← More from Ruislip Residents' Association
Over the last year, Hillingdon Council has repeatedly emphasised that it must achieve “best value” when managing or selling public assets.
Residents recently saw this argument used during the sale of the former Uxbridge Library building. The Council rejected a higher offer because it was conditional on planning permission, instead accepting a lower bid that could complete quickly and with certainty.
The justification was clear: the Council must act in the financial interests of taxpayers.
But the ongoing situation at Cowley Meeting Hall, currently occupied by Theo’s Café, raises uncomfortable questions about how consistently that principle is being applied.
The lease arrangement
In January 2023, the Council granted a lease for Cowley Meeting Hall to Alan Deville. The annual rent payable to the Council was £5,655.
The lease also contains an important restriction: it prohibits subletting or parting with possession of the premises, except for limited hall hire arrangements with the Council’s consent.
However, documents now circulating locally include a June 2024 agreement between Alan Deville and the operator of Theo’s Café, Erhan Sahin. That agreement provides for occupation of the building at £1,500 per month (£18,000 per year).
On the face of that document, the arrangement appears to go beyond casual hall hire, and seems more like a subletting arrangement.
The financial question
The difference between the two rents is striking.
- Café operator pays: £18,000 per year
- Council receives: £5,655 per year
This difference does not automatically prove that the Council should have charged £18,000 itself. The Council’s lease was structured as a community use arrangement and includes repair and other obligations.
But it does raise a clear public question: why was a council building generating private rental income significantly above what the Council itself was receiving?
That question becomes more serious given reports that the Council’s tenant (Alan Deville) had fallen into rent arrears, while the café operator (Erhan Sahin) says he continued paying his rent in full.
The proposed write-off
According to reporting by the Local Democracy Reporting Service in December 2025, the Council’s Cabinet discussed writing off the arrears in a private meeting. The £5,655 rent on the building hasn’t been paid, the Council didn’t receive the income.
The reasoning reportedly given was that legal recovery could be costly and disproportionate. Given that Hillingdon Council would pursue any resident who falls behind with Council Tax payments, this seems inconsistent.
However, shortly after press enquiries were made, the Council withdrew the property from the market and stated it was reviewing the situation and exploring legal options.
For residents, this raises an obvious question: why did it take media scrutiny before enforcement action appeared to be considered?
Governance questions
There are also legitimate questions about how the lease itself was executed.
The lease appears to have been signed on behalf of the Council by Councillor Peter Smallwood (Conservative councillor for the Ruislip ward) and witnessed by Councillor Darran Davies (Conservative councillor for the Charville ward).
That raises a simple procedural question: is it standard practice for backbench ward councillors to execute property leases on behalf of the Council, or were they acting under a specific delegated authority?
This does not in itself prove anything improper. But residents are entitled to understand how those arrangements came about, particularly where the tenant was himself a former councillor.
Oversight and enforcement
Perhaps the most important question is one of oversight. If the café has been operating for over a year:
- When did the Council first become aware of the arrangement?
- Was the café authorised under the lease?
- If not, what enforcement action was taken?
Public bodies are expected to enforce the terms of their leases and protect public assets.
The bigger issue: consistency
Hillingdon Council has said repeatedly that it must act lawfully, and secure best value for taxpayers when dealing with public assets. That principle was central to the decision-making around the Uxbridge Library sale.
Residents may reasonably ask whether the same standards were applied in the case of Cowley Meeting Hall, where:
- a council asset appears to have been used for a commercial café,
- rent allegedly fell into arrears,
- and a debt write-off was reportedly considered.
Awaiting answers
At the Full Council meeting on 22 January 2026, the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Property, Cllr Jonathan Bianco, confirmed that an investigation would take place. His attention focused on how a confidential council report reached the press.
But residents may feel the more important question is different: How did this situation arise in the first place?
We have written to the Council’s Monitoring Officer and Chief Executive seeking clarification on:
- the execution of the lease,
- the enforcement of its terms,
- the arrears position,
- and the scope of the investigation.
Residents deserve clear answers about how public assets are managed – and whether the same rules apply to everyone.
Writing to Hillingdon Council’s Monitoring Officer and Chief Executive
We have today written to both Daniel Toohey (Hillingdon Council’s Monitoring Officer and Head of Legal) and Tony Zaman (Hillingdon Council’s Chief Executive Officer). Neither are elected members, councillors or politicians – they are public servants charged with ensuring the lawfulness, integrity, and sound governance of the Council’s operations and the strict adherence to its constitution.
They oversee governance, legal compliance, and the stewardship of public trust at Hillingdon Council. Where Councillors do not wish to give answers to residents, we trust that the Council officers will do so.
We write as residents of the London Borough of Hillingdon regarding the lease and management of Cowley Meeting Hall.
At the Full Council meeting on 22 January 2026, the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Property stated that an investigation would be undertaken following the disclosure of information from a confidential report.
While we understand the importance of protecting confidential council papers, we are concerned that the focus of discussion has been on how the information became public, rather than on the underlying issues relating to the lease itself and the management of the property.
We would therefore be grateful if you could clarify the following points.
1. Execution of the 2023 lease
We have obtained a copy of the lease dated 10 January 2023 between the Council and Alan Deville.
The execution block indicates that the lease was signed on behalf of the Council by Councillor Peter Smallwood, with Councillor Darran Davies appearing as a witness.
Could you please confirm:
- whether it is standard practice under the Council’s constitution or scheme of delegation for ward councillors to execute property leases on behalf of the authority
- under what delegated authority this lease was executed
- whether either councillor was acting as an authorised officer or merely as a witness
- whether any conflict-of-interest considerations were assessed given that the tenant was a former councillor
2. Lease terms and occupation of the property
The lease appears to restrict subletting or parting with possession of the premises, except for limited hall hire arrangements with the Council’s consent.
However, we have also seen a separate agreement dated 14 June 2024 between Mr Deville and Mr Erhan Sahin for occupation of the premises at £1,500 per month (£18,000 per year).
On the face of that document, the arrangement appears to go beyond casual hire.
Could you please confirm:
- when the Council first became aware that the premises were operating as a café
- whether the Council authorised that use
- if authorisation was given, what form it took and when it was granted
- if it was not authorised, what enforcement action has been taken
3. Rent arrears and proposed write-off
Press reporting has suggested that the Council’s Cabinet considered writing off rent arrears owed by the tenant on the basis that legal recovery might be disproportionate.
Could you please confirm:
- the current arrears position under the lease
- what recovery action has been taken
- whether any proposal to write off the arrears was formally considered and what the current position is
4. Protection of public assets
While the rent paid by the café operator does not necessarily represent the market rent that the Council itself would charge, the apparent difference between the £5,655 head-lease rent and the £18,000 occupation arrangement raises a legitimate question about how the Council protects the value of its assets.
Please confirm whether the Council has undertaken any internal review of the financial implications of this arrangement and whether any potential loss to the public purse has been assessed.
5. Scope of the investigation
Finally, we would be grateful if you could confirm the scope of the investigation referred to at the January Full Council meeting.
Specifically:
- whether the investigation relates solely to the disclosure of the confidential report
- or whether it also includes the governance, lease management and enforcement issues surrounding Cowley Meeting Hall
- Is the council facilitating fraud?
Our concern as residents is not how these matters came to public attention, but rather how the situation arose and how it is being addressed.
Hillingdon Council frequently emphasises its duty to act transparently and to achieve best value for residents when managing public assets. Clarification on these matters would therefore be greatly appreciated.
We look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Ruislip Residents’ Association