Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Peter Smallwood OBE with Councillor Kaushik Banerjee substituting.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings dated 22 April 2025 and 8 May 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.

Becky Coffin (Director of Communities and Sustainability, Heathrow) and Danielle Knafo (Stakeholder Engagement Manager, Heathrow) were in attendance to present their report and respond to Members’ questions. Key points included:

• Heathrow’s pride in being part of the Hillingdon community and the strengthening partnership with the Council in recent years were highlighted.

• Three key areas of collaboration were focussed on: local partnership working, economic growth, and local impact.

Local Partnership Working

• It was noted that Heathrow had prioritised several initiatives over the past three years, notably addressing local parking concerns.

• A Local Parking Action Plan had been established, managed through a multi-stakeholder forum under the Heathrow Area Transport Group, with input from Hillingdon and other boroughs.

• Efforts included:

• Members heard that the Community Investment Partnership had been launched over two years previously with the Council, London Wildlife Trust, and British Airways.

• It was noted that Heathrow had sponsored the recent “Picnic in the Park” at Barra Hall Park, where over 750 plants had been distributed to local families by the Heathrow Rangers.

Role in Local Economic Growth

• It was confirmed that, in December of the previous year, Heathrow had announced a £2.3 billion infrastructure investment, focusing on:

• The Heathrow Local Growth Task Force had been established, involving Borough stakeholders, chambers of commerce, and business groups.

• It was noted that Heathrow had participated in the “Hillingdon Takes Off” event in February.

Addressing Local Impact

• The challenges of having an airport in the Borough were recognised and Heathrow’s commitment to listening and responding to community concerns was emphasised.

• On sustainable travel:

• On air quality:

• On noise:

Richard Webb (Director of Community Safety and Enforcement) and Freddie Mohammed (Parking Representations and Appeals Manager) were in attendance to respond to Members’ queries in relation to the Draft Parking Annual Report.

Councillors sought to determine the percentage of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) that had been paid upfront and how many had proceeded to the collection stage. The response from officers indicated that the information was not immediately available but could be retrieved from the processing system and would be provided to the Committee after the meeting.

Members enquired whether road signs associated with moving traffic restrictions, such as waiting restrictions and entry prohibitions, were sufficiently visible, appropriately sized, and suitable for public comprehension. It was confirmed that parking enforcement was heavily legislated, and that signage complied with the Traffic Signs and General Directions regulations, ensuring uniformity across England and Wales.

A subsequent question from the Committee raised concerns about the misuse of disabled parking bays and the abuse faced by both legitimate blue badge holders and enforcement officers. Councillors questioned the frequency of visits to areas where such abuse occurred and whether there were sufficient staff to manage these issues. In response, it was explained that staffing and deployment were continually reviewed in collaboration with the contractor, and that a vehicle equipped with ANPR had been acquired to improve coverage. It was also noted that specific operations targeting blue badge fraud were conducted throughout the year.

Officers acknowledged the difficulty in enforcement due to invisible disabilities and explained that civil enforcement officers were limited in their authority, being able only to inspect badges. Members were informed that fraud investigations and prosecutions were handled by a dedicated team in collaboration with enforcement officers.

Members offered to provide a list of locations where blue badge misuse was prevalent and noted that they had never been asked to show their own badges, suggesting a lack of enforcement visibility.

Councillors asked whether PCNs could be broken down by those that had proceeded to court or entered debt recovery. They also queried how the Council monitored the deployment of enforcement officers to ensure they were present during peak times and that resources were used effectively. The response provided an overview of the enforcement process, from initial challenge to adjudication and potential court involvement. It was confirmed that data on PCNs was tracked by the finance team and that deployment was monitored through a tracking system, monthly meetings, and a hotline that allowed for rapid response to reported issues.

Members raised concerns regarding a recent visit during which parking enforcement officers had been observed being assaulted, including having their handheld device taken. Councillors questioned why, after a “code red” alert had been issued, the officer had received a phone call asking whether police assistance was needed, rather than immediate action being taken. Concerns were expressed that the control room was not actively monitoring the situation despite the presence of 3,000 live cameras in the Borough. Members further questioned why the contractor staff were not based  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Julia Johnson, Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth, was in attendance to respond to clarification questions from Members regarding the Town Centre Regeneration report.

Members enquired how the recent announcement that no UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) would be allocated to London boroughs post-2026 would affect the current regeneration schemes. They queried whether the schemes were fully costed or if additional funding had been anticipated. In response, officers confirmed that the announcement had been unexpected and that the current programme was based solely on the funding received for the present year. It was stated that all allocated funds were required to be spent within the year, and the team was already exploring future funding options to continue the work, given its early positive impact.

