Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Reeta Chamdal, Roy Chamdal, Gardner, Haggar, Lakhmana and Money.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2025 (attached)

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2025 be agreed as a correct record.

Mr Lloyd White, Head of Democratic Services, declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 5.iii) Appointment of Statutory Officer, as it related to his appointment and stayed in the room during consideration thereof.

The Mayor had attended a range of events such as the Hillingdon Business Awards, Forget Me Not lunch and the Youth Offer launch.  She had also attended the Compass Theatre and raised the Ukraine Flag on the forecourt at the Civic Centre to mark the third anniversary of the outbreak of war.  A number of groups had also visited the Mayor’s Parlour including Lady Bankes School and children involved in a Safer Transport initiative. 

i)    Urgent Implementation of Decisions

 

Members noted the urgent decisions taken since the Council meeting in January 2025, as detailed in the report.

 

ii) Amendment to Cabinet Portfolios

 

Members noted the amended Portfolios as notified by the Leader of the Council.

 

iii)  Appointment of Statutory Officer

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That:

 

a)    Mr Lloyd White be appointed to the statutory role of Monitoring Officer of the Council.

 

b)   It be noted that Mr Daniel Toohey has been appointed to the post of interim Head of Legal Services and that the Head of Democratic Services be authorised to make any necessary alterations to the roles and responsibilities of the above posts contained in the Constitution.

 

iv) Members’ Allowances 2025/26

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That the current Members’ Allowances Scheme be revoked as of 31 March 2025 and the new Scheme for 2025/26, as shown in the Appendix, be approved for implementation from 1 April 2025.

To consider the recommendation from Cabinet.

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

 

RESOLVED: That:

a)    the revised Local Development Scheme be adopted with effect from 27 February 2025.

b)   delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, Housing & Growth to make minor and technical updates only to timetables within the Local Development Scheme, if necessary.

To consider the recommendations of Cabinet which will be published, once agreed. The report to Cabinet is available online at:

 

Hillingdon Council -Agenda for CABINET on Thursday, 20th February, 2025, 7.00 pm

 

Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 will apply to the recommendations of this item. Any Member who is more than two months in arrears with their Council Tax or has arrears of Council Tax must declare that fact and not vote on this item.

 

Budget Conflict Resolution Procedures – Council is asked to consider the Cabinet’s proposals. It may adopt the proposals, submit objections to Cabinet or invite the Cabinet to make amendments specified by Council. If Council votes to object to the Cabinet proposals or to invite Cabinet to make amendments, then the Conflict Resolution Procedure will come into operation.

 

The Council meeting will be adjourned while a special meeting of the Cabinet is held, after which the Council will resume and consider any revised proposals submitted by the Cabinet or the reasons why the Cabinet disagrees with Council’s objections or proposed amendments. The budget would then be open for debate and amendment until a final decision is made.

 

Members are asked to note that, in accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, recorded votes will be taken at the annual budget setting meeting on any motion, amendment to motion or substantive motion regarding the General Fund Revenue Budget, Housing Revenue Account and Capital Programme.

Councillor R Mills moved, and Councillor Gohil seconded, the suspension of Council procedure rule 14.4 to allow unlimited speaking time for the mover and seconder of the motion. 

 

RESOLVED: That the mover and seconder of the budget motion be allowed unlimited speaking time on this item.

 

Councillor Goddard moved, and Councillor Edwards seconded, the seventeen budget recommendations as set out on the Order of Business. 

 

Councillor Mathers moved, and Councillor Curling seconded, the following objection amendment:

 

“In accordance with the Council Constitution, the Labour Group are moving an amendment to the Cabinet's budget recommendations in the form of an Objection.

 

“This objection is because the Cabinet's budget estimates are not sufficiently robust for the purposes of the budget calculations, as stated in the S151 Officer’s ‘Section 25’ statement.

