Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

None.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings dated 6 and 27 November 2025 be agreed as an accurate record.

It was confirmed that all items of business were marked Part I and would be considered in public.

The Corporate Director for Residents’ Services, Dan Kennedy, presented the Month 7 budget and spend report. Other officers in attendance to respond to Members’ questions were Steve Muldoon - Corporate Director of Finance, Matt Davis - Director – Strategic and Operational Finance, Ceri Lamoureux - Head of Finance and Bernard Ofori-Atta - Head of Finance.

It was reported that the projected net overspend for services within the remit of the Residents’ Services Select Committee stood at £7.8 million; a figure that had remained largely unchanged since Month 6. The pressures contributing to this position had been driven primarily by homelessness demand, which had been reported previously to the Committee.

It was explained that a number of proactive measures had been undertaken during the year. One notable initiative involved efforts to control temporary accommodation expenditure through the introduction of caps and other controls. This initiative had produced an estimated cost reduction of nearly £8 per unit, per night, amounting to just over £2 million in cost avoidance for the year. Despite this, the overall situation had remained exceptionally challenging, particularly in relation to securing accommodation in the private rented sector and accessing other forms of affordable or social housing. These challenges had been exacerbated by high levels of demand, including increased evictions from private rented homes, evictions by friends and family, and presentations from households fleeing domestic abuse.

Members were informed that a series of proposals had been set out in the subsequent agenda item to address these pressures, including growth proposals, budget rebasing and a range of further initiatives planned for the next year. These would include new efforts to secure private rented accommodation, continuation of the year’s ambitious programme to acquire additional social rented properties, and partnership work with housing associations to increase supply. It was acknowledged that these efforts were operating in a highly challenging environment, consistent with the experience of other London boroughs and local authorities nationally. It was emphasised, however, that activity would continue and innovation would be pursued wherever possible.

It was also reported that the Housing Revenue Account was projecting a breakeven position and that reserves had been maintained at £15 million, which was considered positive. The Committee was advised that, of the £11.7 million savings target within its remit, £5.6 million (around half) had been banked and were on track to be delivered. A further £3.5 million (around 30%) had been classed as amber and were expected to be delivered, though possibly not fully within the current financial year. It was noted that some savings were deemed undeliverable and would be written out of the budget, with several identified as legacy targets no longer achievable.

Councillors referred to page 20 of the report, noting a £0.9 million shortfall in garden?waste subscription income as of Month 7. Clarification was requested on whether the shortfall had increased between Months 6 and 7 or whether the position had stabilised, allowing a more reliable full?year forecast.

In response, it was explained by officers that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

The Corporate Director of Finance, Steve Muldoon and the Corporate Director for Residents’ Services, Dan Kennedy, presented the report. Other officers in attendance to respond to Members’ questions were Matt Davis, Director – Strategic and Operational Finance, Ceri Lamoureux, Head of Finance and Bernard Ofori-Atta, Head of Finance.

It was explained that the overall Council budget had been reviewed by the Corporate Resources and Infrastructure Select Committee earlier in the week, with a more detailed discussion available via the meeting recording. The Corporate Director of Finance outlined the wider financial context, noting that the Medium-Term Financial Strategy, published in December 2025, reflected a highly challenging environment driven by rising demand, market pressures in social care and temporary accommodation, and inflation outpacing funding levels.

It was noted that Government funding for Hillingdon had increased but would be phased in over three years. Council reserves had been significantly depleted in recent years, reducing financial resilience. As a result, the Council required budget growth to meet unavoidable pressures and had identified a number of difficult savings proposals. To balance the 2024/25 budget legally, the Council was seeking Exceptional Financial Support (EFS), which required central Government approval and repayment.

Members heard that all savings proposals were owned by senior officers, had been through internal challenge sessions, and were intended to be realistic rather than aspirational. Further detailed work was still required, particularly on high?risk or high?value proposals, and ongoing improvements to demand modelling and savings monitoring would continue.

It was noted that the meeting would focus on the proposals within the Residents’ Services Select Committee’s remit, including assumptions, savings, growth proposals, risks, and service impacts. The output would be the Committee’s feedback and recommendations to Cabinet, to be considered alongside responses to the six?week public consultation. Final budget decisions were scheduled for Cabinet on 19 February and full Council on 26 February 2026.

