Agenda and draft minutes

Those present observed a one minute’s silence in memory of Past Mayor Josephine Barrett.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Abby, Burles, Reeta Chamdal, Roy Chamdal, Dhot, Gardner and Makwana.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 28 November 2024 (attached)

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 28 November 2024 be agreed as a correct record. 

Councillor Stuart Mathers declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 9.4, as he was employed by Bell Farm Christian Centre, and remained in the room during the consideration thereof.

On behalf of the Council, the Mayor congratulated Councillor Peter Smallwood on being awarded an OBE in the New Year’s Honours List.  She advised that she had attended many magical events on the run up to Christmas including carol concerts, a pantomime, a 100^th birthday party, awards ceremonies and a graduation ceremony.  The Mayor had also welcomed a number of different groups into the Parlour during this period. 

To take questions submitted by members of the public in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.

5.1       QUESTION FROM ANAND PUNJA OF ELMBRIDGE AVENUE, RUISLIP, ON BEHALF OF THE RUISLIP WOODS TRUST TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT - COUNCILLOR LAVERY:

 

“At the July 2024 Council Meeting the Cabinet member advised, and I quote from the minutes, that "the document was now in the final stages of drafting so would be published shortly". Ruislip Woods Trust, along with many of our members are now getting impatient with the Council and we further believe that the Council are currently in breach of their statutory duty, due to a lack of a 5-year management plan as the management authority for the Ruislip Woods NNR and SSI.

 

“Will the Cabinet member please provide a more specific timeline as to when an updated management plan will be consulted on and published, and to also commit to a follow up meeting within six weeks, with the relevant council officers to provide a more specific update on the overall management of Ruislip Woods as a follow up.”

 

Councillor Lavery advised that the situation at Ruislip Woods had been somewhat complex but that a management plan had been written and adopted around 100 years ago.  Although there had been a delay in its publication, the spirit of that original document had been retained in the most recent iteration which, it was anticipated, would be published by the Corporate Director early next week. 

 

5.2       QUESTION FROM STEVE GARELICK OF STOWE CRESCENT, RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT - COUNCILLOR LAVERY:

 

“Hillingdon Council has failed in its handling of flood mitigation issues, particularly in relation to the recent flooding events in Ruislip and West Drayton as well as other parts of the borough.

 

“Residents have expressed concerns about the Council’s slow response to flooding emergencies, inadequate drainage systems, and lack of long-term planning to address the increasing risk of flooding due to climate change.

 

“Why has the Council’s allocation of resources to flood mitigation projects funding not kept pace with the growing need for flood protection measures. Surely with the claimed sound financial management on countess occasions more could have been done.

 

“Given the fact that only now Hillingdon is asking for evidence on how September 2024 flooding has affected residents it seems there has been a past failure to take this matter seriously.

 

“What is the Council prepared to do to protect residents and help environmental groups reach their goals especially as more needs to be done to protect communities from the devastating effects of flooding?”

 

Councillor Lavery advised that flooding was devastating and was taken seriously by the Council.  The flooding that had happened in September had come after one month’s worth of rain fell in just 24 hours.  Yeading Brook had been full to capacity and had not been able to take any more water from the Thames Water system. 

 

Responsibilities for the different elements of the system sat with a range of organisations including Environment Agency, Thames Water, Council and landowners.  The Council had a coordinating role and officers had worked hard so it had been very disappointing that their efforts had been criticised even though the response to flooding in Ruislip Gardens in 2024 had been swift and effective.  Support had been provided to vulnerable residents, parking restrictions had been suspended in the area and free bulky waste collection had been instated for those residents affected. 

 

Whilst it was appreciated that flooding was an ongoing challenge, this was a national issue which needed to be recognised by the Government as the current systems were being pushed to their limits.  It was noted that funding had been available to undertake critical projects which had included flood defence and drainage work across the Borough.  However, it was recognised that more needed to be done.  As such, the Council was currently collecting evidence from residents which would inform any future action taken so that real and measurable results could be achieved. 

 

The Cabinet Member thanked residents, community groups and Council officers who had worked tirelessly to ensure the safety of Hillingdon residents. 

i)          URGENT IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS

 

Members noted the urgent decisions taken since the Council meeting in November 2024, as detailed in the report.

 

ii)         PROGRAMME OF MEETINGS 2025/26

 

Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion as set out on the agenda and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That the programme of meetings for 2025/26 as set out in Annex A, be approved and the Head of Democratic Services, in consultation with the Chief Whip of both parties, be authorised to make any amendments that may be required throughout the course of the year.

