Court of Common Council
Thursday 26 June 2025
Motion proposed by Alderwoman Martha Grekos of Castle Baynard:
That this Honourable Court resolves that the City Corporation explores liquidating investments held within City’s Estate to fund the acceleration of the renovation of its housing estates, the continuing dilapidation of which is an ongoing scandal. This Court accordingly further resolves that its relevant committees be instructed now to bring forward proposals as to how this can be achieved as soon as possible.
During the debate, an amendment to the motion was proposed by Deputy Anthony Fitzpatrick of Lime Street and was ultimately carried:
That this Honourable Court resolves that the City Corporation explores all options to fund the acceleration of the renovation of its housing estates as their continuing dilapidation is an ongoing scandal. This Court accordingly further resolves that its relevant Committees be instructed now to bring forward proposals as to how this can be achieved as soon as possible.
Watch the full debate from 8:03
transcript
10:07 | Alderwoman Martha Grekos (Castle Baynard)
On the night of 5th of December 2024, the members of our Policy and Resource Committee enjoyed a lavish dinner in a West End club, drinking red wine that retailed at £62 per bottle. At the same moment as these Members were toasting themselves, tenants on many of the Corporation’s housing estates were wearing winter coats inside their flats to keep warm because their windows had not been replaced and their roofs and walls not insulated after literally decades of neglect by the Corporation.The Corporation has a wealth fund now called City’s Estate in addition to its local authority and charitable funds. The latest accounts show that the City’s Estate has £2.7 billion of assets. That is real wealth which the Corporation seems to be obsessed with maintaining. But for what purpose? The Corporation is not a private company with shareholders to benefit. It uses some of the City’s Estate to fund its promotion of its financial City – although the financial city is easily able to fund its own promotion. And the Corporation uses some of its City Estate to fund the dining, drinking, and privileges of its Members, including more than a third of a million pounds a year to provide free or subsidized lunches and drinks for them in the Guildhall Club, and further large amounts on Committee dinners like the Policy and Resources one that I’ve just mentioned.
This misspending scandalises those of the Corporation stakeholders who most need its support, namely its residents and small businesses. The Corporation is a public authority, so its focus should be on the public, not on itself and especially not on its Members. So instead of hoarding and misspending its wealth, the Corporation should be spending it for the public good. The motion before you aims to start that process. It provides for some, not all, of the wealth in the City’s Estate to be applied in accelerating the renovation of the Corporation’s housing estates. The amounts that are ring-fenced from other local authority funds and that can be used for this purpose are hopelessly inadequate. There’s a shortfall of £84 million by the corporation’s own reckoning. And it describes that figure at being at risk of optimism bias. The endless delays in applying the current inadequate funds increases the total amount that needs to be spent as the estate falls into ever worse dilapitation. This vicious spiral will continue unless arrested by a major injection of cash which can only come from the City’s Estate.
To Members who object the liquidating investments in the City’s Estate to provide the cash needed would be like selling the family silver, our answer as follows – the Corporation is not a family and the City Estate is not its silver. It is not a private fund in any normal sense of the word as no private individuals or companies have an interest in it. It’s a quasi-public fund and we should apply to such. And if that results in the Corporation being less wealthy, so what? There is no point in being wealthy for its own sake. When we vote on this motion at the end of the debate, each Member will have a choice between two things. First of all, voting against it, which will mean that Members will continue to have their dining, drinking, and privileges funded out of the City’s Estate while refusing to let that fund be applied for the benefit of the public. Or secondly, voting for the motion to let the City’s Estate be applied for the benefit of the public as it should be. My deputy Beth Coombs will sign this motion.
14:24 | Deputy Beth Coombs (Castle Baynard)
in seconding this motion, I will address arguments that have previously been made against using City’s Estate to supplement the funding of housing estate renovation. It has been said that City’s Estate is not used for local authority functions implying that it cannot be used for those functions. But that implication is untrue. While there are legal restrictions on how the Corporation uses its local authority and charitable funds, no one has been able to point to a law that restricts how it uses City’s Estate. This is entirely a matter for Members to decide.It has been said that the Corporation’s housing revenue account which is part of the Corporation’s local authority fund dedicated to housing is ring-fenced. It is, in the sense that the law prevents money being taken out of this account to fund other local authority expenditure. No one has been able to point though to a law that prevents external money such as from City’s Estate being put into the renovation of the Corporation’s housing stock.
It has been said too that if the Corporation uses City’s Estate to supplement its housing revenue account, the Government may reduce its grants to the Corporation. But with the ultimate source of all Government grants being taxpayers, it begs the question, why should taxpayers fund an institution like the Corporation that has enough wealth of its own to discharge its functions as a public authority? If the Corporation wants to have the power and status of being a public authority, it should spend its quasi-public funds on performing its public functions.
