Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Burrows, Gill and Money. 

To receive the minutes of the meetings held on 24 February and 12 May 2022 (attached).

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meetings on 24 February 2022 and 12 May 2022 be agreed as correct records.

Councillor Jane Palmer declared a non pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 5.4, as Mr Armour was known to her, and stayed in the room during consideration thereof. 

The Mayor advised that she had attended 106 events since the last Council meeting.  Celebrations to commemorate the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee had included more than 100 street parties in Hillingdon which had been attended by the Mayor (along with her Consort or Escorts), Deputy Mayor and Past Mayors.  The Mayor thanked those Ward Councillors who had also attended these events which had brought the community together post-Covid.  Other events attended by the Mayor had included parlour visits, school council debates and the Project Search graduation, as well as visits to Hillingdon Hospital and Harefield Hospital. 

The Mayor advised that she would be holding 4-5 large fundraising events during the course of her mayoralty to raise money for her chosen charities: Daniella Logan Foundation and Magical Marvellous Picture House.  The first of these events would be a Bollywood night on 22 July 2022 where, for £20, guests would enjoy an Indian meal and entertainment from Jay Kumar. The Mayor encouraged everyone to buy a ticket. 

5.1       URGENT IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS

The recent urgent decisions taken were noted.

5.2       CHANGES TO COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS 2022/23

Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the recommendations as set out on the Order of Business and it was:

RESOLVED:  That the following changes to committee memberships for 2022/2023 be approved:

1.    (proposed by the Labour Group): Health and Social Care Select Committee – Councillor Nelson-West to replace Councillor Basit.

2.    (proposed by the Conservative Group): Licensing Committee – Councillors Reeta Chamdal and Smallwood to replace Councillors Choubedar and Lewis.

5.3       REVIEW OF COUNCIL CONSTITUTION

Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the recommendation as set out on the Order of Business and it was:

RESOLVED: That the proposed amendment to Standing Order 15 in the Council Procedure Rules regarding Adjournment Debates be approved.

5.4       STANDARDS COMMITTEE – APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT PERSON

Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the recommendation as set out on the Order of Business and it was:

RESOLVED: That Mr Graeme Armour be appointed as the Standards Committee Independent Person for a four-year period to July 2026.

Councillor Lavery moved, and Councillor Tuckwell seconded, the recommendations as set out on the Order of Business and it was:

RESOLVED: That:

a)       Following a review of all representations received, the Article 4 directions made on 26 July 2021 in relation to Classes AA, AB and ZA of Part 20 of the Schedule 2 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), be confirmed.

b)       Following a review of all representations received, the Article 4 direction made on 20 September 2021 in relation to Class MA of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), be confirmed.

c)       The Planning Services Manager be instructed to complete the relevant procedures associated with confirming Article 4 directions as outlined in Schedule 3 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), in order to ensure they come into force in line with recommendations 1 and 2.

d)       If the Secretary of State makes a direction to cancel or modify any of the aforementioned Article 4 directions, the Planning Services Manager be authorised to undertake all consequential amendments and procedures.

7.1       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BANERJEE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN:

“Can the Cabinet Member please advise why the Council built a family hub at the Civic Centre and, since it has opened, how has it been working for Hillingdon families?”

Councillor O’Brien advised that the Uxbridge Family Hub had been operating from the mezzanine floor at the Civic Centre since November 2021.  It had been based in a modern and open space and she suggested that the Members of the Children, Families and Education Select Committee arrange a visit.

The Hub provided a single point of contact for an array of integrated family services and enabled families to be directed to the right support to meet their needs (support which they might not previously have been aware of).  These services included: Youth Justice Service; Adolescent Development Services; trauma / loss groups; stay and play sessions for hearing impaired children; and 121 sessions between young people and their social workers. 

Since opening, the service had seen: 618 children and young people and 499 parents and carers.  Facilities available at the Hub included a relaxed and comfortable space for parental contact with children and a lifestyle kitchen. 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Banerjee asked how the Family Hub had been meeting the needs of children and young people.

Councillor O’Brien stated that the Uxbridge Family Hub provided mixed use of dynamic spaces for 121 and group services including: face to face counselling; a substance misuse programme; and household budgeting and maintenance sessions for care leavers.  The Hub facilitated specialists in one location and included victim/offender conferences.

7.2       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MAKWANA TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE, - COUNCILLOR GODDARD:

“Could the Cabinet Member please provide an update as to the latest financial position on the Dedicated Schools Grant?”

Councillor Goddard advised that the Council’s responsibility to provide support from birth to age 25 had been set out in legislation and had been funded by the Department of Education (DoE) through the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG).  Any deficit could not be met from general funds unless agreed by the Secretary of State. 