 

iii)          AUDIT COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT

 

Councillor Edwards moved, and Councillor Bianco seconded, the motion as set out on the agenda and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That the Annual Report of the Audit Committee 2023/24 be noted.

To consider the recommendation of Cabinet.

Councillor Lavery moved, and Councillor Edwards seconded, the motion as set out on the agenda and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That the revised Statement of Gambling Policy be adopted as a policy framework document.

To consider the calculation of the Council Tax base and the Business Rates Forecast.

Councillor Goddard moved, and Councillor Edwards seconded, the motion as set out on the Order of Business. 

 

Those speaking in support of the motion noted that the Council’s obligations with regard to setting Council Tax needed to be met by 31 January 2025.  It was noted that there were currently 105,422 Band D equivalent properties in Hillingdon which equated to a 754 net increase, increasing Council Tax revenue by £1,050k.

 

Eight amendments had been proposed in relation to the Council’s local Council Tax Reduction Scheme to reform the scheme with effect from 1 April 2025.  It was anticipated that the proposals would reduce the overall cost of the scheme by £1.2m in 2025/26, with round £1m of the benefit accruing to Hillingdon and the remainder to the Greater London Authority (GLA).  An Equalities Impact Assessment had been undertaken and those residents in receipt of Council Tax Reduction who had responded to the consultation had been largely supportive of the proposals. 

 

Reticence to support the motion was understood but the Council had been forced to propose these changes as a result of the worsening economy.  Neither did it bode well for local authorities that Government departments had been told to find additional savings.  However, the Council would not shy away from making difficult decisions. 

 

It was anticipated that the Business Rates Income forecast for 2025/26 would produce a gross yield of £405,774k.  As the Council could only retain 30% of revenues generated (central Government would receive 33% and the GLA would get 37%), and this retained sum would be reduced through tariff and levy mechanisms, Hillingdon’s share of the projected 2025/26 income would amount to £72,129k (approximately 18% made up of the baseline rates income of £51,887k plus retained growth of £20,242k).

 

Those speaking against the motion accepted the proposal to reduce the absence abroad to four weeks in line with the Pensioner CTR scheme change and welcomed the move to introduce additional support for care leavers.  However, concern was expressed that the proposals would result in £1.2m of support being taken away from vulnerable people and would compound the financial difficulties already being faced by low-income families in the Borough.  As such, Labour Members would be abstaining when voting on this motion. 

 

The motion was put to the vote and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That:

 

a)    The report of the Corporate Director of Finance for the calculation of the Council Taxbase and the Business Rates Forecast be approved.

 

b)   In accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Taxbase) (England) Regulations 2012 the amount calculated by the London Borough of Hillingdon as its Council Taxbase for 2025/26 shall be 105,422.

 

c)    Authority be delegated to the Corporate Director of Finance to submit the 2025/26 NNDR1 return to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and the Greater London Authority (GLA).

 

d)   The continuation of the Council’s policy of passporting Government discounts and reliefs applied to Business Rates to the ratepayer be approved.

 

e)    Having due regard to the Review Of Working Age Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2025/26 at Appendix 2 and the Equalities Impact Assessment at Appendix 2a, approve the following amendments to the Council’s local Council Tax Reduction Scheme to reform the scheme with effect from 1 April 2025:

a.    Align the vulnerable group percentage reduction with the rest of the scheme over a phased approach lasting 4 years.

b.    Remove the war widow pension group from the scheme.  

c.    Remove Transitional Protection.

d.    Increase the minimum weekly award to £3.

e.    Reduce the absence abroad to 4 weeks in line with Pensioner CTR scheme change.

f.     Cap the amount of Council Tax liability to be used in the calculation to Band D (non-vulnerable households only).

g.    Increase the non-dependant deduction from £8 to £10 per week.

h.    Introduce additional support for care leavers.

9.8       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR SMALLWOOD TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN:

 

“Can the Cabinet Member provide an update for our residents on the future provision of childcare at the Council's early years centres?”

 

Councillor O’Brien advised that a consultation exercise had been undertaken on the delivery model following the review of early years nurseries in 2023.  This tied in with the Government’s proposal to roll out a new childcare offer with effect from September 2024.  The Council had sought expressions of interest for new providers for the three nurseries in Hayes, Uxbridge and South Ruislip and subsequently entered into a 15-year lease with Early Years Foundation.  The lease would provide the Council with an income and the nurseries would continue to operate as usual during the transition to the new provider. 

