Agenda item

Chief Inspector Ben Wright of the Metropolitan Police Service, Daniel Johnson (Borough Commander for Hillingdon - London Fire Brigade) and Richard Webb, Director of Community Safety and Enforcement were in attendance to respond to Members’ questions regarding the Safer Hillingdon Partnership update report. Councillor Wayne Bridges, Cabinet Member for Community & Environment, was also in attendance.

Councillors sought clarification on when the Safer Hillingdon Partnership Strategy, approved by Full Council, would begin to be implemented. Officers explained that the Strategy had now been formally adopted and published, and that work had already begun through the Safer Hillingdon Partnership on developing a delivery plan agreed by all partners. This delivery plan set out priority themes, associated activities, and performance measures to track progress. It was also reported that partners had reviewed a more comprehensive data dashboard, drawing together information from council services and partner organisations to provide a clearer picture of crime and disorder across the Borough and to assess the effectiveness of interventions. It was confirmed that, once outstanding details had been finalised, the delivery plan would be published and presented at a future meeting to allow Members to monitor progress against the agreed priorities.

Members asked about the London Fire Brigade’s preparedness for incidents relating to Heathrow Airport. It was confirmed that the Fire Brigade routinely trained and prepared for a wide range of scenarios, including those associated with Heathrow. It was stated that six- and eight?minute response times for first and second fire engines were maintained across London in more than 95 per cent of cases. Local fire stations also undertook regular training programmes to ensure readiness for the broad range of incidents that could arise in and around the airport.

The Committee enquired how intelligence was shared between agencies where crime risks and fire hazards overlapped, such as in cases involving cannabis factories. It was explained by the Police that joint working arrangements with the London Fire Brigade were well established, particularly through shared command, control, and communications structures used for major and critical incidents. While electricity providers were often the primary agency involved in cannabis factory cases, close liaison existed and the Fire Brigade would be involved where fire risk was present. The London Fire Brigade Borough Commander confirmed regular engagement with senior police officers, participation in borough security review meetings, and close alignment of borough risk management plans with identified threats. In addition, it was confirmed that the Brigade’s fire safety regulation team was working alongside police partners locally to identify and mitigate risks wherever possible.

Members sought further clarification regarding police visibility, noting that residents frequently reported rarely seeing uniformed police patrols, a concern often raised at Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) meetings. They asked how often local police officers were abstracted from the Borough to support protests and events in central London. Clarification was sought on the scale of this abstraction, including any available figures or percentages indicating how much officer time was spent outside the Borough.

In response, the Chief Inspector explained that the level of abstraction fluctuated depending on national and international events, including geopolitical issues and protests linked to matters such as international conflict, asylum, and broader political activity, much of which manifested in central London. It was confirmed that, over the past three years, significant work had been undertaken to reduce the abstraction of dedicated ward officers from their local areas. Whereas abstraction had previously reached peaks of around 35%, it had since been reduced substantially. On average, abstraction was now estimated at approximately 10–15%, and this figure included time spent on training and other duties, not solely deployments to central London.

The Chief Inspector further explained that the police service remained focused on crime?fighting outcomes rather than visibility alone, with productivity having increased significantly. Improvements were reported across key measures including arrests, charges, cautions, and convictions, reflecting increased operational effectiveness. It was acknowledged, however, that visibility continued to be challenging due to sustained resource pressures. Reductions in police numbers had occurred, with approximately 3,000 officers cut in the current year following prolonged reductions over the past 15 years, and further reductions were anticipated. Despite these challenges, it was noted that officers were working intensively to address residents’ concerns, while recognising that public expectations around visibility remained understandably high.

Members raised further enquiries regarding the uptake of the Met Engage platform, noting that it had replaced the previous system and that Hillingdon had historically seen high engagement levels. Clarification was sought on current take?up rates and whether the new platform had achieved comparable levels of participation.

The Chief Inspector confirmed that Met Engage was a key communication tool, enabling two?way engagement between the police and residents. It was used to share crime prevention advice, provide information, and receive intelligence from the community. It was reported that substantial work had been undertaken over the preceding 12 months, including collaboration with Neighbourhood Watch, to increase registrations. While the previous platform had achieved approximately 20% engagement, Met Engage had not yet reached that level; however, current trajectories suggested this would be achieved by the two?year mark. It was noted that this would represent a refreshed and more active membership base. The volume and quality of interaction on the platform were reported to be strong, with some wards identified for further targeted engagement. Met Engage performance formed part of regular monthly performance monitoring, and it was reported that Hillingdon was ranked at or near the top across London in terms of sign?ups and overall registrations.