 

“This objection is specifically in regard to, but not exclusive to, the proposed scale / challenge of the savings programme and the proposal to introduce charges for the collection of Green Waste.

 

“Therefore, in accordance with the Conflict Resolution Procedure as set out in the Constitution, I move that Council resolves to object to this element of the proposed budget and instructs the Cabinet to reconsider the relevant plans or strategies.”

 

Those speaking in support of the Objection, thanked the officers for their support in scrutinising the proposed budget.  The amendment had been put forward as the Labour Group had been unable to determine whether or not the budget was achievable as they did not have full access to the accounts.  The Labour Group did not want to see the Council go bankrupt but the proposed savings targets seemed unachievable when the authority had only achieved an average of £13m in savings per year since 2016. 

 

The £2.5m income generation figure for green waste collection seemed to have been plucked out of the air.  The Conservative Group had voted in July 2023 to retain weekly collections and not charge for green waste.  This proposal had followed the Administration’s decision last year to reduce the frequency of green waste collections at certain times of the year.  It was queried how Cabinet could have got it so wrong between December and now that they were having to rush through proposals to charge for green waste. 

 

Although the Section 151 Officer had stated that the Council’s reserves were adequate, they were not ample.  It was suggested that the green waste proposal had not been properly thought out and, as such, Council agreeing to the amendment / objection would mean that the Cabinet would have to re-examine the budget proposals before bringing them back to Council again.  The budget did not appear sufficiently transparent or robust.

 

The Conservative administration might try to blame the current Labour Government, but they were the ones that had set the previous budgets.  It was suggested that they should not have focussed so much on trying to keep fees and charges below those of neighbouring authorities as this had left black holes in the budget. Although Council Tax might be lower in Hillingdon than some other local authorities, the cost of parking permits and green waste collection would push up the overall cost of services.  It would be difficult for the Council to avoid a Section 114 notice in the future. 

 

Those speaking against the Objection stated that the demand on Council services continued to increase without being fully funded by the Government.  The ‘Objection’ did not offer up any suggestions on what Cabinet could have proposed differently.  Previous Labour amendments would have left the Council’s reserves at £6.8m lower than current levels.  The Council had reduced costs by taking action such as relocating Uxbridge Library and renegotiating the management of the Beck Theatre, both of which had been opposed by Labour. 

 

It was suggested that the Labour Group would have called for a referendum to raise Council Tax above the 4.99% limit to help balance the budget.  Many councils were struggling with 30 of them around the country requesting exceptional financial support.

 

The amendment, in the form of an Objection, was put to a recorded vote:

 

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

 

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

 

Those abstaining: None. 

 

The amendment was lost.

 

Those speaking in support of the original motion noted that local government financial pressures had been unprecedented and had been exacerbated by things such as increases in National Insurance (NI) and inflation.  There had been a promise that the Government would cover the increased cost of NI for local government but, in reality, this had only covered 80% of the additional cost.  Government funding was not enough - choices had to be made such as reforming the operating model, but councils were still facing increased challenges in relation to homelessness, increasing energy costs, etc.  That said, the Council had continued to invest in housing, highways and leisure services for its residents.

 

Health and Social Care had been facing significant financial challenges and an increased demand for services.  Despite these pressures, Adult Social Care (ASC) had been rated as ‘Good’ in a recent CQC inspection.  Hospital discharge and reablement were working well and the teams were well respected in North West London.  The ASC service provision had been developed and improved, digital technology had been introduced to help residents, and partnerships had been strengthened. 

 

In January 2025, Early Years Foundation took over the early years nurseries in the Borough which had released Council buildings for long term leases.  New collaborations had been established in the South Ruislip, Hayes & Harlington and Uxbridge Family Hubs and the next generation Youth Offer had been launched.  The Family Hubs were also being used to provide online services and a second new youth bus was currently on order. 

 

Consideration was being given to the exorbitant cost of placements and a new foster care package had been introduced.  Action was being taken to provide high quality learning environments and to look at school sufficiency as there were around 71k children and young people under 18 years of age in Hillingdon.

