Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 14 January 2025 be agreed as an accurate record.

It was confirmed that all items of business were marked as Part 1 and would be considered in public.

Stephanie Waterford, Head of Public Protection and Enforcement was in attendance to answer Members’ questions in relation to the report as set out in the agenda pack.

Members asked about the amount of charges given to companies that erected funfairs in parks and how the revenue compared to that of other boroughs. In response, it was confirmed that the charges were managed by the Green Spaces team. Members heard that Hillingdon had a disproportionate amount of green space compared to other London areas. It was agreed that this question would be taken back to the Green Spaces team for clarification.

Councillors sought further clarification as to how noise from funfairs was managed, noting that complaints from residents were sometimes received. It was explained that officers responded to service requests when noise was considered unbearable or unreasonable. It was confirmed that residents could log a service request; officers would then assess the situation and decide on the appropriate course of action. An out of hours service was also available.

The Committee Members enquired whether there were any terms and conditions in place in respect of noise and lighting when companies made a booking. It was confirmed that there were hiring lease arrangement terms and conditions attached to any hire agreement by Green Spaces. It was an offence to create a nuisance hence such matters could be reported to the Environmental Protection service, which would respond accordingly. It was noted that the service was reactive rather than proactive. Site visits to ensure compliance were not routinely undertaken; the service was responsive and officers responded to any complaints raised.

Councillors asked if the same contractors returned to the same sites each year or if there were changes in contractors. It was confirmed that typically the same funfair operators returned to the same sites, but other operators could come in at any point.

Members raised concerns regarding large advertising boards noting that these were sometimes left up for a considerable amount of time before and after funfairs. In response, officers explained that travelling fairs were required to remove signage within 14 days of an event finishing. If they failed to do so, the Council could issue a fixed penalty notice (FPN) to the operator. In the case of events on private land, the situation was more complex.

Where repeated noise complaints had been received in respect of a specific contractor, Members recommended the inclusion of a specific clause in relation to this in the hire agreement. It was agreed that officers would follow this up with the Green Spaces team.

The Committee asked about the fines in place for leaving advertising boards up and sought reassurance as to whether these were robust enough. It was explained that the fines were moderate, between £50 and £100, and that multiple fines could be issued depending on the amount and location of the boards. Members heard that these were statutory fines which could not be amended – prosecution was an option in extreme cases. It was noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Richard Webb, Director of Community Safety and Enforcement, and Freddie Mohammed, Parking Representations and Appeals Manager, were in attendance to answer Members’ questions in relation to the report in the agenda pack.

It was noted that it would be helpful if APCOA could attend a future meeting of the Select Committee to answer Members’ questions.

Councillors asked about the contract key performance indicators in Appendix 2, questioning if everything was as perfect as it seemed. It was explained that the report provided a snapshot of the last month and that there had been months with amber and red indicators, which were addressed in contract meetings.

Members suggested an annual review to identify patterns and raised a ward-related issue about enforcement consistency at Ruislip Lido during the summer months. Officers acknowledged the challenges around parking in and around the Lido and explained the deployment of tow trucks and CEOs during the summer, mentioning the limitations due to the lack of a pound and the need to move obstructive cars to another location.

In response to further questions from the Committee, it was explained that CEOs worked autonomously, and it was not possible for officers to monitor them at all times due to a lack of resources. However, body worn cameras could be tracked, inactivity was monitored and contractor supervisors made their own checks – the data was fed back to LBH officers and footage could be reviewed when necessary.

Councillors enquired about the contract with APCOA and whether competitors were regularly considered. Officers stated that the existing contract had begun in April 2022 and would run until 2027. It was explained that the contract had likely been awarded based on value for money and that other contractors might not engage with them until the end of the current contract. Officers also highlighted the factors affecting PCN numbers, such as policy decisions and the deployment of CEOs in different areas.

Members sought further clarification regarding the responsibility for issuing FPNS for idling cars and the shift to cashless parking. It was explained that idling was a criminal offence under the public spaces protection order, requiring different systems and training for officers hence it would be difficult to train CEOs to take on responsibility for both parking and idling offences. It was confirmed that cashless parking systems allowed for payment by phone and card, and problematic locations would be considered for appropriate steps.

Councillors pointed out that a year-on-year comparison of PCN data would be helpful. In response to further queries raised by the Committee, it was confirmed that adequate signage was a legal obligation under the Traffic Signs Directive. The onus was on drivers to familiarise themselves with the signs and the restrictions in place.

With regard to cashless payments, it was recognised that scams using fake QR codes etc were a national problem. Officers regularly discussed this matter with the Police and did everything possible to raise public awareness. It was confirmed that CEOs had been instructed to remove fake QR  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

RESOLVED: That the Forward Plan be noted.

At the request of Members, it was agreed that an item on allotments would be added to the Committee’s Work Programme. Members enquired whether the information item regarding Heathrow could be brought forward on the Work Programme.

RESOLVED: That the Work Programme be noted.