Following the introduction of the Children and Families Act, there had been a significant increase in the number of children needing support.  In Hillingdon, the total number of children needing support had risen from 1,503 in 2014/15 to 2,855 in 2021/22.  Although there had been this increase in demand, the DoE funding formula had not kept pace which had meant that Hillingdon had gone into deficit by 2016/2017.  On 31 March 2021, this deficit had stood at £25.4m and had been expected to rise to around £56m by 2023/24 if no action had been taken.  Transformative measures had been put in place and were expected to reduce the deficit by £11m over the next four years.  In addition, a safety valve agreement had been made for £25m (£11m of this had already been received by the Council).  It was anticipated that the Council would reach a NIL position by 2025/26.

Hillingdon’s position had been in contrast with other local authorities.  On 31 March 2022, the aggregate deficit across all councils was £2.4bn and £423m in London.  It was anticipated that this national aggregate deficit would reach £3.6bn by 2024 with the highest individual council being in deficit by £615m. 

Councillor Goddard advised that, despite claims by the opposition, Hillingdon had never been at risk of bankruptcy and had not received a special bail out.  He assured those present that the DSG safety valve agreement would not affect future Council Tax rates or any Council services. 

There was no supplementary question.

7.3       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR SULLIVAN TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN:

“Can the Cabinet Member please provide an update on the progress of the development of additional SEND provision for residents across the borough linked to the DSG Safety Valve agreement?”

Councillor O’Brien advised that the additional SEND provision would ensure that local children were able to access local services and would reduce the need for out of Borough provision and specialist transport.  Developments would be undertaken at the Eden Academy on the Pinkwell site to provide an additional 16 primary school places and 24 secondary school places in 2022.  An additional 30 post 19 SEND places were also being created at Orchard Hill Specialist College which was moving to the Brookfield site in Uxbridge.  Building work for a special school satellite site for Meadow High School at Harefield Academy would soon be underway.  An additional 65 students would move to the Harefield site, increasing to 90 in due course.  354 places would be provided across both sites (an additional 98 special educational needs places. 

Special resource provision places were being included at Charville Primary Academy, Ruislip Gardens Primary School and Wood End Park Academy.  The strategy to develop additional SEND provision had been ambitious, aspirational and deliverable.

There was no supplementary question.

7.4       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR GOHILTO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR EDWARDS:

“Would the Leader please inform Council how the Medium-Term Financial Forecast is being impacted by the high level of inflation and how the Council is responding to the unexpected rise in expenditure?”

Councillor Edwards advised that Cabinet had considered the Month 2 budget report at its meeting on 7 July 2022.  Although inflation had increased, the Council’s MTFF budget was still on track.  There had been a £4.7m provision for inflation in the 2021/22 budget; in 2022/23, the inflation provision in the budget had been increased to £12m.

The Leader noted that the Council had been working with partners and suppliers to gauge the impact of inflation on them.  It would be important to identify which costs were transitory and which were embedded to determine whether or not temporary support was the best way forward. 

Whilst the impact of Covid continued, the Council had sufficient reserves to be able to deal with Covid.  However, this would only buy the Council some time and an increase in income from Government funding or residents would be needed.  It was noted that the Government had ended its financial support for Covid pressures. 

The Council had achieved around £11m of savings each year for the last 10 years.  This figure would need to increase to approximately £14m per year for the next four years. 

The results of the recent staff survey had indicated that only 1/3 respondents thought that Hillingdon was a modern council.  Furthermore, only 1/2 respondents felt that teams from across the Council worked well together so further work would be needed here to drive efficiencies. 

A review of the top tiers of management had been undertaken and the focus would now move to the next level of management.  Although the future Council would likely look and feel different to residents, the services provided would continue to be delivered.  Front line services would be protected but costs needed to be lower and sustainable. 

The Council would continue to put residents first by maintaining its reputation for sound financial management whilst delivering high quality services. 

There was no supplementary question.

8.1       MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR BIANCO

Councillor Bianco moved, and Councillor Lavery seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business.

It was suggested that the proposed extension to the ULEZ to include outer London boroughs would be a daily £12.50 tax on the poorest residents in Hillingdon.  Whilst the Council remained committed to improving air quality in the Borough, residents were often dependent on their cars, as public transport was limited and tended to be directed to the centre of the Borough. 

Although the Mayor of London had pledged public transport improvements, continuation of the scrappage scheme (£2k was thought insufficient to buy a ULEZ compliant vehicle) and a push towards Londoners walking or cycling, it was felt that he was oblivious to the reality faced by residents in outer London boroughs.  There had been a reduction in the TfL bus service in Hillingdon and being the second largest London borough made it impractical for residents to walk or cycle many journeys. 

Both sides of the Council Chamber were committed to improving air quality in the Borough and had a track record of working together against external issues that conflicted with local interests.  It was suggested that the outer London boroughs were more akin with the shires than with inner London boroughs and that, although the problem of air quality might be the same, the solutions needed to be different. 

The Council remained committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2030. 

The motion was put to the vote and it was unanimously:

RESOLVED:  That this Council calls upon the Mayor of London to listen closely to the returns he receives in respect of the consultation exercise on the proposed extension of the ULEZ to include the outer London Boroughs.

Whilst this Council is fully committed to decarbonisation by 2030 and have already taken many steps to reduce our carbon footprint, we are very aware that the introduction of a ULEZ scheme here would have a severely negative effect on both our residents, the businesses situated here and the staff of our partner organisations such as the NHS.