 

It was noted that the Council was spending residents’ money so it was important to charge as little as possible.  It had been the decision made by the Labour Chancellor that had put the Council in such a difficult position.  Despite this, the Council had continued to invest in parks and libraries, the Chrysalis fund had been used for local initiatives and a new leisure centre had been developed in Yiewsley and West Drayton. 

 

The Council had bought or developed more than 200 homes and had completed major SEND projects.  The Hayes Regeneration Scheme would be due for completion in the next financial year and would include more than 100 homes in the first phase.  Kitchens, bathrooms, fire doors and windows had been replaced in hundreds of Council properties.  Gas checks had been undertaken in 8,613 Council properties, almost 1,400 boilers had been replaced and 248 adaptations had been completed (comprising 317 elements).  £1m had also been spent on fixing the roofs of five schools.

 

It was noted that Merton had the largest deficit in relation to the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG).  Members were reminded that they were talking about taxpayers’ money, not their own money – Labour would have increased taxes if they had been in power and would have hoarded residents’ money rather than investing it in services.  Although Cabinet had proposed a balanced budget, tough decisions had been made and plans had been put in place to ensure that reserve levels could be doubled.  The Administration had chosen not to request financial support from Government as this would have resulted in priorities being shelved. 

 

Hillingdon had the second lowest Council Tax in outer London, some of the lowest fees and charges, new libraries, free waste and recycling every week, more award-winning open spaces than other councils and reports of fly tipping were usually dealt with within a day.  It was questioned whether the Labour Members were the unhappy residents that they referred to and queried why they spoke so favourably about Ealing where they would pay more in Council Tax. 

 

Whilst concerns about the Council’s financial position were understood, action was being taken to ensure financial stability whilst providing the same or better services at a lower cost.  The responsibility for budget accountability was being delegated to Directors and financial accounting would deliver insight.  The world was currently an uncertain place with no idea how changes would impact on the European economy or on local government funding. 

 

The 2025 Government spending review would highlight local authority funding and distribution amongst councils but the funding model was fundamentally broken. Although other boroughs had a higher core spending power than Hillingdon, Ealing had been given £21.798m in Revenue Support Grant, Hounslow has been given £12.177m and Hillingdon had been given £8.66m (despite having 10% more residents than Hounslow).  Contingency provisions had been included in the Council’s budget to mitigate risk but the authority would still need to build its reserves.

 

There had been an 82% increase in demand for care home places since 2015/16 and a 30% increase in demand for temporary accommodation.  About a quarter of employers were planning to make redundancies which would then result in additional costs to the Council from the increased demand on its services that this would create.  There were also concerns that suppliers might have to hand back contracts to the Council.

 

It was noted that 36 households from the Chagos Islands had been welcomed at Heathrow and had been housed by Hillingdon Council, costing in the region of £880k this year (the full cost of this had been borne by Hillingdon residents).  In 2022/2023, the net cost to the Council of Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children had been £1.7m.  In 2023/24, this had risen to £3.4m.  This should be funded by the Government, not by Hillingdon residents.  Around one fifth of asylum seekers in London were housed in Hillingdon which was double the limit that had been set by the Home Office.  The Council needed a new financial settlement from the Government – the current and previous Governments had failed to pay for this which had forced the Council to look at its legal options. 

 

The proposal to charge for green waste collection would be consulted on but the current situation was not sustainable.  There were a lot of residents in the Borough who did not have a garden so did not use the green waste collection service.  Should the proposals be introduced, green waste would still be collected weekly and there would be no limit on the amount collected. 