Let us also not forget that there is some precedent for the Corporation using City’s Estate to fund its public functions, although not in relation to residents. In 2021, this Court chose to set up a pandemic recovery fund for small businesses in the Square Mile. Now, it should be the resident’s turn.
Indeed, speaking as a City resident before I was elected by the voters of Castle Baynard as a Member of this Court, I felt that the Corporation viewed us as an inconvenience rather than an asset to the Square Mile, a vexing drain on time and resources. The so-called Residential Reset notwithstanding. Now that I have been elected, I have seen little in my short time here to persuade me otherwise. I want that to change. With the motion now before us, we have the opportunity to redress this and start repairing the damage. In the case of the residents of Golden Lane and Middlesex Street, literally.
18:11 | Deputy Chris Hayward (Broad Street) – Chairman of Policy and Resources
I rise to oppose the motion. I have said repeatedly that I’m committed to finding a solution to investment in our housing stock, but this has to be done in a serious way and we are already moving forward with that solution. We’ve identified a 10-year investment program of major works that will address much needed repairs and maintenance across our estates, including windows, roofing, heating, fire safety, and electrical compliance. We estimate that this will cost £205 million over that 10-year period. £105 million is required on the Golden Lane estate alone, with smaller amounts required on our other housing estates including Avondale, York Way, Southbank, William Blake and Middlesex Street.Of the £205 million, £121 million can be funded through the Housing Revenue Account, through credential borrowing and by Leaseholder recharge. And I’ve tasked the Town Clerk and his officers to run a viability assessment of all of our estates and to think proactively about what scope there is for intensification, new housing supply, joint venture and Government grants and I believe there is plenty of scope for all of those. This work will begin in July and it will be completed by the end of September.
I need to be clear that the income from our City’s Estate investments fund many of our contributions to London and the United Kingdom including our open spaces, COLAT, our support for Guildhall School of Music and Drama not to mention the Mayoralty and our work on financial and professional services. We can only liquidate assets once and if the spirit of the motion were enacted it would reduce income from City’s Estate by around 7 million pounds per year. We would need to reduce services to the communities that we serve. This is neither desirable nor is it necessary nor would it be fiscally responsible. I therefore urge honourable Members to vote against the motion.
20:37 | Deputy Henry Colthurst (Lime Street)
My Lord Mayor, I must apologise. Despite my best efforts over the last three years to explain our financial position, it appears that some Members still do not understand the fragile position of both City Fund and City Estate and that they are different. Social housing does fall within the City Fund and finds it its revenue ring-fenced in the HRA as has already been said. But we’re not the only ones with a problem about housing. A recent estimate assessed the National problem at just under £32 billion. £30 million of our £140 million need has already been budgeted up to the end of 28/29. Officers are looking at the glide path of capital projects to see how to bridge the gap.So, the immediate problem is not so much money as speed of delivery. We must keep up pressure on central Government for reform of the HRA as well, possibly, as the capability of section 106 to support housing. For example, there’s an attractive logic to support new commercial developments which boost the Square Mile which then generate direct funding to support residential provision. We are looking at additional sources of grant funding and indeed housing development partners. Two estates out of eight might already qualify for new grants available from Homes England and the GLA.
Yes, in principle, we could grant large capital funds from City Estate. But is that really sensible from what is essentially a separate long-term endowment fund? Three points. It is ironic that barely has the dust settled on years of agonising debate to exit the markets than the vultures appear to descend just as we should be stabilising its balance sheet. Remember also a basic tenant of capital management. Once you spend it, there’s nothing left and no capital equals no income. City Estate supports a number of iconic institutions and promotion of UK financial services. Some Members may dislike that role, but they forget the Square Mile contribution to the National purse. Tax revenue depends on economic health. So be careful for what you wish. In my world, such intermingling of funds to allow use of premium monies to pay for things other than insurance claims would be regarded as worse than negligent. And lenders to our public placement reached a similar conclusion. Under its terms, a material transfer of funds could trigger a breach of covenant, forcing immediate repayment of £450 million plus punitive interest charges.
Had the motion focused on speed of delivery, and how best to develop a 15-year financial plan to support housing, it would have been more meaningful. Had the motion asked how better to achieve value from City Estate expenditure, including that on Members and entertainment, I would have welcomed it. Rather, it conflates two important questions in order to justify the wrong answer. Absolutely, we must resolve these housing problems as promptly is as practical. But the answer is not – ‘Oh, we need to spend some money, here is a piggy bank…..’
