Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Scott Farley with Councillor Sital Punja substituting.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings dated 16 April 2024 and 9 May 2024 be agreed as an accurate record.

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

Dan Kennedy, Corporate Director of Central Services, introduced the item and invited colleagues from P3 and Thames Reach to share their experiences and perspectives on homelessness.

Thames Reach

Sophie Murray, Lead Manager of the Hillingdon Thames Reach Outreach Team, addressed the Committee Members confirming that Thames Reach worked closely with Council Housing officers.

Ms Murray outlined the team’s work with the Rough Sleeper team within Hillingdon Council, their response to support rough sleepers, and their collaboration with agencies such as ARCH (Addiction, Recovery, Community Hillingdon Service), RAMP (Refugee Asylum and Migration Policy project) and mental health teams. The challenges faced, including a lack of options for accommodation and the high support needs of many rough sleepers, were highlighted. 

P3

Zara Street (Operations Manager of the Hillingdon Thames Reach Outreach Team) Laura Lawson and Nicola Tallon were in attendance representing P3. Members heard that P3 provided support to young people and families. The Committee was informed that P3 ran four services from the Navigator Centre, including a housing advice service, a floating support service for looked after children and care experienced young people, a well-being project for early intervention prevention, and move-on properties. They also ran a family advice service for families with a child aged 5 and under. P3 highlighted their previous work with the Council and their current collaborations with various partners within the Borough. The challenges faced in moving young people on to appropriate accommodation were highlighted.  

P3 discussed their supported accommodation services, which included four units for 16 to 25-year-olds who had previously been in care. They highlighted the challenges of moving young people on to appropriate accommodation due to the limited supply of affordable move-on housing, making it difficult to find suitable accommodation for these individuals. 

It was noted that everyone involved in providing accommodation was currently facing difficulties. The high cost of private sector rents and the Council’s struggle to find private landlords willing to accept homeless individuals were identified as significant issues. The consensus was that all parties were currently stuck with limited resources and options in addressing homelessness. 

Members sought further clarification regarding the improvements needed in the Housing Department to enhance the experience for both workers and clients. In response, the emphasis was placed on the importance of communication. It was noted that case work changes within the housing department sometimes occurred without the knowledge of partnership workers. The need for a platform where everyone could communicate was highlighted, given the numerous services within the Borough and the housing linked to them. 

The communication with the robust sleeper pathway was praised, but it was pointed out that some people P3 worked with ended up sleeping rough because their applications with the Council’s Homelessness Prevention Team had found they were not in priority need for housing assistance.

Members heard that, when people approached the Housing Department at the Civic Centre, it was extremely challenging for officers due to the high level of homelessness demand presenting to the Council. P3 reported that, when they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Nicola Herbert, Head of Waste Services, was in attendance to answer Members’ questions in relation to the Graffiti Removal report in the agenda pack.

Members noted that, as set out on page 26 of the agenda pack, in March 2023 27% of graffiti removal works had been completed in response to an online report. Members sought further information in relation to this and enquired whether this was an improvement or a reduction on previous years. It was agreed that the Head of Waste Services would attempt to source the relevant data for comparison purposes.

Members enquired how effectively the graffiti service liaised with TfL regarding graffiti on bus shelters. It was confirmed that such reports went directly to TfL in the first instance but on occasion they were escalated to the Council as they had taken too long to process. Members suggested that, in such cases, the Council should look to recover the cost of removal from TfL.

The Committee sought further clarification regarding the monitoring of success noting that, in some cases, graffiti was removed but fly posting was not. It was confirmed that contractors were expected to complete such works proactively. In future, examples could be forwarded to the Head of Waste Services.

Members welcomed the fact that graffiti was generally removed very quickly and suggested that other departments could learn from this approach. Noting that graffiti on shop shutters was sometimes missed as they were open during the day, it was suggested that the team could consider completing these works during the evening. The Head of Waste Services advised Members that some businesses were reluctant to close their shutters during business hours and opted to remove the graffiti themselves. Out of hours working would be considered for the future.

In response to further questions from Councillors, it was confirmed that the Council did not issue fines for the removal of flyposting. Graffiti removal was prioritised over flyposting. The issuing of fines for flyposting offences was challenging as the person responsible for putting the poster up was liable rather than the business the poster related to. At the request of Members, it was agreed than an information item relating to flyposting would be added to the Select Committee Work Programme.  

Members were informed that the main focus was on cleaning up the graffiti which had been reported, rather than scoping. In known hotspots such as Ruislip and Hayes, graffiti was often removed proactively before it had been reported.

Members sought further clarification regarding the benefits of contracting out the service. They were informed that the contractors had specialist vehicles and were trained in the use of appropriate chemicals to remove different types of graffiti. If the service were to be brought in house, specially trained staff would be needed. Moreover, if contractors were to damage private property, the Council would be risk free.

In respect of the contract, which was due to expire in November, the Select Committee was advised that market research would be carried out and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Richard Webb, Director of Community Safety and Enforcement, was in attendance to answer Members’ questions in relation to the Anti-Social Behaviour report included in the agenda pack.

Members queried the accuracy of the FPN figures as set out on page 36 of the agenda pack as some of these seemed very low. It was confirmed that the system currently in place was inadequate hence a spreadsheet had been created to record this information. It was recognised that the information presented did not align with ward boundaries. The statistics related to the deployment of environmental support officers. Members were informed that most FPNs came from contractors; in order for an FPN to be issued, the incident had to be witnessed firsthand. ANPR cameras were not generally effective in identifying offenders as the images they generated were not sufficiently detailed.

In response to further questions from the Select Committee, it was confirmed that deployment was based on problem areas such as high streets, Ruislip Lido and areas around Heathrow. This was updated regularly to meet requirements.

Members sought further clarification regarding the issuing of FPNs for fly tipping which did not appear on the list in the report. It was agreed that the Director of Community Safety and Enforcement would explore this further outside of the meeting. Members were advised that, in some instances, ANPR cameras were able to pick up fly tippers. Officers would then try to trace the number plate of the vehicle to identify the offender.

Councillors requested further information regarding the increase in anti-social behaviour. It was confirmed that all local authorities were witnessing an increase in anti-social behaviour. Since Covid, people were working from home more regularly and were therefore more likely to notice, and complain about, their neighbours’ behaviour. Moreover, the cost of living was another driver of anti-social behaviour.

Members enquired whether the current excel spreadsheet could be digitalised to facilitate the breakdown of FPN figures per ward. The Director of Community Safety and Enforcement acknowledged that customer service was inadequate at present. A new case management system was to be introduced which would help to address this. It was confirmed that the team had worked with the Police on a number of occasions in relation to ASB hotspots.  

The Select Committee sought further clarification in respect of actionable vs non-actionable incidents. It was confirmed that it was not always possible for the team to take any action due to insufficient location details. Members were informed that the ASB department held regular discussions with other teams, including Housing, to agree who would lead on a piece of work. The teams worked well together across the Council.

With regard to the relationship between the Council, the Police and management companies, it was confirmed that ASB got involved when problems were reported. The ASB localities team focused on more complex ASB cases such as those involving social landlords who were often reluctant to take action. It was hoped that the social housing regulator would assist with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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

Democratic Services advised the Select Committee that a September site visit to Edmonton Recycling Centre was currently being planned.

At the request of Members, it was agreed that a site visit to Uxbridge or Ruislip Lido would be added to the Work Programme. Members also requested an update on fly tipping (including funfairs), and it was agreed that this would be added to the Select Committee Work Programme.

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