It was noted that a net budget increase of approximately £15.8 million had been proposed within the remit of Residents’ Services. This increase was composed of nearly £30 million in growth alongside £14 million in savings. It was explained that the majority of the growth had been driven by demand pressures, particularly in relation to homelessness, as well as the need to address legacy income targets and other longstanding budget pressures. An example was provided in which the budget for tree inspection and maintenance had been proposed for an uplift of £130,000 to ensure statutory duties continued to be met as tree numbers expanded across the Borough.

Members were informed that the efficiencies and savings proposals had been presented as arising from a range of service areas, with an emphasis placed on doing things differently. It was highlighted that greater collaboration across services, deployment of digital technology, expansion of self?service options, and process improvements designed to achieve tasks correctly at first attempt were being prioritised. Joint working both within Residents’ Services and across the wider Council was expected to generate reductions in expenditure.

With reference to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

Dan Kennedy, Corporate Director – Residents’ Services, was in attendance to respond to any questions and queries from Members in respect of the performance report as set out in the agenda pack.

Councillors commented that the report contained several positive indicators, including the Council having the fourth?lowest net expenditure per 100,000 residents in London and strong performance in housing landlord services.

Members observed that the report referenced the delivery of 245 new council homes, but they believed this figure represented a gross total and did not account for homes lost through Right to Buy. An accurate net position was therefore requested, and it was agreed that officers would provide this outside of the meeting. The Corporate Director noted that in previous years around 50 homes per year had been lost through Right to Buy, though that number might have increased slightly following a surge in applications when the government reduced the available discount.

Councillors sought clarification regarding recycling contamination levels, noting that these levels had not been quantified in the report. They expressed a desire to understand how much of the Borough’s waste and recycling was being contaminated so that potential problem areas could be identified. It was confirmed that the relevant data could be provided and it was suggested that the matter could be fully explored at the next waste?focused Committee session. The Chair agreed and asked that the Democratic Services Officer record this as an item for discussion in the forthcoming in?depth waste session.

The Committee then sought clarification on the statement that one?third of council homes in Hillingdon had failed the decent homes standard. Members observed that this appeared inconsistent with the Council’s claims of strong performance in repairs and asked how the two positions could be reconciled. It was explained that the decent homes standard related to physical components such as kitchens, bathrooms, windows and energy efficiency, whereas repair performance related to tenant experience, including response times and achieving a first?time fix. It was stated that tenant satisfaction remained high. Officers reported that the 30% non?decent figure reflected the position as of 31 March 2024, but significant progress had since been made. It was reported that Cabinet had previously approved £108 million for improvements, that non?decency was expected to fall to approximately 14%–15% by the end of March, and that the Council was on track to reach 5% non?decent homes within two to three years. It was confirmed that regulators had expressed no concerns regarding progress or trajectory.

Members raised a question regarding homelessness pressures linked to Heathrow. Reference was made to a previous report indicating that around 40 families had presented at Heathrow. They asked how many rough sleepers and how many families within the current reporting period had originated from Heathrow?related presentations. Officers confirmed that this information was held and could be provided through the Chair. The Chair stated that it would be appropriate to include the information within the February agenda item on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

Richard Webb, Director of Community Safety and Enforcement presented the report which provided general background on the Council’s parking enforcement approach and outlined key data. It explained that enforcement operations were delivered through a partnership with APCOA, whose contract had commenced in 2022 and was due to end the following year, with options available for extension. The contract scope, as described in the report, included the provision of Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) – also referred to as parking wardens – parking and moving?traffic enforcement cameras, and ancillary services such as cash collection.

Members heard that the Civil Enforcement Officers were deployed to monitor car parks to ensure that parking payments were made, to patrol on?street parking bays, and to enforce parking restrictions, including yellow lines and all permit zones. The contract contained a range of key performance indicators, particularly related to deployment levels, contracted service hours, acceptable error rates in Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issuing, and responsiveness to the public enforcement line.

It was confirmed that the Council’s parking team engaged with APCOA frequently, with daily operational contact and monthly performance meetings to review deployment patterns, emerging issues, and operational data. Formal annual reviews were also undertaken. Deployment decisions were jointly agreed and informed by a broad evidence base, including patterns of non?compliance, school pick?up and drop?off priorities, resident and elected member feedback, and other data identifying areas of highest need.