 

Councillor O’Brien thanked Council officers, nursery staff and families who had been involved in this process and noted that there should be no tangible difference to the delivery of the service during the transition.  It was anticipated that the new provider would deliver a great service and provide better value, therefore continuing to put residents first.

 

There was no supplementary question. 

 

9.1       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR SWEETING TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND TRANSFORMATION - COUNCILLOR GODDARD:

 

“The previous Director of Finance assessed that general reserves of between £32 to £55 million were needed to ensure the Council has financial resilience to address both foreseen and unforeseen risks. The current projected levels of reserves for 2025/26 and beyond as illustrated by the chart 11 on page 38 of the budget report presented to the Children, Families and Education Select Committee of 7 January 2025, show assumed levels of reserves hovering just above £20 million until 2027/28.

 

“How confident is the Cabinet Member that, given the Council’s significant underestimates of delivering savings in the past, and over inflation as to the level of reserves, that levels of reserves will not need to be supported by Government Intervention as mentioned in paragraph 22 on page 38 of the aforementioned report?”

 

Councillor Goddard believed that the question was fair and reasonable but that the timing was not great as the budget report would not be going to Cabinet for another month and, at this stage, he would not be prepared to second guess the implications of the changes.  The Section 151 officer would be publishing the Section 25 report which would comment on the adequacy of the Council’s reserves.

 

The underfunding of local government had been a national issue with authorities having seen a 70% reduction in funding (with no account taken of population increases) whilst having to deal with the implications of rising inflation.  There had been underfunding of adult social care and homelessness services which cost a lot to provide yet demand for these services continued to increase.  It was thought that, as ten-year gilts had hit the highest level in 16 years, this might prompt further spending cuts by the Chancellor. 

 

Councillor Goddard noted that the 2025/26 budget was not a carbon copy of the previous year that the previous Corporate Director of Finance had based his comments on.  The current Corporate Director of Finance would need to base his comments on the current proposed budget.  He had been looking at financial management and savings opportunities.  Whilst it was recognised that the reserves were low and needed to be built back up, Cabinet had a strategy for delivering this.  The options to increase Council Tax beyond the maximum allowed or request Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) from the Government had been rejected by Hillingdon (although at least 20 local authorities were pursuing the EFS pathway).  Hillingdon would instead be looking to reduce its costs and rebuild its reserves. 

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Sweeting asked if the Cabinet Member could please provide detailed statistical evidence to support the blame that he was placing on the current Government for the Council’s precarious situation when it had been the previous Conservative Government’s underfunding of local government over the preceding 14 years that had resulted in the huge cuts.

 

Councillor Goddard clarified that the Council did not owe money in relation to the school high needs block – the Government owed money to Hillingdon.  As he did not have the detailed statistics to hand, he would provide Councillor Sweeting with a written response to her supplementary question. 

 

WRITTEN RESPONSE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

The provisional settlement for 2025/26 announced in December 2024 for Hillingdon Council results is a 3.1% real increase in Hillingdon’s core spending power but this is woefully insufficient.

 

This is well illustrated by the homelessness pressures we are experiencing in Hillingdon. Our analysis shows that the additional grant funding we have been allocated amounts to an increase of only circa £2m on the existing homelessness grant allocation, which represents a shortfall of £3m when applied to the current level of expenditure.

 

However, this pressure will, in reality, be far greater, as demand and market costs are continuing to rise largely due to a considerable reduction in the size of the private rental sector, where landlords have responded to the Governments intended legislation by exiting the sector.

 

There has been a 24% increase in housing demand year on year and a 30% annual increase in the cost of securing alternative private rented housing. This comes at a time when there has been a 40% reduction in the supply of private rented housing.

 

Furthermore, the cost pressures on adult social care and children’s services are similarly acute. Of particular concern are the following:

·         a 30% increase in the demand for children’s services.

·         a 66% increase in the cost of residential children’s care placements.

·         a 5% increase in the number of adults and older people requiring long-term care.

·         a 16% increase in the cost of long-term care.

 

The funding settlement for local government in 2025/26 caused London Councils to advise of a worrying funding shortfall of at least £500m in 2025/26 due to costs rising at a faster pace than boroughs’ funding levels.