The Committee formally placed on record its thanks to Dave Ludlow, Kevin Mappam, and all those involved in Neighbourhood Watch. It was noted that Neighbourhood Watch volunteers attended the Hillingdon Safer Neighbourhood Board, worked closely with the Police, and gave their time voluntarily to support community safety.

Councillors questioned the Police regarding the operating hours of Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) officers. While expressing strong praise for the local ward team and its officers, concern was raised that SNT shifts ended at 11.00pm, despite the ward containing late?night activity and licensed premises operating until 2.00am. Councillors reported receiving complaints from residents about antisocial behaviour, noise, and late?night drinking, and asked whether SNT shifts could be made more flexible to provide a visible policing presence later into the night where issues persisted.

In response, it was explained that designated ward officers were not the only policing resource available and that emergency response teams operated on a 24?hour basis, 365 days a year. It was confirmed that incidents at late?night venues could be dealt with by these teams as required. The Chief Inspector stated that licensed premises were not a significant driver of crime within the Borough and highlighted the effectiveness of joint working between the Council’s licensing team and the Police in preventing and managing issues associated with licensed premises. It was explained that police resourcing was deployed based on risk, and that other issues, such as acquisitive crime at locations including Lombardy Retail Park, currently posed a greater risk and required daytime ward officer presence to achieve the greatest impact. However, it was confirmed that if specific intelligence identified an emerging or serious issue at a licensed premise, shifts could be adjusted accordingly. It was emphasised that resourcing decisions took a borough?wide view of risk rather than relying solely on ward?based teams.

The Committee directed a question to the London Fire Brigade representative regarding the Fire Cadets and Junior Citizens programmes, noting that around 3,000 Year 6 pupils participated annually. Members asked for further information on the programmes, their impact on building resilience and fire safety awareness among young people, and how education was carried into the home to help prevent fires.

In response, it was explained that no direct statistical evidence was available on the long?term impact of the Junior Citizens and Fire Cadets programmes, noting that their benefits were largely anecdotal. It was noted that educating young people was believed to have lasting value, as lessons learned could carry into adulthood and be shared within families, particularly supporting those who may not have been familiar with UK fire prevention practices. The primary aim of the Year 6 programme was to help children identify fire hazards and understand potential risks, enabling them to recognise similar hazards in their own homes. This included awareness of risks associated with electrical appliances, candles, cooking practices, and the safe use of lithium?ion batteries. The sessions were described as highly visual and interactive to ensure engagement and formed part of a wider programme of activities delivered through the Junior Citizens Scheme.

In response to further questions from the Committee, the Chief Inspector explained that the Police Service had faced a £460 million budget deficit in the previous year, part of which had been addressed through funding provided by the Mayor, leaving a remaining shortfall of around £200 million that resulted in a series of cuts. It was confirmed that the underlying structural deficit remained unresolved, and that funding arrangements for the following year were still unclear. It was stated that the lack of certainty around future funding made long?term strategic planning difficult and clarity was needed to allow the organisation to plan effectively.

Members expressed concern that the public narrative around police funding appeared inconsistent, noting reports of an increase in the Mayor of London’s council tax precept for policing and announcements of additional officers and PCSOs, which contrasted with perceptions of reduced capacity at a local level. It was queried whether policing resources were increasing or decreasing, as the situation on the ground appeared to differ from the broader strategic picture.

In response, the Chief Inspector acknowledged that the public narrative was often confusing. It was explained that, within Hillingdon, some increases had occurred over the previous four years, including additional sergeants, strengthened neighbourhood teams, and increases in certain PCSO numbers, with two dedicated ward officers continuing to be retained per ward. However, it was noted that a former support team of ten staff providing key administrative functions had been removed, resulting in additional pressures being placed on ward officers. Members heard that emergency response teams and headquarters functions across the Basic Command Unit had also been reduced as part of wider organisational cuts, including the removal of approximately 3,000 police officer posts across the Metropolitan Police during the year. While reference was made to possible future funding to address these reductions, it was confirmed that no such information had yet been communicated through internal channels.