23:51 | Jason Pritchard (Portsoken)
We need to stop putting our heads in the sand about the much needed renovation of our housing estates. There are three facts here and they’re crystal clear. First, the Corporation has allowed these estates to fall into disrepair through decades of neglect. Second, the Housing Revenue Account is nowhere near sufficient to reverse that disrepair. Third, the Corporation holds significant untapped wealth in its investments within City’s Estates. Put those facts together and the obvious conclusion is this: we should liquidate a small part of those investments to fix a damage caused by years of procrastination and neglect. Frankly, any child at the outstanding Aldgate School could reach that conclusion. So why can’t we? We must decide – are we the stewards of the City’s wealth for the benefit of the people or merely creators of gilded accounts while our tenants continue to live in damp, cold, and crumbling homes?25:13 | Steve Goodman (Aldersgate, Labour)
I rise as Chair of the Housing Sub-committee. There’s been recognition that we have neglected our housing stock over many years. What are we doing? A world focused Corporation generating business for this country, linking with the government, hosting the French president while our residents are living in homes with broken windows, outdated heating systems and fire safety equipment and in some cases mould. So, I was extremely happy when the Policy Chair made addressing this situation one of his one of his priorities. Indeed, as Chair of the Housing Sub-committee along with others, we have frequent meetings with him and key officers including the Town Clerk and the Chamberlain, driving the improvement program forward. One result of this is the agreement to move a suggested 20-year improvement program on Golden Lane to 10 years. He has driven that and I want publicly to thank him for so doing. At the moment, let’s be clear, the time frames are not driven by lack of identified funds but by the complexity of the project – listed building status, building regulator, high risk building registration… I could go on and on but the fact remains that our estimated cost of £205 million to do what we should have done years ago is currently £85 million short.It may well be as the Chair of Finance is suggesting we can close this gap along the lines the Policy Chair has indicated but this is not yet certain. So, it’s my view that we would be wrong to close the door on any option including using our investments. The motion asks us to explore this as an option and I think along with what we’re already doing, what we already have in trade, that is the right thing to do. We cannot go around the world selling the Square Mile, being a player on the world stage, whilst at the same time our residents are living in poor housing. It does us no favours and it’s immoral to not place as our highest priority decent homes for our residents. And I totally support the Guildhall School of Music and Drama, but Policy Chair, how can we, how can you, say that you we’re going to carry on supporting them while not yet having a solution to poor housing in the City. So, whilst recognising the leadership, the commitment and the passion of our Chair of Policy to sort this long-term issue, I profoundly disagree with him shutting off one possible source of funding that we might need. So, on that basis, I will be supporting the motion.
27:56 | Adam Hogg (Cripplegate)
I congratulate and agree with the Policy Chairman who is on record saying that the condition of the Corporation’s housing estates is unacceptable. And for people’s knowledge, this is not about the Barbican, I hasten to add. This is about the other estates. As a member for Cripplegate, I speak with knowledge of Golden Lane in particular, which is in an appalling state. It is not a question of outstanding minor repairs, there are major faults due to lack of preventative maintenance over more than 20 years. These include rotting window frames, leaking roofs, damp, mould, dry rot, and subsidence. Some flats are on the verge of being uninhabitable. This new Court should be alarmed and I think ashamed that the Corporation’s housing estates are in this condition.Over many years, the Corporation freeholder and landlord has failed to meet its obligations to keep these estates in a proper state of repair. Not only is Corporation’s reputation at risk, its failure to meet obligations put it at risk of litigation and risk of prosecution on account of the presence of mould in flats. Urgent and immediate action is necessary not only to protect the Corporation but for the sake of its residents who’ve gone through years of uncertainty and living under substandard conditions. Golden Lane is a Grade II listed estate of which we should be proud and not ashamed. There are plans to put this right which cannot be implemented without funding. The money must be found. The Corporation’s finances are complex. But if realising other assets is the only way forward, then I support the motion.
29:52 | Shravan Joshi (Bishopsgate)
I feel slightly disturbed in the way that the motion has created almost a binary decision for us. It’s saying we can either support the renewal of our housing or we have to stop doing all of this works that we’re doing through the City Estates. I think I can’t see why we cannot do both. Why we must now work to do both. And I feel in that sense that the motion has the wrong terminology about it. This should not be a binary decision that we are making. It should be a joined up decision we make across the Corporation.I’m not going to repeat what the Policy Chair or others have said about financial and professional services and the value that we have to have in supporting that and the role we have in supporting that, I want to talk about some of the other aspects of the City Estates that we support, the cultural institutions, the heritage that we support, the placemaking that we support through our educational institutions like the Guild Hall School of Music and Drama, I think now the third best music school in the world, the educational strategy that we’ve developed over the years. These are not circumstantial relationships, these have been built up over generations of this Court. They are meaningful and they are part of the ecosystem of this City. And they are meaningful because if we want to draw the best global talent and be the best financial centre in the world, we have to have those vibrant ecosystems thriving around us.