 

Of particular further concern is the impact of the Employers’ National Insurance increase announced in the October 2024 Budget Statement. Whilst it is notable that the Chancellor’s announcement indicated that Public Sector bodies would be shielded from this increase, to date against a series of substantial demands from a wide range of entities including charities, no clarity has been provided as to the level of relief which will be allocated to Local Authorities. It is my belief that the Government made a specific allocation of funds to meet this obligation and that this allocation is now under severe pressure due to the unexpected level of demand for relief.

 

Furthermore, it is clear that no such relief will be available to privately owned business who provide outsourced services to Councils. As a substantial element of service provision is delivered by private companies in key areas such as Adult’s Social Care & Children’s Services in Hillingdon, it can be expected that we will face demands to escalate the price we pay for these services way beyond the prevailing rate of inflation.

 

The potential exists that this budgetary measure alone will cost Hillingdon many £ millions.

 

The Government has increased the National Minimum Wage by 6.7%, which exceeds the current rate of inflation by more than 4%. This will have a damaging and adverse impact on our cost structures, both in terms of our own direct costs and those of our outsourcing partners.

 

This Labour Government has also entered into a series of generous pay settlements way beyond current levels of inflation with a number of unions who have substantial numbers of members working in the public sector. These settlements again have real potential to adversely affect our cost structures either directly, or by their ultimate impact on the prevailing rate of inflation and hence our own pay settlements.

 

The Chancellor’s Autumn budget statement created additional public spending amounting to £70 billion, £40 billion of which will be funded by additional taxation, whilst the residual £30 billion will be met by additional Government borrowing.

 

In the month of December 2024 alone the Government incurred a fiscal deficit (expenditure exceeding income) by £17.8 billion, which vastly exceeds the equivalent figure for December 2023 of £7.7 billion.

 

This in turn has caused this Government’s borrowing costs to peak at 5% on 10 year debt, the highest level since 2008.

 

It is therefore clear that this overspending at a national level has profoundly impaired the ability to fund Local Government properly and that either further tax increases or reduced National Government spending will follow as soon as next March.

 

In combination these factors represent a fundamental adverse shift in the fiscal environment faced by Local Authorities in this country and Hillingdon is not exempt from them.

 

9.3       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BENNETT TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, HOUSING & GROWTH - COUNCILLOR TUCKWELL:

 

“Can the Cabinet Member please provide an update to the Council on the anticipated impact of the Labour Government’s planning reforms announced in December, particularly in terms of how these changes might affect housing delivery, local control over development, and the protection of green spaces in Hillingdon?”

 

Councillor Tuckwell advised that sweeping planning reforms had been introduced in 2024 which had seen a revised housing target of 88k per year in London.  It was anticipated that the Mayor of London would push the bulk of the responsibility for meeting this target to the outer London boroughs – the London Plan revised targets would be revealed later this year. 

 

Hillingdon would continue to commit to delivering a sustainable housing programme despite the move towards building on Grey Belt which would erode the protections afforded to Green Belt land.  The Council would continue to resist this move and develop affordable housing whilst maintaining green spaces – it would not allow the environment to be destroyed. 

 

A national scheme of delegation was being suggested alongside mandatory Member training.  Hillingdon already had a robust planning system in place; a system that put residents first and would not accept unfavourable and poorly thought-out policies.  Hillingdon was fit for future generations and would not stop fighting for its residents. 

 

There was no supplementary question. 

 

9.6       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR KAUR TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES AND PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO:

 

“Would the Cabinet Member kindly agree to make public the list of any potential assets that are likely to be disposed of or put up for sale to balance the books, so as not to leave Hillingdon residents feeling angry and deeply concerned about the potential lack of transparency and its impact on their community?”

 

Councillor Bianco advised that there were a number of requirements that had to be met for the disposal of properties.  If a property met one or more of these requirements, did not have an alternative use and was deemed surplus to requirement, it could be disposed of.  A programme of disposals would be compiled which would then release funding to support residents in other ways.  Where possible, the Council tried to secure additional value from the sale of assets, for example, the sale of Barra Hall to Uxbridge College would result in a new educational establishment. 

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

9.5       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR DAVIES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT- COUNCILLOR LAVERY:

 

“Can the Cabinet Member please update Council on the positive progress being made to secure an exciting new future for the much-valued Beck Theatre?”