 

The Council had been faced with three options:

1.    Request exceptional financial support – this would mean that the Council would have no control over its priorities;

2.    Increase Council Tax beyond the maximum – this would have required a referendum; or

3.    The Council to solve its own problems – this had been the option that the Administration had chosen.

 

Those speaking against the original motion believed that the Council had not put proper measures in place to monitor and oversee its financial activity and did not have the high quality information that it needed to improve its financial governance.  The authority could not continue to rely on its reserves and needed to develop a culture of not overspending.  It was queried whether a CIPFA review would identify more holes in the Council’s finances as the Conservative administration had run the authority into the ground.

 

Concern was expressed that the budget required the Council to make £34m in savings which was more that twice the amount the authority had made in any one year previously.  Furthermore, the Council had not achieved any of its savings targets in the last five years.  The budget was not thought to be fit for purpose and Hillingdon residents were being faced with cuts.  Blame lay with the Conservative Group that had been in power for 27 years.

 

There had been extreme pressure on the DSG which had been ringfenced until March 2026.  Concern was expressed that, if this funding was not extended beyond March 2026, all of the Council’s reserves would be swept away.  Although the Administration had stated that this was a national issue, only 38 councils had required a bail out and Hillingdon had received the highest bail out in London. 

 

Residents in private rented housing had not been supported by the budget and no consideration had been given to the impact of Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs).  There were around 2,500 licensed and unlicensed HMOs across the Borough and residents’ concern about them and the impact they were having was growing in places such as Heathrow Villages.

 

It was suggested that the delay in the publication of the budget might have been caused by disagreements amongst the Conservative Group about abandoning its green waste policy and a last minute scramble to patch up legacy issues.  Although the Council had spent a lot of money on achieving Green Flags, it had not maintained its green spaces and residents were having to take this role over.  It was queried whether, if residents rejected the idea of paying for green waste collection, would the Council still force this change through.

 

The Council’s priorities needed to reflect the needs of residents and build community pride. Despite the hard work of the waste enforcement team, they continued to be underfunded.  A really small number of fines had been handed out for fly tipping each month and there had been a 300% increase in littering.

 

The budget was thought to be short sighted, particularly in relation to the Housing Revenue Account.  It was suggested that the Administration had a poor track record of bidding for grant funding when they should have been grasping for opportunities to address issues such as the rising cost of temporary accommodation and increasing the amount of Council housing available.  The Administration had not prioritised housing which had meant that residents were being faced with unaffordable options. 

 

Concern was expressed that the move to digital access would leave some residents behind and cause them a lot of stress.  There had not been a smooth transition to the digital offer and residents were being failed by the Council.  It was important that the digital offer did not exclude residents but no guarantees had been given that residents would not be caught up in the process. 

 

Consultation on the budget had taken place over the busy Christmas period and had showed that 52% of respondents were dissatisfied with the proposals.  However, reference was only made to the 38% of residents that had said that they were satisfied with the budget - residents had said that they were happy with the current green waste collection service.  There had been concerns raised about torn refuse bags, charging for parking permits, pot holes and trip hazards on pavements.  Even though volunteers had taken up activities such as litter picking, it was likely that services were going to deteriorate. 

 

The original motion was put to a recorded vote: 

 

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

 

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

 

Those abstaining: None.

 

The original motion was carried and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That:

 

1.    The General Fund revenue budget proposals made by Cabinet be approved, resulting in a Council Tax requirement for 2025/26 of £154,125,910;

 

2.    It be noted that, at its meeting on 16 January 2025, the Council calculated the amount of 105,422 as its Council Tax Base for the year 2025/26 This was calculated in accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) (England) Regulations 2012, as its Council Tax Base for the year (Item T in the formula in Section 31B (3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992);

 

3.    The Hillingdon element of Council Tax be set at £1,462.00 for a Band D property. Taking into account the precept levied by the Greater London Authority, this results in an overall Band D Council Tax of £1,952.37 for the borough;

 

4.    The following amounts have been calculated by the Council for the year 2025/26, in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (the Act):

 

a)   £974,250,324    being the aggregate of the amounts that the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A (2) (a) to (f) of the Act. (Gross Expenditure including the amount required for additions to working balances)