Councillors asked whether local Safer Neighbourhood Teams or anti-social behaviour teams had been involved in the design of the regeneration schemes, particularly regarding night-time safety features such as lighting and open spaces. In reply, it was acknowledged that, while the Safe Communities Team had been engaged, there had not yet been direct involvement from police officers. The officer committed to following up on this.

The Committee raised concerns about unmet promises in previous developments, such as the absence of a cinema and health centre in the Old Vinyl Factory and High Point Village. Members requested that local Councillors be consulted in future planning processes and highlighted ongoing issues such as a non-functioning clock and persistent rough sleeping in the subway. They also advocated for the promotion of local heritage, including Fairy Corner. The officer acknowledged the shortcomings of past developments and stated that lessons had been learned. It was explained that future schemes would ensure community benefits were delivered before residents moved in. Specific actions included assigning an officer to be on-site weekly, forming a landlord liaison group, and hosting open days to attract potential occupiers. The Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth agreed to follow up on the clock and subway issues and expressed support for celebrating local history through regeneration efforts.

Members asked what incentives and support schemes were in place to retain businesses and attract new enterprises to Hayes, noting the proliferation of similar shops and the loss of major retailers. It was explained that the Council had limited control over shop types due to planning regulations. However, efforts were being made to attract creative and startup businesses, particularly those priced out of East London. It was noted that the Council was also considering expanding the town centre boundary to include areas like the Old Vinyl Factory, which would allow greater influence over ground floor uses.

Councillors asked how the success of regeneration efforts was being measured, particularly in the Owen Road and Austin Road estates. They also requested that construction hoardings be made more visually appealing. The response stated that Phase 1 of the estate redevelopment was nearing completion and that a housing regeneration officer was working on-site to monitor social value outcomes. Improvements to canal links and affordable housing provisions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Matt Davis, Director of Strategic and Operational Finance, was in attendance to respond to Members’ questions in relation to the report.

Members sought further clarification regarding ambiguity in the report, noting that it appeared to simultaneously state that the scheme was not always effective while also recommending its continuation. They referenced data on page 52 of the agenda pack, highlighting inconsistencies in the number of accounts charged a premium and questioning the scheme’s effectiveness in bringing properties back into use.

The Director of Strategic and Operational Finance responded by explaining that the report did not quantify how many more homes would have remained empty without the scheme, as such data did not exist. The scheme, introduced in 2013, aimed to encourage occupancy of otherwise vacant homes. It was acknowledged that the report’s wording could have been clearer, and it was noted that many councils had adopted similar schemes for the same purpose.

Councillors raised concerns about the clarity of the report’s language, particularly regarding second homes and the application of a premium. They cited a section indicating plans to contact second homeowners by December 2025 and questioned the clarity and timing of the policy’s implementation.

In response, it was clarified that the referenced paragraph pertained to second homes, not empty homes. It was confirmed that the Council had not yet introduced the second homes premium discussed in February 2024. A legal notice had been published to announce a consultation on the scheme’s introduction from April 2026. The Council planned to consult registered second homeowners before September to confirm their status, as some may no longer be using the properties as second homes. It was reiterated that the matter would be included in the December budget-setting process and it was acknowledged that the report was somewhat unclear.

In reply to further questions from the Committee, it was explained that the Council pursued all reasonable means to collect debt, including court recovery, and wrote off debts only in cases such as untraceable individuals, bereavement, or bankruptcy.

Members suggested that liability orders added weight to enforcement and helped recover costs. In reply, the Director of Strategic and Operational Finance confirmed that the associated costs were chargeable to the ratepayer if payment was not made by the due date.

Councillors asked whether the Council had considered combining the premium with compulsory purchase order (CPO) powers to prompt quicker engagement from property owners. The Director of Strategic and Operational Finance agreed to investigate this proposal further after the meeting.

In response to their requests for further clarification, Members heard that the proposal remained under consultation and would be evaluated as part of the December budget process. A business case would be prepared, assessing demographics and financial viability. The Council might proceed even if the scheme incurred modest costs, provided it yielded environmental or housing benefits.

Members enquired whether the Council also sought to recover costs incurred from clearing overgrown properties. It was clarified that the current discussion focused solely on Council tax recovery.

Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

RESOLVED: That the Forward Plan be noted.

Members requested a mini review or information item on the topic of Breakspear Crematorium.

A summer site visit to Ruislip Lido was suggested.

RESOLVED: That the Work Programme be noted.