And so I say if we are going to look at a motion and consider this motion, what are we going to cut? Are we going to cut our educational funding? Are we going to cut funds to some of those cultural ambitions that we have? Are we going to stop trying to attract that global talent into the Square Mile? Are we going to stop funding our open spaces, that impact that we have on the wider London community? The population of London enjoys Epping Forest, Hampstead Heath, Burnham Beeches, and so on. And we cannot give up that responsibility as guardians of those open spaces by looking solely at the renewal of our housing estates. We have to do that. And that’s a question I put to Alderman Grekos on how she feels we should cut some of those services that are part of the City’s ecosystem. To my mind what the Policy Chairman has outlined as a scheme of work that is already underway by looking perhaps at private partnerships by looking at the private sector in partnership with the Corporation to deliver the renewal of our housing estates as well as Government grants, those should be the avenues we explore alongside keeping our City Estates intact and I will not be supporting the motion.
32:43 | Alderman Sir William Russell (Bread Street)
I’m against the motion. Financial professional services, as many people in the room know, is 14% of the GDP of this country. The beating heart of this country is the great City of London, employing over 2.4 million people throughout the UK. Cities around the world want to emulate what the City of London provides. We provide help to all the businesses here, financial and professional services around the world. New York want to emulate it. Tokyo do and even Jacksonville in Florida just to name a few. If we want to go down this route, as Shravan has just mentioned, Guildhall and the Barbican, our culture side of the city would struggle. We attract huge amounts of talent because of these institutions who want to work as I’ve said in the greatest city in the world.I agree it is appalling the lack of investment in housing over the last few decades. But we’re now starting as the Chairman of Policy has mentioned to put that right. However, our biggest stakeholders, no offense to the residents, are the businesses, and of course Alderwomen Grekos knows that since she is the Alderwoman of a business ward, the majority of our wards are business wards. Let’s not make the mistake of destroying what the rest of the world’s great cities would like to have.
34:16 | Deputy John Fletcher (Portsoken)
Firstly, can I say I regret that Alderwoman Grekos started her presentation by trying to link this very serious matter of residents with our social program, linking it with our Committee dinners and State banquets. They are separate and I despise the politics of envy and jealousy and I think it’s a shame she did that. However, despite that, I will be supporting the motion. For me, the key word in the motion is ‘explore’. We are being asked to explore a certain path, a course of action. And I’m going to find it very difficult going around Middlesex Street estate in my constituency, seeing residents living in substandard accommodation for years and years and look them in the eye and tell them that this Court was not even prepared to explore selling some of its assets to take them out of the dreadful situation they find themselves living in. So, I’m going to be voting in favour because I believe we should explore the possibility. For those who are against saying, for the sake of calling the crown jewels, for those who are against selling it, perhaps if this motion were passed, it’ll help them focus their minds on finding other alternative funding so we can get the £205 million necessary and get this work done for the benefit of all our residents and also give Members like myself representing residential wards the ability to look our tenants and our residents and our voters in the eye and tell them that this Court is doing everything it can to overcome their difficulties.36:20 | Helen Ladele (Castle Baynard)
My Lord Mayor, unlike the Finance Chair, I do not know much about accounts, but I do know what is right. It is right that we spend money on those who need it and not those who do not. So, I support this mayor this motion.35:44 | Shahnon Bakth (Coleman Street)
I stand before you here today as your Chairman of the Investment Committee but I feel somewhat conflicted. I myself have personal lived experience living in some of these estates, not in the City, but other parts of London in our neighbouring burrows like Tower Hamlets and Newham and I know first-hand what these issues are – for me historically, but some of my family members who continue to live in these in these types of estates. I think we all agree that clearly we should all be ashamed as Adam said the condition that we find ourselves in today with especially Golden Lane Estate, Middlesex Street and the others that the Chairman of Policy mentioned.I don’t feel like we’ve explored all the options though and I don’t want to oversimplify it but I feel like as sitting here in front of you leading the Investment Committee, the City Fund I firmly believe can explore options and I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Chairman of Finance and Policy to look at financing options to plug that £85 million gap because I’m confident we can do that without having to do what we’re being asked to do here today. So, as you can gather, I think the motion as we have it in front of us today is something I’m struggling to support and I won’t be supporting, but I do feel like this is not something that we cannot overcome. And to Shravan’s point, we can do both, we can continue promoting the City as it is today and we can look after the condition of the tenants’ housing.