The challenges posed by the Borough’s large and diverse geography were noted, which required CEOs to cover wide areas. To address this, Members were informed that the Council had recently leased a vehicle equipped with Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology to support more efficient monitoring of extensive areas. The Council was evaluating the effectiveness of this approach and actively reviewing CEO deployment models to improve coverage and better respond to resident priorities.

Kenny McCamlie (Contract Manager) and Kedar Maharjan of APCOA were also in attendance. The Contract Manager addressed Members of the Select Committee thanking them for the opportunity to attend and noting APCOA’s long?standing relationship with the Borough. He explained that APCOA’s head office was located in Uxbridge and that its European headquarters had relocated there in the final quarter of the previous year. He also emphasised the company’s strong commitment to Hillingdon and Uxbridge, noting that the organisation also managed a major contract at Heathrow and employed over 500 people within the Borough.

In relation to parking enforcement, Members heard that the organisation employed approximately 60 staff and maintained a flexible employment model that enabled 20–30% of the workforce to operate flexibly. The Contract Manager highlighted the challenging nature of the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) role, noting that officers worked in all weather conditions and often faced hostility despite performing a vital public service. It was confirmed that the organisation worked closely with the local police sergeant in Uxbridge to improve staff safety, develop methods for officers to protect themselves, and pursue prosecutions where necessary. He reported having achieved successful  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

Ian Thynne, Head of Environmental Specialists, was in attendance to respond to Members’ questions in relation to the Climate Change Progress Report included in the agenda pack. The Chair thanked him for his thorough, comprehensive and interesting report.

Councillors asked how confident the Council was that climate?change targets and associated deadlines would be met. The Head of Environmental Specialists responded that confidence was difficult to quantify because a trend analysis was still being undertaken to map the routes toward achieving carbon neutrality by 2030. He explained that climate action was not a statutory duty for local authorities and therefore competed with other pressures. He confirmed that meeting the targets would be challenging, although substantial progress had been made since the declaration of the climate emergency. A programme of activity and the release of £1.5m in Section 106 funding for community?facing carbon?reduction projects were highlighted as supporting elements, though the full cost and pathway to the targets had not yet been fully established.

Members enquired what major challenges existed in relation to fleet decarbonisation and whether electric?vehicle capacity could be retained in the future. It was explained that performance tracking had been difficult due to the absence of detailed dashboards showing mileage and fuel consumption. It was stated that electric refuse vehicles were extremely expensive and that prioritising them could reduce the Council’s ability to deliver other services. It was also noted that required charging infrastructure was not yet available. Therefore, the heavy fleet was likely to retain a carbon footprint in 2030, and offsetting measures would be required. Smaller diesel vehicles had already been replaced by electric models but refuse lorries and heavy vehicles were unlikely to be electric by 2030 due to replacement costs and operational constraints.

In response to Members’ questions as to whether initiatives such as carbon monitoring or energy?efficiency schemes had been assessed for cost?effectiveness, it was confirmed that the Council sought not only carbon savings but also financial savings for residents. It was noted that carbon?saving measures—such as replacing Civic Centre gas boilers with air?source heat pumps—were designed to reduce long?term energy costs during periods of high market volatility. Monetary and carbon savings were embedded jointly within strategic planning.

Councillor enquired whether the Council had considered the use of hydrogen?powered fleet vehicles. It was confirmed that hydrogen vehicles remained largely at pilot?stage development. The Council’s realistic focus was on electric vehicles and that hydrogen was not currently on the Council’s agenda.

The Committee sought clarification as to whether Heathrow expansion or changes associated with the Cranford Agreement could slow local climate?action progress. It was confirmed that the recent Cranford Agreement decision involved redistribution of existing flight movements rather than an increase, so no additional carbon output would result from that change. It was noted that a third runway would have a major carbon impact, but calculation of aviation emissions fell within central government responsibility. The Head of Environmental Specialists explained that the Council’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.

Ian Thynne, Head of Environmental Specialists, was in attendance to respond to Members’ questions in relation to the Section 19 Flood Investigation report included in the agenda pack.

