We call on Hillingdon Council to reconsider and amend the proposed changes to the Residents’ Petition Scheme by:

• Retaining the current signature thresholds of 20 signatures for local and planning petitions and 100 signatures for borough‑wide petitions;
   (or, at minimum: Introducing proportionate thresholds that reflect ward population size or the scale of the issue, rather than applying a uniform increase across all petition types)
• Retaining a clear right to a public Cabinet Member hearing for petitions that meet the required threshold, rather than defaulting to written responses.
• Preserving meaningful speaking rights on planning matters, regardless of whether an application is determined by the Planning Committee or delegated to an officer.

We ask the Council to ensure that any changes to the Petition Scheme remain consistent with its stated commitment to transparency, accountability, and enabling residents to hold decision‑makers to account.

Reason for this Petition
Hillingdon Council is proposing revisions to the Council Residents’ Petition Scheme that would significantly alter how residents formally engage with elected decision‑makers.

The proposed changes include:

•  Increasing the required signatures for local and planning petitions from 20 to 50;
• Increasing the threshold for valid borough‑wide petitions from 100 to 500 signatures;
• Removing automatic Cabinet Member hearings as the default response to qualifying petitions, replacing them with a written response or a site visit;
• Removing speaking rights for planning petitions where applications are determined by planning officers rather than the Planning Committee.

These changes represent a substantial increase in thresholds — including a fivefold increase for borough‑wide petitions — and a structural reduction in public hearing rights.

During the Cabinet meeting on 25 June 2026, the Deputy Leader stated that openly reporting successes and challenges is key to “reinforcing its accountability” and ensuring the Council remains “on the side of local people.” The Leader also stated that the Council “values resident feedback.”

Furthermore, the Leader’s foreword to the 2025/26 Performance Report affirms that transparency “allows our residents to hold us to account”

We welcome and support these commitments to transparency, scrutiny and accountability.

Petitions are not merely service requests. They are:

• A mechanism for collective public representation;
• A way to demonstrate the strength of local feeling;
• A means of securing visible and transparent engagement with elected Members;
• An established route for residents to hold decision‑makers publicly accountable.

While written responses and site visits may be appropriate in some circumstances, they are not equivalent to a public hearing where residents can present concerns openly and elected Members respond in a public forum.

Significantly higher thresholds may also disproportionately affect:

• Smaller neighbourhoods;
• Time‑limited planning matters;
• Residents with limited digital networks;
• Less organised or more vulnerable communities.

The existing scheme has operated for many years as an accessible democratic mechanism. Any reform should strengthen resident participation and confidence in local decision‑making — not reduce accessibility or visibility.