Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 8 January 2026 be agreed as an accurate record.

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

Debby Weller (Head of Housing Strategy and Policy) and Adam Stephenson (Assistant Director – Housing Needs & Homelessness) were in attendance to respond to Members’ queries in relation to the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy Consultation Draft as set out in the agenda pack.

Members enquired how the Government’s reported decision to stop sharing temporary accommodation data across London boroughs might impact the Council’s four?year homelessness strategy. Officers were unaware of such a decision but stated that losing access to this data would be unfortunate, as London?wide data was used for benchmarking. They noted that pan?London work on data analysis continued and that online resources remained available, and asked Councillors to share any information they had in respect of this.

Councillors sought further clarification as to whether the central homelessness dashboard, once live, would be accessible to Members of the Committee. It was confirmed that a suite of performance indicators was being developed, capturing both national targets and local MTFS priorities. The dashboard would be available to CMT, the Cabinet, and other stakeholders.

Members asked whether demand modelling was possible regarding asylum seekers, new arrivals and Chagossians, noting ongoing pressures. In response it was stated that numbers were tracked through Government?required submissions and that trends were not constant, with waves of different groups over time. It was noted that numbers in recent years had been higher than before. It was confirmed that MTFS planning included modelling based on 18 months of Chagossian trend data and that planning incorporated both local homelessness and additional demand from rough sleepers and Chagossian households over the next three years.

In response to further questioning from the Committee, it was noted that forecasted and modelled costs were included in the published budget, although figures were not broken down by cohort.

Councillors enquired how many households evicted from private rented accommodation had received discretionary housing payments (DHPs) in the previous financial year. Officers confirmed that DHP data existed but was not available at the meeting. It was uncertain whether payments could be broken down by eviction type, but overall numbers could be provided. The Committee queried whether DHP awards had increased over time and whether the allowance was fully used. It was confirmed that the entire DHP budget was always spent each year, and that award volumes depended on available budget rather than application levels.

In response to Members’ requests for clarification, it was explained that work was carried out within the Statutory Homelessness Framework and support for households lacking a local connection was limited. It was stated that this was not thought to be a significant issue.

Councillors sought further information regarding the rate of return homelessness among rough sleepers who had been placed in accommodation. It was confirmed that figures were not available. It was recognised that entrenched rough sleepers with complex needs sometimes struggled to maintain accommodation, although numbers were small. Officers noted that Hillingdon had around 14 entrenched cases and reported some successful sustained placements.

Members asked about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.

Councillor Wayne Bridges (Cabinet Member for Community & Environment) was in attendance to highlight key points in the report and provide an update in respect of the Council’s Commercial Waste and General Waste Services.

With regard to commercial trade waste, the Cabinet Member noted that 79 new commercial waste contracts had been gained while 98 had been lost, largely due to non?payment and price sensitivity. It was explained that 43 of the 79 new contracts related to outstanding debts. Officers had undertaken substantial work in this area, and changes were already underway. One early change had involved improving competitiveness by removing publicly available costings, which had previously enabled competitors to undercut the Council. This measure was expected to strengthen the Council’s market position and support the promotion of the service. It was noted that, despite the reduction in customer numbers, income had increased because the new customers were of higher quality and more reliable. Councillor Bridges expressed confidence that performance would continue to improve and committed to keeping the Committee updated.

Councillor Bridges then addressed food waste collection, which had been widely publicised locally and nationally. It was explained that the service was being rolled out to approximately 2,200 properties above shops and 17,000 private block properties, with completion expected within six weeks. The Councillor formally recorded thanks to officers for their hard work on this significant undertaking. He highlighted the financial benefits of food waste recycling, noting the stark contrast between the disposal cost of food waste (£12.79 per tonne) and general waste (£119.28 per tonne). It was stated that the rollout was being monitored case by case, feedback from ward councillors was being received, and any issues would be addressed as they arose.

