovation, which had since been disrupted following an arrest and charge. Targeted burglary patrols continued to be undertaken and the importance of crime prevention measures by residents was highlighted. Members welcomed the positive progress reported in relation to shoplifting and sought further detail regarding policing act ivity. It was explained that enforcement efforts had been refocused on prolific offenders and that Hillingdon had secured the highest number of Criminal Behaviour Orders in London. The use of the Aura reporting platform by retailers was also highlighted, e nabling quicker reporting, submission of CCTV evidence and improved identification of repeat offenders through technology. Questions were raised by the Committee regarding violence against women and girls, including offence trends, current initiatives and how the Council could support the work. It was reported that relevant offences had reduced by 2.8% during the current financial year. A range of partnership activity was outlined, including hotspot analysis, Project Vigilant deployments, environmental imp rovements through design -out-crime reviews and the development of a Council reporting tool for safety concerns. It was reported that additional funding opportunities were also being explored through the Mayor's Office. Members queried whether the reduction in offences relating to violence against women and girls could be attributed to under -reporting. It was explained that reporting levels had previously increased as confidence grew and had now stabilised. A number of initiatives continued to be delivered to encourage reporting, including Walk and Talk events with female police officers. The Chair requested that Councillors be notified of future events. Questions were asked regarding custody provision following the closure of facilities at Uxbridge Police Station. It was confirmed that custody facilities had not operated there for around ten years and that detainees were generally taken to Heathrow or Acton, although other custody suites were sometimes required. It was acknowledged that transporting detaine es removed officers from frontline duties for several hours and remained a significant operational challenge. Members also sought clarification as to how neighbourhood policing was being protected when officers were redeployed elsewhere. It was advised th at ward officer staffing levels remained strong at approximately 93% and were protected through specific Home Office funding, although major public order events could still require officers to be drawn away temporarily. Further questions were asked about police visibility and updates provided to victims. It was explained that some policing activity was highly visible while other operations were conducted covertly or in plain clothes. Members heard that victims should receive updates every 28 days in accord ance with the Victims' Code of Practice, and new reporting systems were being implemented to improve compliance. The effectiveness of the Safer Hillingdon Partnership was discussed. It was reported that the partnership was working effectively, with partne rs sharing information and coordinating activity. Significant improvements had been made to data sharing arrangements, although further work was required to translate intelligence into clear actions and measurable outcomes. Members were encouraged to advi se residents to report both crime and community safety concerns, as this information was essential in identifying problem areas and directing resources effectively. Councillors raised a question regarding the long -standing proposal to separate Heathrow Airport crime data from borough -wide crime statistics. It was acknowledged that Heathrow accounted for around 20% of recorded crime in Hillingdon and could distort overall figures. Work was ongoing to develop a solution that would allow Heathrow offences to be reported separately, although no implementation date could yet be confirmed. Concerns were also raised by the Committee regarding communication with residents and crime victims. It was explained that Met Engage was now the primary communication platfor m used to provide updates and crime prevention advice, with Hillingdon having one of the highest subscription rates in London. Challenges remained in communicating information quickly where incidents generated significant public interest, particularly thro ugh social media. Members were advised that a new crime management process was expected to improve communication with victims and ensure earlier decisions were made regarding whether crimes would be investigated. Finally, members asked about the value of ward panels. It was considered that ward panels remained an important mechanism for residents to influence local policing priorities and communicate concerns. While the model might require review in the future, it was reported that panels were operating ef fectively across almost all wards in the Borough and continued to provide a valuable link between local communities and the police. RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the information in the report and commented (or sought clarification) as appropriate. 192. ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT SERVICE (Agenda Item 7) Richard Webb, Director of Community Safety and Enforcement and Davina Smith, Head of Community Safety and Resilience were in attendance to respond to Members’ questions in relation to the Environmental Enforcement Service update report. Enquiry was made by a Councillor as to whether any significant terms or operational hours had changed following the contract renewal with the external provider, APCOA. It was confirmed by officers that the specification for the contract had been thoroughly reviewed prior to the tendering process in the previous year. A decision had been made to keep the core terms, operating hours, and staffing levels substantially similar to the previous agreement. Consequently, no major changes had been introduced. Members sought clarification as to why fly -tipping was not prominently featured in the enforcement data for Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs), given that it consistently represented a t op priority within ward casework. It was explained that investigations into fly-tipping - utilising CCTV or evidence submitted by members of the public - were managed directly by the in -house Council team rather than the contracted external service. The ext ernal provider was deployed primarily for on -street enforcement. Officers from the external service could only issue an FPN if an offender was caught in the act, which was described as an exceptionally rare occurrence. Although two such incidents had