The Committee sought further clarification as to whether recent increases and decreases in certain crime types were specific to Hillingdon or reflected wider London trends. It was explained that increases in reported offences relating to violence against women and girls were partly attributable to improved reporting and increased confidence among victims, including the reporting of historical offences. It was highlighted that additional resourcing had been directed towards public protection, leading to improved detection rates and positive outcomes, with particularly strong performance noted locally in comparison to other boroughs.

It was further explained that theft of motor vehicles reflected a national trend, with both national and local initiatives underway to address the issue, and that recent local figures had begun to decline. Burglary was reported to have peaked around December but had since reduced significantly following arrests and charges related to recent offending. Increases in violence with injury were attributed in part to stricter crime recording standards and were largely associated with domestic abuse rather than public-space violence, which was described as rare and closely monitored.

In relation to domestic violence, Councillors enquired whether there were mechanisms for receiving referrals from schools, neighbours, or other agencies on a preventative or pre?offence basis, similar to referral pathways used for terrorism-related concerns. In response, the Chief Inspector confirmed that reports were regularly received from neighbours, third parties, and partner agencies. It was explained that societal awareness and intolerance of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls had increased, although further progress was still required. It was confirmed that strong intelligence mechanisms were in place, including for more technical offences, and that members of the public and partner agencies were encouraged to report any suspicious concerns, whether relating to domestic violence or other matters.

Members requested further detail on stop and search, noting that while the published statement was positive, residents and young people often sought clearer explanations of how the process operated. The Chief Inspector responded that stop and search was an important policing tool, while acknowledging that it could be harmful if used improperly. It was reported that over the previous three years the number of stop and searches had increased gradually, while positive outcomes had risen significantly. Approximately 40% of searches were resulting in a positive outcome, meaning prohibited items had been found. It was further explained that around 90% of stop and searches were video recorded and independently audited through dip sampling by an external panel, with findings reported to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. Members of the public were able to complain at any time, with footage available for review. The Chief Inspector stated that stop and search was being used appropriately across the Basic Command Unit and expressed a desire to see its use continue to increase while maintaining high detection rates, as it was effective in preventing violent crime, drug-related crime, and theft.

In relation to stop and search, Councillors asked whether any groups were disproportionately represented and, if so, whether engagement work had been undertaken with those communities. It was confirmed that disproportionality existed when measured against population size, with Black residents more likely to be stopped per head of population, although White residents accounted for the highest overall number of stops. It was stated that those being stopped were doing so on legitimate grounds, as evidenced by detection outcomes, and that complaints were very rare. The Chief Inspector emphasised that stop and search was conducted based on behaviour and intelligence rather than identity, and that officers were trained to explain grounds clearly. It was also explained that the use of broader powers, such as Section 60, was accompanied by extensive communication with communities through media, Independent Advisory Groups, and Safer Neighbourhood Boards, with figures scrutinised regularly. Reference was made to consultation on the stop and search charter, during which Hillingdon residents had expressed strong support for increased use of stop and search.

The Chief Inspector clarified that preventing crime was the primary objective of stop and search and confirmed that extensive engagement work was taking place. This included regular meetings with faith leaders, close partnership working with the Council, schools, and third-sector organisations, and participation in initiatives such as Junior Citizens, where pupils received education on stop and search, individual rights, and legal responsibilities. Additional engagement was noted with asylum accommodation providers and through Home Office-led programmes to ensure new arrivals understood legal expectations. It was stated that these combined efforts were intended to reduce offending and improve understanding across communities.

In response to further questions from the Committee regarding fires caused by electric bikes, electric scooters, and lithium-ion batteries, and whether these incidents were becoming a significant issue, the London Fire Brigade representative confirmed that such fires were an increasing trend and stated that this issue had become a major focus of the Charge Safe campaign. It was explained that the growth in lithium-ion battery use, particularly through online-purchased kits for bikes and scooters, had contributed to the rise in incidents. Although precise statistics were not provided, it was confirmed that every lithium-ion battery fire was reviewed by the fire investigation team. The rapid and hazardous nature of these fires was highlighted, with emphasis placed on education and risk reduction through public awareness.

The Committee asked the Fire Brigade whether a non-emergency reporting option existed for situations such as bonfires producing heavy smoke, noting that the only available option appeared to be calling 999, which could result in a full emergency response. The Borough Commander for Hillingdon acknowledged the concern and explained that responses depended on the assessed level of risk, as fires could escalate rapidly. It was stated that crews aimed to educate residents where possible rather than simply extinguishing fires. Issues relating to clean air legislation were identified as falling under local authority enforcement. While community engagement requests could be made through general enquiries, it was explained that there was no current evidence locally or across London to justify a separate non-emergency fire response line, and that rapid attendance remained important for public safety.