 

Councillor Lavery advised that new terms had been agreed with the new provider (Parkwood) just before Christmas for a 15-year contract (plus 5 years).  The transition was currently underway and was going seamlessly despite Labour rumours to the contrary.  The Council had just got its head down and got on with the job of coming up with a better value deal. 

 

Parkwood had committed to retaining the Beck Theatre’s cultural identity and would be providing a more sustainable model going forward.  The new provider would bring fresh ideas to the stage and provide a hub for creativity.  However, the organisation would need a little time to be able to work up its new programme. 

 

The Cabinet Member thanked the Corporate Director and their team for their hard work in resolving this issue. 

 

There was no supplementary question

 

9.7       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR PUNJA TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & EDUCATION - COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN:

 

“Will the Cabinet Member for Children and Families offer her congratulations to the Save our Nurseries campaign which successfully overturned the closures resulting in keeping all three Early Years Centres open under new management?”

 

Councillor O’Brien referred Councillor Punja to her previous response to question 9.8. 

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Punja asked if the Cabinet Member agreed that her closure of the early years centres had been the wrong decision.

 

Councillor O’Brien advised that early intervention had been introduced over the last couple of years and had been working very well.  This approach ran across all services. 

 

9.2       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR DENYS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE - COUNCILLOR PALMER:

 

“Can the Cabinet Member please give an update on the outcome of the recent Care Quality Commission's inspection of Hillingdon Council's Adult Social Care Services?”

 

Councillor Palmer advised that she was proud and relieved that the recent CQC inspection had rated Hillingdon’s adult social care services as ‘Good’.  The score of 73 had placed Hillingdon as second best in London and third best in England. 

 

Contact with the CQC had started in February 2024 with 199 items of evidence being forwarded to them in March 2024.  Over the next four months, additional evidence had been gathered from residents, carers and stakeholders.  The onsite inspections had been undertaken by eight inspectors between 22 and 25 July 2024 where they had liaised with service users and informal carers, amongst others. 

 

During the inspection, Hillingdon’s excellent partnership working which was based on mutual trust had shone through and it had been recognised that public health had been embedded in adult social care through early intervention and prevention.  However, although carers were largely satisfied with the support that they received, there was more that could still be done collectively to empower service users, etc. 

 

Since writing the self-assessment in 2024, the Council had continued to implement its ongoing improvement plan.  The CQC Chief Executive had stated that the Council should be proud of the foundations that it had put in place for progress. 

 

Councillor Palmer thanked Councillors Denys and Punja, the Members of the Health and Social Care Select Committee, officers, voluntary sector, the Council’s Chief Executive and the Corporate Director of Health and Social Care for their support and dedication.  

 

There was no supplementary question. 

 

9.4       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MARTIN TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE - COUNCILLOR PALMER:

 

“It has been reported that the savings anticipated by the Labour Government accruing from the cancellation of the pensioners’ winter fuel payment have failed to be delivered, largely due to the surge in successful applications for Pension Credit.

 

“Can the Cabinet Member please advise what action has been taken in Hillingdon to mitigate the loss of the winter fuel payment to our pensioner residents?”

 

Councillor Palmer advised that the Council would continue to support its older residents.  To be able to claim the Winter Fuel Allowance (WFA), residents had to be in receipt of Pension Credits (PC) which were available to those on low incomes. 

 

The Department for Work and Pensions had written to all residents who had previously been in receipt of WFA to ensure that those who were eligible had applied for PC.  The Council had secured the services of Age UK (using the Household Support Fund that it had set up) to promote the take up of PC amongst residents and provide advice and support and highlight other services that were available such as foodbanks.  As a result, 70 residents had applied for PC (applications took around 8-12 weeks to process) and 40 residents had been found to be eligible for other financial support.  There had been a total of 76 claims and £138k of benefits secured for residents. 

 

Information would be shared with faith leaders for them to disseminate to their communities and work continued with the third sector. 

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

9.9       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR R.MILLS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SERVICES AND PROPERTY - COUNCILLOR BIANCO:

 

“In light of much previous negative publicity concerning the future of the Uxbridge library site, can the Cabinet Member please update the Council on the current position?”

 

Councillor Bianco advised that development of the new library site at the Civic Centre remained on track for completion in the Spring of 2025.  The Registrars would be relocated to a new area at the Civic Centre with modern spaces for weddings and other events.  The Council had found a potential buyer for the old library site and hoped to make a formal announcement about this in the near future. 

 

There was no supplementary question.