This Council asks the Mayor of London to understand that in Hillingdon, residents and businesses alike do not have the ready option of a good public transport alternative to using their cars and that distances are too great to make walking or cycling a sensible option for most.

This scheme, if implemented, would be a crippling daily tax on our poorest residents and working population, adding to the already increased costs they have with high fuel prices.

8.2       MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR CURLING

Councillor Curling moved, and Councillor Mathers seconded, the following motion:

“That this Council recognises the concerns raised by both local businesses and residents since the changes in the ‘stop and shop’ scheme came into force, which mean that it is now more difficult for residents, particularly the elderly and vulnerable, to get the 30 minutes free pay and display ticket, and completely removes the incentive for non-residents to ‘stop and shop’, and thereby has a negative impact on the borough’s local businesses and residents.

“This Council therefore calls on the Cabinet Member for Resident’s Services and the Older Persons Champion, to engage with residents’ groups, local business forums and elderly people’s groups, to consider alternatives to this change and consult on the future of the ‘stop and shop’ schemes.”

Speaking in favour of the motion, Members suggested that the Council needed to enhance the local economy by encouraging people from far and wide to shop in Hillingdon.  Requests for ‘Stop and Shop’ schemes had proven very popular but the new pay and display machines had become temperamental and more complicated to use as non-residents were not eligible for 30 minutes free parking so residents were now unable to just press one button for a free 30 minute ticket.  This had led to some residents giving up and leaving. 

It was stated that individuals had less money to spend and that a reinstatement of the 30 minutes free parking for non residents would help the high street to thrive.  Many of the business owners were also residents in the Borough.  Charging non residents for their first 30 minutes of parking could negatively impact footfall and it was stated that this issue had been raised during a Select Committee meeting.  It was important to listen to residents’ concerns and make their lives less complicated as it was now taking longer to get a free 30 minute parking ticket than it took to buy a pint of milk. 

Members speaking against the motion stated that changes had been made to the eligibility for free 30 minutes of parking in Stop and Shop areas to take the cost burden away from Hillingdon residents.  Although the proposal had been included in public reports in December 2021 and January 2022, there had been no opposition raised at that time.  It was anticipated that parking charges would raise £690k (£472k from on street parking and £118k from off street parking) and that the situation would be reviewed after 6-12 months alongside any evidence gathered. 

It was thought important to provide residents with quality goods and services that were readily accessible, but there was a balance between finances and putting residents first and difficult decisions needed to be made.  The ability to pay for parking by phone would be introduced and preferential parking rates for residents would be retained.  If the machines were not working, this should be reported to the Council. 

The motion was put to the vote and lost.

8.3       MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR NELSON

Councillor Nelson moved, and Councillor Dhot seconded, the following motion:

“That this Council recognises Black History Month and its importance and significance to the vibrant cultural diversity of this Borough.”

Speaking in support of the motion, Members stated that Black History Month was recognised by many other councils and asked that it be recognised in Hillingdon.  Just because there was less crime in the UK than there was in the USA was not a reason to ignore Black History Month.  Black History Month had been acknowledged by Boris Johnson and the royal family so it was suggested that the administration needed to put residents first so that the black community could celebrate its history.  Black History Month and the newly unveiled Windrush Statue celebrated the Windrush generation.

The black community had suffered in the past and had faced unemployment and discrimination because of their identity.  Black History Month had been deemed important in the calendar of many communities but black history was not limited to a specific month.  Black history brought a rich cultural heritage which came with pain and sacrifice.  It was part of British history. 

The recognition of Black History Month would provide an opportunity to break down racial barriers and would have a positive impact that brought value to the community.  Opposition Members felt that it was a shame that the administration did not understand the importance of Black History Month to the community and that calls from residents to celebrate their history continued to be ignored.

The Leader of the Council stated that the Council rejected all forms of discrimination and that the Council’s policy had been to celebrate throughout the year rather than promoting one group over another during a specific period.  To this end, a range of events had taken place throughout the year to celebrate cultural heritage including a poetry event and a panel discussion. 

The motion was put to a recorded vote:

Those voting for: Councillors Abby, Basit, Burles, Curling, Dhot, Farley, Gardner, Garelick, Garg, Islam, Judge Dhot, Kaur, Lakhmana, Mand, Mathers, Nelson, Nelson-West, Punja, Sansarpuri, Singh and Sweeting.

Those voting against: The Mayor (Councillor Haggar), the Deputy Mayor (Councillor Ahmad-Wallana), Councillors Banerjee, Bennett, Bhatt, Bianco, Bridges, Reeta Chamdal, Roy Chamdal, Chapman, Choubedar, Corthorne, Davies, Denys, Edwards, Goddard, Gohil, Higgins, Lavery, Lewis, Makwana, D Mills, R Mills, O’Brien, Palmer, Riley, Smallwood, Sullivan and Tuckwell.

Those abstaining: None. 

The motion was lost.