In response to Members’ questions regarding hoarding, the Borough Commander for Hillingdon explained that hoarding cases were managed through joint working with partners such as social services, the London Ambulance Service, and the Metropolitan Police. Where concerns were identified, crews provided home fire safety advice and engagement. It was confirmed that properties presenting increased fire risk due to hoarding were recorded on an operational risk database, enabling fire crews across London to be alerted to associated hazards and to tailor their response accordingly.

Members sought further clarification as to how Council officers worked collaboratively with the Fire Brigade and the police to ensure the safety of high?rise buildings, and how partnership working with the police was used to address antisocial behaviour (ASB) in parks, particularly following the decision not to lock park gates. It was asked how data and incidents relating to parks were shared, how the police supported this work, and how joint working could further improve responses to ASB.

Officers explained that a range of partnership arrangements were in place. In relation to parks and ASB, information on trends, patterns, and hotspots was routinely shared with the police. Where repeated complaints or emerging patterns of antisocial behaviour were identified, the Council’s relevant team initiated targeted work and engaged directly with neighbourhood policing teams. This approach was driven by evidence and patterns rather than isolated incidents. It was further explained that daily reviews of violent crime reports were undertaken jointly with the police and the fire service, enabling recurring issues or location?based risks to be identified. These reviews informed decisions on additional preventative measures such as improved lighting, CCTV provision, and environmental changes, including vegetation management.

In relation to fire safety in high?rise buildings, officers explained that the Council operated a high?rise fire safety programme aligned with national definitions and funding arrangements set by central government. The programme involved identifying high?rise buildings, understanding associated risks, and implementing mitigation measures. This work was undertaken in close partnership with the Fire Brigade. Specialist expertise was applied to assess building access and construction, while the Fire Brigade provided detailed input on fire safety measures in communal areas. A comprehensive register of high?rise buildings was maintained, recording risk status and mitigation activity. Where necessary, enforcement notices were used to compel remedial action, although it was noted that such cases could involve lengthy processes, including appeals and long?term construction works. Referrals and inspections by the Fire Brigade often triggered further Council involvement where additional risks were identified.

The Borough Commander for Hillingdon confirmed that legislative changes had strengthened requirements for high?rise and other higher?risk buildings, defined as those over 18 metres or six storeys. It was explained that building emergency evacuation plans were now required and were being developed and stored electronically through a high?rise portal, with the local authority housing team overseeing this work. The Fire Brigade had, for several years, maintained detailed operational risk plans for all high?rise premises on its database, including building layouts, to support effective emergency responses. Any call to a high?rise building attracted an enhanced attendance due to the elevated risk. It was also confirmed that where residents required specific evacuation arrangements, those details were recorded to ensure prioritisation during incidents.

The Chair raised concerns regarding reports of conflicts between local secondary schools. While acknowledging that such issues were not new and had historically amounted largely to playground discussion, the Chair noted that recent reports suggested a more organised nature, including the involvement of individuals from outside schools and the potential presence of weapons. It was therefore asked what preventative work was being undertaken with schools to address and mitigate this apparent escalation.

The Chief Inspector responded that there was a risk of overstating the situation, noting that similar issues had occurred historically. It was confirmed that the individuals responsible for the online posts that had circulated widely across London had been arrested and were being dealt with appropriately. The Chief Inspector stated that there had been strong joint working between the police, the Council, schools, and parents, particularly in relation to information sharing to inform an effective policing response. It was confirmed that no significant incidents had occurred within Hillingdon and that intelligence?led activity, supported by a proactive and well?informed community, had enabled potential issues to be prevented. The matter was reported to have subsided, and it was suggested that further attention could risk unnecessarily reigniting concerns. The Chief Inspector commended the community response and confirmed that those responsible for initiating the issue were being addressed, with the expectation that this would conclude the matter.

The Chair welcomed the reassurance provided and thanked the officers in attendance for their contributions, expressing appreciation on behalf of the Committee and the wider Council for the work undertaken by police and fire services to keep residents in Hillingdon safe, and asked that thanks be passed on to frontline officers.

RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the contents of the reports and asked questions in order to clarify matters of concern or interest in the Borough.