Members asked what lessons had been learned from the recent increase in flooding incidents, noting that these had been significantly more frequent than in previous years. The Head of Environmental Specialists responded that the primary lesson learned was that flooding had worsened as the climate had continued to change. He stated that the September 2024 events had been among the worst the Borough had experienced, with devastating impacts on residents in areas such as Ruislip and Northwood. Flooding remained an emotive subject because residents could go years without incident and then suddenly face displacement, property loss, and severe distress.

It was explained that the Council had struggled to keep pace with flood?risk management due to ageing drainage infrastructure, limited funding, and complex interactions with Thames Water. As a result, the Council had shifted toward innovative approaches using green spaces to reduce flood risk. Thirteen projects were being delivered through external Environment Agency funding, a significant achievement given the small size of the team. However, much of the Council’s work necessarily remained reactive, given the impossibility of predicting exactly where future flooding would occur. It was noted that, while proactive projects were being implemented in areas identified as vulnerable, flooding often had to occur before intervention could begin. When incidents did occur, the Council acted quickly; for example, after more than 100 properties were flooded at Ruislip Gardens, a flood action group had been established and a project identified to reduce future risk.

Members enquired whether improved funding and monitoring would enable better preparedness and risk prediction. It was confirmed that, while additional information and funding would be helpful, flooding ultimately depended on unpredictable weather conditions. Officers described the extreme rainfall of 2024, equivalent to a month’s worth falling in a single day, which exceeded the design capacity of many local schemes. It was emphasised that forecasting precise impacts was extremely difficult because outcomes depended on seasonal conditions, infrastructure state, and unpredictable variables. It was noted that residents needed clearer information about their flood?risk status and greater encouragement to undertake their own resilience measures.

The Committee Members asked specifically about situations where blocked gullies and drains were contributing to local flooding. They queried whether the Council could recharge Thames Water for the administrative time spent chasing the company to resolve issues for which it was responsible. In response, it was explained that responsibilities were highly fragmented: Council gullies drained into the Thames Water sewer network, which then flowed into rivers managed by the Environment Agency. In practice, disputes frequently occurred over ownership of drainage systems beneath carriageways or at property boundaries. Reports were often passed back and forth between agencies, creating inefficiencies.

It was believed that costs for reporting or chasing Thames Water were not recovered and it was acknowledged that residents often did not understand which authority held responsibility. Engagement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.

RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the Forward Plan.  

The Chair, Councillor Peter Smallwood, updated the Committee on the plans for the next few months and explained that these had already been discussed with the opposition leader, Councillor Kamal Kaur. He paid tribute to Councillor Bridges, the former chairman, thanked him for chairing the Committee diligently and fairly for many years and congratulated him on becoming the Cabinet Member for Residents Services. He also thanked Councillor Farley for his excellent work as the previous opposition lead.

The Chair welcomed Councillor Singh and Councillor Dot to the Committee and outlined recent discussions about whether to undertake a mini?review. Although footway parking had been considered, it was ultimately felt that such a review would be too substantial to complete properly in the short time remaining in the administration. Instead, it was noted that the Committee planned to focus on a series of smaller topic?based discussions.

He explained that the January meeting would examine parking enforcement with input from officers. Waste services were scheduled for February, and Councillor Bridges had been invited to attend alongside the Corporate Director. In March, it was confirmed that the Committee would look at community safety and cohesion, inviting partners such as the police, fire service, and faith representatives. Members were encouraged to suggest additional contributors. In April, the Committee planned to consider the topic of HMOs, with Councillor Tuckwell agreeing to participate.

It was confirmed that the Committee would continue to operate in the same way as under Councillor Bridges’s chairmanship: external partners or officers would give a brief presentation before the Committee moved directly to questions. Members were expected to read the papers in advance. The questioning format would remain as one question plus an optional follow?up.

The collaborative work undertaken by the Committee in respect of funfairs and circuses was also recognised by the Chair. It was noted that a deposit scheme was now in place, that had originated from cross?party collaboration within the Residents’ Services Select Committee. This demonstrated that, by working together, positive outcomes could be delivered protecting land and ensuring that deposits were taken from those operating said funfairs and circuses.

RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee considered the Work Programme report and agreed any amendments.