 

b)   £820,123,360    being the aggregate of the amounts that the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A (3) (a) to (d) of the Act. (Gross Income including reserves to be used to meet Gross Expenditure

 

c)   £154,125,910    being the amount by which the aggregate at 4 (a) above exceeds the aggregate at 4 (b) above.  This is calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 31A (4) of the Act, as its Council Tax requirement for the year.  (Item R under Section 31B of the Act)

 

d)   £1,462.00           being the amount at 4 (c) above divided by Item T (2 above). This is, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 31B of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year. (Council Tax at Band D for the Council)

 

The London Borough of Hillingdon Council Tax (£)
Band A	Band B	Band C	Band D
974.67	£1,137.11	£1,299.56	£1,462.00
Band E	Band F	Band G	Band H
£1,786.89	£2,111.78	£2,436.67	£2,924.00

 

being the amounts given by multiplying the amount at 4 (d) above by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5 (1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in valuation B and D. This is calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 36 (1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings listed in different valuation bands;

 

5.     It be noted that for the year 2025/26 the Greater London Authority and its functional bodies have stated the following amounts in precepts. These have been issued to the Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Act, for each of the categories of dwellings shown below:

 

The Greater London Authority Precept (£)
Band A	Band B	Band C	Band D
£326.92	£381.41	£435.89	£490.38
Band E	Band F	Band G	Band H
£599.35	£708.33	£817.30	£980.76

 

6.     The Council has calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 4 (e) and 5 above. The Council in accordance with Section 30 and 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 hereby sets the Council Tax for the year 2025/26 for each category of dwelling below:

 

Total Council Tax 2025/26 (£)
Band A	Band B	Band C	Band D
£1,301.59	£1,518.52	£1,735.45	£1,952.38
Band E	Band F	Band G	Band H
£2,386.24	£2,820.11	£3,253.97	£3,904.76

 

7.     The Council Tax Discount for Older People be retained for 2025/26 with a 1.43% discount on Hillingdon’s element of the Council Tax for those who joined the scheme on or after 1 April 2020, 3.27% for those who joined the scheme before or on 31 March 2019 and 6.98% for those who joined before or on 31 March 2018, with the scheme closed to new applicants from 1 April 2021;

 

8.     The General Fund Capital Programme for 2025/26 to 2029/30 as set out in Appendix A8 of the background report to Cabinet be approved;

 

9.     The Housing Revenue Account budget proposals, HRA Capital Programme and housing rents set out in Appendix B of the background report be approved;

 

10.  The proposed amendments to Fees and Charges set out in Appendix C of the background report to Cabinet be approved;

 

11.  Capital Investment Strategy, Treasury Management Strategy, Investment Strategy, Minimum Revenue Provision Statement for 2024/25 to 2029/30 as set out in Appendix D of the background report to Cabinet be approved;

 

12.  The London Borough of Hillingdon Pay Policy Statement for 2025/26 as set out in Appendix E of the background report to Cabinet be approved;

 

13.  The transformation plan, as set out in Appendix G of the background report to Cabinet, and the use of £17m of capital receipts for this purpose, subject to Government confirmation on utilising receipts for this purpose for a further year be noted;

 

14.  The Corporate Director of Finance’s comments regarding his responsibilities under the Local Government Act 2003 as set in his Section 25 Statement accompanying the Budget Report recommended by Cabinet be noted;

 

15.  Council (as set out in Schedule G of the Constitution - Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules) resolves that Cabinet may utilise the general reserves or balances during 2025/26 in support of functions designated to the Cabinet in line with Part 4 of the Constitution;

 

16.  Council confirm that the Council’s relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2025/26 is not excessive in accordance with principles approved under Section 52ZB Local Government Finance Act 1992 and therefore a referendum will not be triggered; and

 

17.  Council approve the charging of a 100% premium on second homes (Dwellings Occupied Periodically). To commence for the financial year 2026/27.