38:24 | Madush Gupta (Bassishaw)
There is no one in this Court who would dispute the importance of decent, dignified housing. But to propose funding renovations by liquidating our endowment is not only financially imprudent, it risks mortgaging the City’s future. Every £100 million drawn from our City’s Estate reduces our annual income by about £4 million in perpetuity. That is £4 million that we will no longer be able to spend each year on Epping Forest, Hampstead Heath, the Barbican Centre, Guildhall School of Music and Drama or our other good works. None of these are luxuries. They are our enduring public obligations. There is, I fear, a comforting myth surrounding this motion, my favourite topic, the myth of the magical money tree. Let us be candid – stop hugging the tree. The Corporation already struggles to meet the commitments it has today. To carve away the capital that sustains us tomorrow without first exhausting smart alternatives is the council of expedience, not prudence.As your Deputy Chair of Investment Committee, I can say with confidence that this Court is not blind to social need. We as a Committee are actively considering social housing as an impact investment class, not as a gift but as a prudent risk adjusted return to the portfolio that aligns with the City’s, London’s and the Government’s own ambitions. My bank is the pre-eminent funder of social housing in this country and it is my bank’s mission to grow social housing stock by half a million units. I have facilitated meetings with our own Housing Sub to explore those opportunities to collaborate. We can and should support social housing, but let’s do it in a way that strengthens and not hollows out our financial foundation. I urge this court to oppose the motion not from indifference but from a sense of significant responsibility.
41:00 | Jacquie Webster (Cripplegate, Labour)
I know I can speak for my colleagues in Cripplegate when I say we are driving a bold ambitious regeneration of our estates and in particular Golden Lane. We speak from that experience. Far beyond patching up bricks and mortar this is about real joined up transformation with residents at the centre. It demands long-term investment in people, offices, communities, systems, and building infrastructure. We want to unite key partners to design, test, and scale lasting solutions. Only a full-scale regeneration program can undo the shameful legacy and damage of historic underinvestment and deliver what our communities need now, but also for the future. The current officer team are working hard to deal with this legacy. This Court has acknowledged that legacy.There’s been a welcome commitment to funding, but now we must show our communities, our offices, and our partners where that funding will come from, and that it will last and deliver far beyond today. We must commit to infrastructure investment and support for local initiatives and resident-led organisations to build lasting capacity to do good work with us and on behalf of all residents. Policy Chairman, over the last year, you’ve listened to difficult feedback I’ve brought to you in your office. We agreed and we committed to action. This isn’t just about money. It’s about breaking the systems that delay progress, working with our offices, and building a sustainable funding model. Not just for today’s repairs, but for the next generation. We should explore all options and this option, but relying solely on asset sales could also be risky and slow. We can’t afford to wait. We should be looking at all options for sustainable investment that can be unlocked over the years to ensure this never ever happens again.
43:08 | Susan Farrington (Castle Baynard)
I rise to support this motion which, as we’ve heard from many Members, addresses a pressing and longstanding issue – the poor condition of the Corporation’s residential estates. It feels from what I’ve heard that this can has been kicked down the road now for far too long and I’m intrigued that Members have come forward all scrambling with ideas as to how this may be resolved, perhaps too little, too late. Let us be clear, the current state of disrepair is not a mystery. It’s the result of years of underinvestment and neglect. Had the Corporation maintained its housing responsibly over the decades, we would not be facing such a significant financial burden. We’re told the Corporation is already spending on renovations, but when we compare this spending to the scale of need, it is plainly insufficient. In fact, it’s hopelessly inadequate. Worse, the pace is so slow that the cost of inaction continues to grow.Some have suggested that there are legal or practical barriers to using City’s Estate to fund this work, but no barriers exist. The money is there, the accounts show it. What’s missing is the will to use it where it is most needed at the moment. We are urged to act responsibly. I agree. But true responsibility means acknowledging past failures and taking decisive action now. This motion gives us the opportunity to do just that for the benefit of our residents whose homes are not just assets on a balance sheet but the foundation of their lives. Let us not delay further, let us use some of the resources we have to meet the obligations we have long neglected. I urge the Court to support this motion.
45:23 | Deputy Anne Holmes (Farringdon Within)
I’m very much in favour of considering whether and how we might use more of City Estate monies for enhancing our local authority offer. However, I think we’ve reached the point where we need to carry out risk analyses. We need to establish criteria and we need to set priorities. In other words, we need a strategy on use of such use of City Estate monies before we enter into any further allocations. I intend bringing to the July court a motion proposing setting up a working party to develop such a strategy to bring to this Court. Meanwhile, I don’t think we should be deciding on further allocations.46:25 | Vasiliki Manta (Castle Baynard)
My Lord Mayor at the beginning of every Court meeting we say a prayer which means Lord, direct us. I don’t think the Lord is directing us to let residents on our housing estates suffer from underfunding while we spend money on the financial City who doesn’t need it and even worse on our own wining and dining. I support this motion and for the sake of decency ask all other Members to do so too.47:06 | Munsur Ali (Portsoken)
Firstly whilst I support the motion in principle I wish to clarify one important matter. I am a member of Policy and Resources and I don’t like red wine. The main point is there is no doubt that our housing estates are in desperate need of repair. I’m just not completely convinced this is the right and only way. So, I wish for us to explore as we are not going to decide today where that money comes from. My other important is that I worry there may be a tier system created with social housing residents. The Mansell Street Estate has numerous flats with black mould, damp, leaks and chair of PNR, you have visited this and I welcome any other Members to speak to our environmental teams that will verify this as well. We are responsible for the livelihood for all residents and I want to see how Mansell Street, in my opinion the most neglected estate in the City although it is not a City of London corporation asset I understand and I know it’s not a competition, will be included in this process so we are fair to all.48:14 | Alderman Alison Gowman (Dowgate)
I’m standing up in support of the residents in our housing estates. As a social landlord, we need to manage these homes well for our residents. But I oppose this motion. The fact is that I also support many other areas of the City Corporation’s work with the same commitment. Culture, education, open spaces, and climate action all funded in whole or part by the City’s Estate. Indeed, in this week of climate action, I’ve been to many events where it’s very clear that there is a great respect for the leadership that the City Corporation has been showing, coupled with a request that we can continue to do this, even in these very unpredictable times. We cannot turn our back on this important role. All of these issues are competing, including climate action, competing for our resources, and they also need to be balanced against the future needs of the City where we hold these funds in trust for future generations. I believe that there are current and proposed steps being taken to plan for the works on our housing estates and that these are the best way to proceed and they will also ensure that we balance the competing demands on our funds. Managing our complex finances is not easy. There are trade-offs and significant risks. There’s no one-stop solution. I believe we need to act as long-term stewards of a finite fund. I will not be supporting this motion.50:13 | Caroline Haines (Queenhithe)
I’m afraid like some other Members I can’t support this motion. I do feel it is a great pity that it’s been worded as it has and I think other Members have verbalised that. Today I’m just going to focus on one point which has already been referenced to by a number of members. And for those of you that think that I’m more casually dressed today than normal, it’s because I wasn’t planning to speak. I’ve been hosting 200 international delegates at the Burnham Beech’s International Veteran Tree Conference sponsored by us in partnership with the Ancient Tree Forum where delegate after delegate spoke of the vital role of the City of London Corporation for 150 years in protecting and sustaining the natural environment past, present, and hopefully into the future. Good quality homes are absolutely vital, but so are other aspects of the Corporation life supported by City Estates, and the natural environment is one of those many areas of huge benefit to the public, a core part of the health and well-being focus, and is internationally renowned along with our other work which is supported from those areas.52:03 | Ceri Wilkins (Cripplegate)
I welcome this motion and fully support its intent. However, we must remember that over £200 million is needed to fund the required works on the City of London’s housing stock. The condition of our housing estates is indeed a matter of serious concern, and accelerating their renovation is both urgent and necessary. Exploring the option of liquidating investments held within the City’s Estate is a bold but pragmatic step towards ensuring we meet our responsibilities to residents in a timely manner.The work on all of this really commenced when Dawn Frampton was elected and asked the chair of PNR to join her and I on a walk around the Golden Lane Estate. Can we please ask the Chair to confirm if not funded by sales, how are we hoping to get the much needed funds? I also support the call for our relevant Committees to act swiftly in bringing forward proposals. It is vital that we match our words with action and demonstrate that we are committed to resolving this long-standing issue with the seriousness it deserves. I’d also like to take the time to add a huge thank you to the officers involved who have worked extremely hard so far in the background to try and get these projects off the ground.
53:25 | Deputy Chris Hayward – responding to policy question
I’m very happy to answer the question posed by Ceri Wilkins. I think I’ve set out in my speech to this Honourable Court today our ability as far as Golden Lane Estate is concerned to be able to fund this through the HRA and by credential borrowing and Leaseholder recharges. I said that in my opening comments, so hopefully that gives her the assurance in relation to Golden Lane Estate which as she rightly says I visited with her very early on in her time on this Court.The wider funding which we’ve talked about, the £80 plus million which still needs to be found to do the other estates, we’ve never really done a proper viability assessment as to how we partner with private sector regeneration partners, how we apply for grants, of which there are many opportunities to do so, and my discussions with officers reassure me that we can close that gap and reach the entire amount without the need for supporting this motion today
54:29 | Deputy Marianne Fredericks (Tower)
I welcome the debate today. So, I do thank the Alderwoman for putting the motion forward and picking up on the Chair of Finance’s points and the Chair of P and R. It does take a motion like this to allow us to focus and discuss debates and find solutions. But this really is a case of deja vu because three years ago past Alderwoman Susan Pearson, who since joining the Court had raised questions frequently at Committee and here in the Court, put a motion to the Court, and that motion was actually drafted, thank you very much, by the assistant Town Clerk as he was then and the City Solicitor, which simply said that we asked the Court to explore the use of City Cash, as it was then, to expedite our housing projects and our maintenance projects. So, the wording has the stamp of officialdom on it. So, I believe it is a motion that we can take today.We should really feel ashamed, absolutely ashamed of the state of our housing. I chaired Housing for one year and I visited all the estates. At that time our decent housing program was 10 years behind – other local authorities had completed theirs. We spoke to residents who were still waiting 20 years on for double glazing. In fact, one lady actually had a sample double glazing in one window and the rest of that the flat was just single glazing. We said in that motion three years ago, just use exploration, just have a look, because when we start to explore, we find solutions and we really do need to find a solution. In those three years, the costs have escalated, the maintenance projects have increased, dilapidation has got worse and our residents are really finding it very difficult to understand why the Corporation can’t spend some of its money to bring their housing stock up. We are their landlords. We have a duty and responsibility to them. Now, we fully support the Barbican and all the other projects and it’s amazing how we find the money for those projects when we need to. So, I will support this because something has to be done and until we stop wringing our hands and saying ‘we can’t do this, we can’t do that’, we won’t find the solution. And I do welcome the Chairman of Investments comments. And I think that’s the most sensible thing I’ve actually heard in this Court for a long time. Somebody who’s actually in charge of our Investment who is prepared to find a solution and a find a solution we really must….
57:22 | Deputy Anthony Fitzpatrick (Lime Street)
It’s very rare that I rise in Court but I feel I must do that today. I think there’s a consensus that we’ve all heard, that we know the housing stock is not good, we know that we need to do more for residents, but I’m afraid I’m not sure the way that the motion is worded delivers what I think the Court wants to deliver. And I would seriously ask the Alderwoman and the seconder if they would consider a slight amendment or withdrawing for today for us to consider some additional wording. We know there are lamentable delays and I know from speaking to residents on the Avondale Estate that I have raised with the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of Community and Children’s Services and with officers, these delays are not good. But we need to do more. But I don’t think this motion will do that today.I think it’s good we’ve got reassurance from the Chairman of Policy Resources about the funding. We have to be very clear on the warnings we’ve had from the Chair of Finance. We cannot just disregard those in the heat of the debate. I think the motion should say that we explore options, all options, across the Corporation to review options to secure funding for the renovation. But I do not agree and cannot support on the current wording around liquidating investments. The risk is too high. I would please ask for consideration to be given to either amend the current wording or withdraw.
[NOTE: The proposal of an amendment resulted in a procedural issue. As there was only 11 minutes left of the time allocated Deputy Fitzpatrick put forward a proposal to extend the time, seconded by Deputy Fredericks. The motion to extend was defeated and so Deputy Fitzpatrick tabled an amendment. A short break was taken to confirm wording.]
1:06:05 | Town Clerk
The amendment before the Court is that this Honourable Court resolves that the City Corporation explores all options to fund the acceleration of the renovation of its housing estates as their continuing dilapidation is an ongoing scandal. This Court accordingly further resolves that its relevant Committees be instructed now to bring forward proposals as to how this can be achieved as soon as possible.Now members, you have already said you are not minded to support an extension so I propose that we go straight to the vote on the amendment before do we have a seconder? So, Michael Snyder. Thank you.
1:07:01 | Alderwoman Martha Grekos – raising a point of order
So understanding order 115 provides that any amendment shall not have the effect of negating the motion and I believe this plainly negates the motion before us because it talks about exploring all options and in effect removes the City Estate. This is meant to be all about the City’s Estate. Can I finish? Am I allowed to speak? Thank you. So, the original motion relates to the City’s Estate. It does not relate to any other fund. So, removing a reference to that turns this motion into something entirely different. The Member can if he so wishes put this motion at the next Court meeting if he gets the required numbers of signatures but he should not be hijacking this one.[NOTE: the point of order was not accepted and the amendment was put to the vote and carried.]
1:10:16 | Alderwoman Martha Grekos – allocated 5 minutes for closing speech
Right. I sent an email to all Members a couple of days ago warning them about disinformation that they may hear about this motion and explaining why it was disinformation. It is a measure of the lack of arguments and the hijacking of this motion, which I’ll address in a minute, of those who oppose this that they have simply repeated some of the disinformation in this debate. I will not spend time again rebutting arguments that are legal or practical difficulties with using the City’s Estate. There simply aren’t. And I refer you all to the email that I sent throughout [see under separate heading below].I will just add that the finance chair, Alder Russell, and Councillor Joshi talked up the benefits of the financial City to the nation. They imply this is somehow due to the Corporation funding out of the City’s Estate. It isn’t. The financial City can easily afford to fund its own promotion. It doesn’t need our ‘money tree ‘to quote Councillor Gupta which is indeed magical, as it’s always produces cash for Members’ privileges but not for the residents’ crumbling homes and Councillor Holmes wanted a strategy assessment but the wording of the original motion was wide enough to encompass this.
Now, I was not given notice of the Ambush Amendment until what, a mere 5 minutes ago, although those moving it had plenty of time to discuss it with me beforehand. This amendment clearly seeks to draw attention away from using the City’s Estate to fund the acceleration of the renovation of the Corporation’s housing estate. The problem is that the City Estate is the only credible source of funds available. A local authority general fund called the City Fund is, like the Housing Revenue Account, itself under pressure. It should in any case be used for other local authority purposes. City’s Estate by contrast is not used for anything like as importance as renovating our estates.
It is used to fund the promotion of the financial City, which I’ve already said can easily afford to promote itself, and to fund of course the member privileges. So, this motion is a mere deflection. The City’s Estate has become a sacred cow in the Corporation. Suggesting it can be used for better purposes is akin to heresy. It is time for this irrational taboo to be broken. I will vote against this spoiler amendment and urge Members who genuinely care about the City residents as opposed to maintaining the status quo to do likewise
[During the closing speech a point of order was made by Deputy Fitzpatrick strongly objecting to the words ‘hijacking’ and ‘ambush’. The point of order was accepted. The amended motion was then put to the vote and carried.]
– (auto-generated transcript provided by YouTube, abridged with minor corrections and tidying up)
pre CCC correspondence
On 24 June in advance of the meeting the following email was sent to all members of the Common Council (as published on Reclaim EC1):
Dear Members, You will have seen from the agenda pack distributed for the next Court meeting this Thursday that Beth and I will be putting the following motion:
“That this Honourable Court resolves that the City Corporation explores liquidating investments held within City’s Estate to fund the acceleration of the renovation of its housing estates, the continuing dilapidation of which is an ongoing scandal.
This Court accordingly further resolves that its relevant committees be instructed now to bring forward proposals as to how this can be achieved as soon as possible.”
We hope that the debate on this motion will be free and fair.
In particular, we hope that we will not witness a repeat of what happened when essentially the same motion was debated by the Court in January 2022, as recorded here: https://reclaimec1.wordpress.com/2022/01/18/city-of-london-council-votes-against-using-citys-cash-to-renovate-council-estates/.
On that occasion, those opposing the motion tended to smear the character of those supporting it instead of addressing the arguments in support. One of the opponents moved that “the question now be put” to terminate the debate before everyone had had a chance to speak. If anyone resorts to that tactic on Thursday, we trust the Lord Mayor, on the advice of the Town Clerk, will rule the motion out of order under Standing Order 11(13) for being “premature” or “in any sense .. an abuse of the rules of the Court”.
We are, unfortunately, already aware of disinformation spreading among members about our motion. To save time, we address some of what you may hear below.
– The motion does not call for liquidating all the investments held within City’s Estate (the Corporation’s “private”, actually quasi-public, fund): only what is necessary to fund the (much needed) acceleration of the renovation of the Corporation’s dilapidated housing estates.
– You may hear that City’s Estate “cannot and should not” be used to fund the Corporation’s local authority functions, including housing. We can, however, find no legal or practical restrictions on using City’s Estate for these purposes.
– You may hear that the Housing Revenue Account (“HRA”) within City Fund (the Corporation’s local authority fund) is “ring fenced”. It is, in the sense that the law prevents money being taken out of this account to fund other local authority expenditure in the “general fund”. No-one has ever been able to point, though, to a law which prevents money from an external fund (like City’s Estate) being put into the renovation of the Corporation’s housing stock.
– Such a law would not make sense. Also, if such a law existed, why was the motion in 2022 accepted by officers (after some discussion about its other terms)? Why did no-one claim during the debate that the law rendered what the motion sought impossible? Why was the present motion, which is essentially the same as the previous one, accepted by officers? Why has the City Solicitor not already opined that the law would render what this motion seeks impossible? The obvious answer to all these questions is that there is no law that would render what this motion seeks impossible. But insinuating that there is, without ever quite saying it, is a convenient way to steer members away from a proposal that some find threatening to their cosy concept of the Corporation as a privileged institution with its own treasure chest.
– You may not hear that Item 2 of Part II of Schedule 4 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 provides that the HRA should include capital expenditure “which the authority decides should be charged to a revenue account”, and which presumably explains the Corporation’s admission in paragraph 3 of this committee paper that “the Capital Account is not ring fenced by law”:
https://democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/documents/s219707/15.%20HRA%20Outurn%202024%20-25%20Committee%20Report%20-%20WIP%20mj.pdf.– You may hear that City’s Estate “should” be used for the Corporation’s “soft power” role of promoting the financial City. No-one has ever answered the question why the financial City should not fund its own promotion, which it could easily do. If the Corporation is to spend money on this activity, it should not be at the expense of its own tenants.
You may hear that City’s Estate is also used to fund the many benefits which members enjoy, including the Guildhall Club and committee dinners. That is not disinformation: that is true.
With best wishes,
Martha Grekos (mover) and Beth Coombs (seconder)
minutes
Minutes as presented to July’s Court of Common Council can be read here (item 8, pages 8-11).