been intercepted during the previous year, a directive had been issued not to issue FPNs. It was noted that issuing an FPN removed the opportunity for subsequent prosecution and prevented follow -up measures, such as the seizure of vehicles. As a result of the a lternative legal action taken, a vehicle had successfully been seized on one of those occasions. The Committee enquired whether tangible evidence existed to demonstrate that enforcement activities were successfully deterring repeat offences and fostering long- term behavioural change, as opposed to simply generating income. It was stated that data relating to the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) near Heathrow Airport served as the closest measurable metric. Members heard that, when the PSPO had initially been introduced, approximately 1,000 FPNs had been issued monthly to taxi and private hire drivers. While the volume remained high at around 500 notices per month, a specific three -month data review had revealed only approximately 20 repeat offenders ou t of an estimated 2,000 cases analysed. This indicated that while a continuous influx of new drivers was being penalised, previous offenders were generally not reoffending. Regarding other offences like littering, it was noted that data was more difficult to cross-reference comprehensively due to the administrative nature of on -the-spot fines. However, anecdotally, repetitive offending was not being widely reported by staff, suggesting the PSPO was functioning effectively as a deterrent. It was also asked whether the Council was utilising its discretionary powers to implement higher financial thresholds —such as the increased government limit of £5,000—to deter fly -tipping and prompt offenders to reconsider their actions. Committee members were informed that a comprehensive review of all discretionary fine levels had been conducted earlier that year by the then -Portfolio Holder, Councillor Bridges. It was clarified that statutory limits applied to certain fines, but for fly -tipping, the maximum allowable pena lties within the Council's discretion had been adopted. It was further explained that where an FPN was withheld in favour of prosecution, much higher penalties could be secured through the courts, though it was acknowledged that this legal process required a significantly longer timeframe to conclude. Concerns were raised regarding a perceived lack of internal willingness by civil enforcement officers to confront prolific street drinkers in known hotspots, such as Uxbridge High Street. Information was requ ested on how partnerships were being forged with the police and town centre teams to support staff and ensure fines were executed. It was explained that street drinking presented distinct enforcement challenges, as valid residential addresses were required for an FPN to be enforceable, rendering them largely ineffective against homeless individuals. Committee members were advised that a multi -agency approach was favoured instead. Joint operational days were regularly coordinated by the Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) team alongside the police, public health commission, substance misuse services, and homelessness outreach teams to address behavioural root causes over time. Members were informed that intelligence -gathering was being enhanced through the Council's CCTV infrastructure, which utilised facial recognition capabilities where possible to track recurrent offenders and identify high -frequency locations. Furthermore, the team was actively providing joint training and field support to new employees and APCOA personnel to alleviate anxieties associated with street-based enforcement. A request was made for specific examples where successful cross -departmental and partnership working had delivered positive environmental or enforcement outcomes. It was reported t hat at least one joint operational day was executed each month alongside the police and supporting services, with targets tailored to specific regional challenges. For instance, joint operations in Hayes Town Centre focused primarily on littering and stree t scene improvements. Conversely, recent operations in Uxbridge targeted the unlawful use of e -bikes and electric scooters. During these initiatives, numerous individuals had been stopped, advice delivered, and several vehicles had successfully been seized after examinations confirmed they had been unlawfully tampered with. It was noted that efforts were being made to publicise these outcomes to enhance public awareness. In response to further questions from the Committee, it was clarified that APCOA was often used for patrols in fly tipping hotspots to gather intelligence by monitoring and logging vehicles. It was explained that FPNs issued for offences such as fly tipping offered those who received them the option of paying the fine to avoid prosecution. Members sought further clarification regarding the 24 Code Yellow alerts referenced in the report and enquired about the support provided to affected APCOA officers. In response, it was acknowledged that the role of Environmental Enforcement Officers was inherently more confrontational than that of Civil Enforcement Officers issuing parking tickets. It was explained that officers, particularly when dealing with issues around Heathrow and taxi activity, were frequently subjected to verbal abuse, which could trigger a Code Yellow alert. In such cases, the Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) was supplemented by an obstruction or secondary PSPO offence, resulting in additional enforcement action. Officers were also encouraged to provide witness statements so that incidents could be referred to the police for investigation and, where appropriate, further action. At the request of Members, it was agreed that the Director of Community Safety and Enforcement would provide a more detailed breakdown of the enforcement figure s contained within the report, as only the principal enforcement categories had been presented. Members requested that future reports include a full breakdown of all enforcement categories and associated Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs), including further detail on specific categories such as motorised vehicle PSPO breaches. By way of example, Members asked whether such breaches related to abandoned vehicles or other offences. It was confirmed that this information could be provided and undertook to circulate a more detailed breakdown following the meeting. Members also requested that future reports include comparative baseline data, such as figures from previous quarters and years, to enable trends and performance to be more effectively assessed. Members