The Housing and Environment Scrutiny Panel met on Monday 10 November 2025 to discuss land ownership in Hounslow, as well as next steps and future visits. The panel was also scheduled to review good practices.

Land Ownership in Hounslow

Vinesh Govind, Head of Performance and Information, and Lorien Kelly, Head of Regulatory Services in Environmental Services, were scheduled to be present to discuss land ownership in Hounslow.

Minutes from an informal meeting on 17 September 2025, included in the Public Reports Pack, noted concerns raised about enforcement policy, particularly around dockless e-bikes . It was noted that members wanted to see more done about dockless e-bikes, and that some members were concerned about how this was being handled.

The September minutes also noted that members of the panel expressed surprise that there were no clear records of land ownership, and that there was a suggestion that this should be easily achieved, including Transport for London (TfL) and NHS land.

The September minutes also included a discussion of fly-tipping on private land, which was described as a major national issue that is costly for councils. It was noted that enforcement must identify who is responsible, and that the council should not be responsible for payment and removing items.

It was noted that land registry searches cost £33 each, and that once the owner is identified, they are written to formally, starting a legal process:

Community Protection Warning (28 days to act) → Community Protection Notice → possible prosecution. Maximum fine is £100.

It was noted that steps are taken prior to fines and prosecution, but that these are final steps if no resolution occurs prior to this. It was also noted that the council may still have to remove rubbish if landowners do not comply, and that residents often complain. The TCE programme is working to track and reduce complaints.

The September minutes stated that there is currently no clear system for land ownership cases, and that cases bounce between teams, and that a central knowledge repository could help.

The costs and scale of the issue were discussed in the September meeting:

• Around 100–120 fly-tipping cases on private land per month.
• Very difficult to identify landowners, especially with unadopted alleyways and shared access areas.
• Some cooperation with housing associations (e.g. Feltham) but patchy across the borough.
• Land registry searches are a recurring expense.
• No mapping system exists; planning does not currently have registry access.

Councillor Joanna Biddolph asked whether fly-tipping has increased since the Sterling Road Centre closed and since fortnightly collections began, and it was agreed that this should be checked and shared back with the Panel.

The September minutes noted that Community Protection Notices are issued approximately 100–120 times monthly, and that enforcement has a stepped approach as required by law. Costs of issuing fines vs. what is recovered were raised, and a link to West London Waste Authority costs was also discussed.

The September minutes also noted that some areas are unregistered or unclear under land registry (e.g. Swift Alley). Ownership can change hands, which complicates enforcement. Hounslow Highways handles collections in some unadopted areas and works with local litter-picking groups. Councillors noted residents' frustration when nothing seems to be happening, and TCE will provide feedback to show action is being taken. A draft map of unknown ownership was shared, and councillors asked for clearer ward-level data. International and UK private companies own some land; other agencies (e.g. Rivers Authority) are also involved. Officers were scheduled to follow up with ward-level breakdowns and potential best practice from other boroughs.

The September minutes highlighted that clarity on costs is needed so funding bids can be explored, and that someone is required who can pledge budget to this. Councillor Emma Yates suggested that officers should be engaged, including the Performance team, to look at costs and gaps. It was noted that the system must be accurate and regularly updated (e.g. around garages sold or leased), and that members suggested learning from other local authorities. Questions were raised about whether the panel should also look at housing.

Other Business

The agenda for the meeting included an item to discuss next steps, visits, and a review of good practice. There was also an item for any other business which the Chair, Councillor Hina Mir, agrees to accept on grounds of urgency.

Declarations of Interest

The Public Reports Pack included guidance on declaring interests under the Members' Code of Conduct¹. Councillors were reminded that if they have a pecuniary interest² in any matter being discussed at the meeting they must declare the interest and not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter.