Just last month, the Cabinet approved a massive spend to replace the Council’s Planning IT system. Despite assurances over recent years that our feedback would be taken into consideration and that we would be involved in working on the new system to avoid the bugs of the current one, the decision to purchase a new system was buried in a confidential “Part 2” paper.
The change was pitched as being an “improvement to the digital experience for users and residents” but in reality it has been forced upon the council because they were given notice three years ago that support would be withdrawn for their current software at the end of this year. Other councils using the same software have already switched – Hillingdon have only just signed off on the deal, in private.
Why would they need to do it entirely in private?
The project carries a total cost of £3.3 million. While Havant Council paid £245,000 for a five year licence for the Arcus Global software that Hillingdon will be migrating to, Hillingdon revealed in the Cabinet meeting minutes that they agreed to pay £956,500 for 3+1 years. The transition to the new software will cost a further £2.5m in implementation costs, including paying for 13 agency workers. Arranged, like the three Grant Thornton contracts totalling £1.8m, in private, with no public documents available.
Economies of scale? Or decisions worthy of keeping secret?
While Hillingdon serves a population roughly 2.6 times larger than Havant, the Council has agreed to a software deal nearly four times (3.9x) more expensive. In most standard large-scale procurements, a larger user base would be expected to provide economies of scale – the leverage to negotiate a lower cost per head.
Instead, Hillingdon is paying a massive premium. Since the specific details are buried in a confidential “Part 2” paper, we remain in the dark about what “extras” might be used to justify this. However, it seems somewhat unlikely that a 2.6x increase in population warrants a nearly 400% increase in price. This gap is too wide to gloss over and raises serious questions about whether this secret deal represents the best value for money to Hillingdon taxpayers.
Audit Committee Reports for February 2026
“The Council’s own Corporate Risk Register confirms the urgency of this ‘forced’ move. Until recently, the replacement of the Planning, Building Control, and Land Charges System was a Red Rated Risk, specifically because the current system (Ocella) will be entirely unsupported and unfunded from January 2027.
The Council has now downgraded this risk to Amber, with the justification that ‘procurement of a new system has progressed’. While they view this as a success, it confirms that for years they sat on the knowledge that their systems had an expiry date, only to finally sign a deal in private just as the clock was running out.
Is this ‘strategic planning’ or a high-priced rescue mission funded by residents who don’t get to see the table, nevermind be allowed to sit at it?
Read more of our February 2026 series
- Introduction: Mistakes, misjudgements, or systemic breakdown?
- 1. The £150m Bailout: “Accounting Adjustments” vs Reality
- 2. The Culture of “Late”: From Accounts to Budgets
- 3. The “Theo’s Café” Scandal: Claims of cronyism and confirmed secrecy
- 4. The Silent Treatment: 12 Weeks and Counting
- 5. Putting Residents First? Not always
- 6. An addiction to “Special Urgency” – for secrecy or last minute work?
- 7. The secret £3.3m planning system
- 8. Decision-Making Based on Flawed Data
- 9. Are they taking heed of the “Section 24” warnings?
- Summary: The Case for Concern – is something broken at our Civic Centre?
- What Now? What do you think? You have until Wednesday to tell the Council
Comments are closed.