enquired whether fly-tipped waste was routinely searched for evidence and, if so, how frequently this occurred. Officers advised that this activity was not formally recorded and therefore could not be quantified. It was noted that fly -tipped waste was often cle ared by waste collection services rather than enforcement teams; however, waste crews would also examine discarded material where appropriate when removing it and refer any evidence they obtained to the ASB team for investigation. In response to questions about whether such investigations had led to prosecutions, officers explained that establishing responsibility for fly -tipping could be challenging. While items such as letters or documents bearing an individual's name might be found within the waste, thi s alone would not constitute sufficient evidence to prove that person had committed the offence of depositing the waste themselves . Officers advised that they also utilised social media and other investigative methods to identify offenders where incidents had been captured on CCTV or other recordings; however, securing evidence strong enough to support enforcement action remained difficult unless the individual was caught in the act. Members emphasised the importance of demonstrating enforcement outcomes t o residents and suggested that greater publicity should be given to successful prosecutions and other positive results. Reference was made to practices adopted by neighbouring authorities, including the use of prominent signage. Officers confirmed that warning signs were already used extensively across Hillingdon, although additional visual approaches could be explored. It was noted that this formed part of the wider Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Review currently being undertaken. Officers further advised that some local authorities left fly -tipped waste in situ for a short period with signage indicating that the matter was under investigation, and that all available options were being considered as part of the review. The Committee was advised that it would receive a further update on the ASB Review in February 2027. RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee: 1. Noted the contents of the report regarding the Environmental Enforcement contract delivered by APCOA; and 2. Reviewed the information provided and commented or sought clarification as appropriate. 193. PROPOSED REVIEW SCOPING REPORT - UNLOCKING HILLINGDON HERITAGE: GROWING MEMBERSHIP, ENGAGEMENT AND INCOME (Agenda Item 8) Fiona Sweet, Museums and Heritage Manager, was in att endance to respond to any questions or requests for clarification from Members in relation to the Review Scoping Report. The Chair noted that a meeting had taken place with the Museum s and Heritage Manager earlier in the year, during which the opportunit y for full Committee scrutiny and support had been warmly welcomed. It was confirmed that a review on enforcement would be pursued in 2027, once new initiatives such as Love Clean Streets had had time to bed in. The Hillingdon H eritage offer was describ ed as a relatively new initiative with the potential to grow from strength to strength . Members were encouraged to visit the Uxbridge museum, and it was noted that specific archival material relating to individual wards could be prepared in advance upon request. The Museums and Heritage Manager stated that the Committee's interest was highly valued. It was explained that Hillingdon Heritage had been established to provide a unified framework for the Council's various heritage assets and collection services , thereby improving accessibility for residents who had previously found the system confusing. The Committee was informed that 280 events were being produced - encompassing activities for children and the elderly, in addition to weekly school workshops - and the Committee’s assistance was requested to help promote these services to residents. Councillor Kaur expressed support for the direction of the review and requested that information regarding upcoming events be shared with Councillors so they could distribute the details within their respective communities. The Museum s and Heritage Manager agreed to this request and reiterated that Members were welcome to visit any of the heritage sites at their convenience. RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Sele ct Committee commented on and considered the scoping report and agreed to initiate the policy review. 194. FORWARD PLAN (Agenda Item 9) Councillor Kaur enquired whether the Strategic Climate Action Plan, the TfL Local Implementation Plan submission, the West London Waste Plan (Policy Framework) and the Chrysalis Pro gramme list could be presented to the Select Committee either prior to or following submission to Cabinet. Democratic Services responded that a request for these documents coul d certainly be made. However, it was noted that such an arrangement would require clearance from the relevant Cabinet member, and a guarantee could not be provided at that stage. Democratic Services undertook to follow up on the matter, consult with office rs to determine when the documentation would be ready for potential review, and update the Committee accordingly. RESOLVED: That the Select Committee considered the Cabinet Forward Plan. 195. WORK PROGRAMME (Agenda Item 10) Democratic Services provided an update on the work programme, focusing primarily on upcoming site visits related to the heritage review. It was announced that a visit to the museum would take place in January prior to the Committee meeting. Additionally, Democratic Se rvices reported that arrangements were being made to visit Eastcote House Gardens and the Dovecote. Due to constraints with fading daylight and changing autumn weather, a date had been secured at short notice for the following week on Tuesday, 15 September at 09:30. Members were requested to notify Democratic Services of their availability for the two-hour visit. The Chair noted that while Eastcote House Gardens could be visited independently at any time, the scheduled group visit would provide specific ac cess to the Dovecote. Furthermore, the Chair informed the Committee that Democratic Services would circulate dates for additional site visits to include the Battle of Britain Bunker and Harmondsworth Barn. RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee considered the Work Programme report and agreed any amendments. The meeting, which commenced at 7.00 pm, closed at 8.53 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Liz Penny, Democratic Services Officer on epenny@hillingdon.gov.uk. Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, officers, the press and members of the public.