The Cabinet Member proceeded to discuss the significant issue of fly?tipping in the Borough, acknowledging that it was a national problem and that Hillingdon was not exempt. He reported the introduction of new processes to tackle the issue, including the “Waste Drop and Go” initiative, which had been successful to date. Events had already taken place in Charville and Hillingdon West. In Charville, 54 cars and six walk?ins had participated, resulting in the collection of 1.8 tonnes of waste. The Hillingdon West event at the Battle of Britain Bunker had received 90 visitors—an increase of 50%—and had collected just under 2.1 tonnes of waste. Members heard that further events were planned, with the next due to take place at Harlington Road Depot.

Councillor Bridges also reported that he had introduced unannounced spot checks across the Borough the previous week, undertaken jointly with officers from waste services, the anti?social behaviour team, APCOA, and other service providers. Spot checks had taken place in Charville and on New Broadway in Hillingdon East, where instances of fly?tipping had been identified and were being investigated. Additional visits were planned, and Councillors across the Borough would be engaged to identify and respond to emerging hotspots.

Dan Kennedy, Corporate Director of Residents Services and Jordan Groves, Head  ...  view the full minutes text for item 143.

Gavin Polkinghorn, Planning Policy Team Leader, was in attendance to respond to Members’ questions regarding the West London Waste Plan paper as set out in the agenda pack.

Councillors enquired whether, given that the boroughs worked collectively across London, any changes to the London Plan could allow the waste?apportionment targets to be altered mid?process. It was asked whether such changes could be made or whether targets would remain fixed.

In response, it was explained by the Officer that the West London Waste Plan had been required to respond to the apportionment figures set out in the 2021 London Plan. It was further explained that, if the new London Plan currently under consultation were to be adopted with different figures, then the West London Waste Plan would need to be revised accordingly, as the targets would differ.

Members queried whether any backup or emergency arrangements were in place in case existing waste sites in Hillingdon became unusable or required closure. They asked whether contingency planning existed or whether it was assumed that services would continue smoothly.

The Planning Policy Team Leader responded that the Plan had demonstrated that sufficient waste?site capacity existed to meet both current and projected requirements. It was stated that additional waste sites could come forward ad hoc through the development?management process, providing further capacity between plan cycles if needed. The Officer noted that historically there had been very little churn in safeguarded waste sites, which tended to remain long?term. However, if a significant reduction in available sites occurred, additional provision could be brought forward.

Councillors referred to a contribution of £30,000 per borough per year over a five?year period and asked how this figure had been determined. They enquired whether value for money was being achieved and whether Hillingdon had scrutinised its contribution in comparison with that of neighbouring boroughs.

It was explained by the officer that all West London boroughs contributed the same amount. The pooling of resources for waste planning was described as a significant cost saving, encouraged by the London Plan. Although specific procurement details were not available at the meeting, it was confirmed that value?for?money considerations were embedded in procurement processes and that further information could be provided if required.

The Committee asked about the adaptability of the five?year plan in light of technological developments, including the introduction of Love Clean Streets. Members sought clarification as to whether the Plan had been prepared in a way that allowed for technological evolution.

The Planning Policy Team Leader responded that the requirement to update local waste plans every five years was itself intended to ensure responsiveness to technological change. It was stated that new recycling requirements, new approaches to handling contaminated waste, and other technological developments had been incorporated into the Plan.

Members sought further clarification relating to housing?target increases across West London. They enquired how effectively the Plan had accounted for expected growth and whether the Borough risked under?anticipating the impact of significant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 144.

RESOLVED: That the Forward Plan be noted.

It was recalled that Councillor Gardner had submitted a motion on CCTV at the meeting of Full Council, and that the Select Committee had been delegated to undertake a review of the matter.

It was noted that the Select Committee’s Work Programme for March and April was very busy. Moreover, local elections were due to be held in May, followed by the first meeting of the new Committee in June, which was not an appropriate time to commence such a review. The item had therefore been scheduled for the July meeting. Members indicated that they were happy with this approach.

RESOLVED: That the Work Programme be noted.