Court of Common Council
Thursday 11 September 2025
Councillor Mark Wheatley put a motion to the Court for the formation of a Working Party to review housing governance and consider the creation of a single Housing Committee – one of the Lisvane review recommendations (see CCC may – review housing governance for more background on Lisvane recommendations).
The original motion as proposed below with the amendments proposed by Deputy Chris Hayward highlighted in orange (deletions are struck through). See Agenda item 9 for both texts.
Signatories to the motion include GLE resident Councillors: Anne Corbett, Gaby Robertshaw and Ceri Wilkins.
motion
1. This Honourable Court notes that:-
a. The City of London Corporation has a unique and complex role in the provision, management, and oversight of housing within and beyond the Square Mile. We own and manage several housing estates both within and outside the City boundaries, and it engages with residents, stakeholders, and external agencies on a wide range of housing-related issues, including affordability, quality, and safety.
b. At present, these functions are divided between a number of our various Committees and Sub-Committees.
c. In light of the evolving nature of housing policy, the growing strategic importance of housing in the Corporation’s service delivery and reputation, and in recognition of feedback from residents and Members alike, there is increasing interest in reviewing whether a dedicated Housing Committee of the Court of Common Council should be established.
d. Such a committee could provide more focused oversight, strategic leadership, and accountability for the Corporation’s housing responsibilities. However, given the implications of such a structural change, this Court affirms that a period of careful consideration, consultation, and evidence-gathering is essential.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 26(1), which requires that any new Sub-Committee or Working Party shall be subject to the approval of the Policy & Resources Committee, and Standing Order 26(2) which sets out the process of appointment for Chairs and Deputy Chairs of Sub-Committees1 this Honourable Court consequently agrees:
a. To establish a task and finish Working Party to consider whether or not the Court of Common Council should create a dedicated Committee that would oversee the City Corporation’s housing functions that are currently under the auspices of the Community & Children’s Services Committee and Barbican Residential Committee.
b. That such a Working Party shall be composed of no more than twelve Members, comprising:
- eight Members to be elected to be elected by the full Common Council, compromising at the next formal meeting of the Court, and
- four ex-officio members, namely the Chairmen (or nominated Deputy Chairmen) of the Community and Children’s Services Committee, the Housing Management and Almshouses Sub-Committee, the Barbican Residential Committee, and the Policy & Resources Committee
c. That no fewer than six Members of the Working Party, shall be residents within the City of London.d. That the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Working Party be elected by the Working Party’s membership, at its first meeting which will be held no earlier than 1 March 2026 and no later than 31 March 2026.
e. The Working Party shall be expected to:
i. Call upon internal and external experts to provide evidence or advice as required.
ii. Use existing resource, or make resource bids (as required) via its parent committee to seek resident opinion to ensure that the voices of tenants, leaseholders, and other housing stakeholders are heard and considered diligently.
iii. Examine governance models in other local authorities or relevant bodies for comparative purposes.f. The Working Party shall report into the Policy & Resources Committee that will be required to make a recommendation back to the Court with its findings and recommendations within twelve months of first convening. The report should include:
i. An assessment of the current governance arrangements for all housing functions within scope.
ii. Analysis of the benefits and risks of creating a single dedicated Housing Committee.
iii. A summary of all stakeholder engagement.
iv. A recommendation on whether to proceed with the establishment of such a committee, and if so, proposals for its remit and structure.
Watch from 13:50
transcript
13:50 | Mark Wheatley (Dowgate)
In June this court acknowledged our historic neglect of social housing. We described that as a scandal. We also committed and I quote ‘to push all options to fund the acceleration of renovation of our housing estates’. Since that motion was passed, officers have been acting at some pace. Members were updated on this informally earlier this week and we will have formal guidance at our November meeting. So, I understand that motion is most welcome, it recognized a historic neglect and it set an aspiration to address that through resourcing.However, the movers of this motion believe that without correct governance structures that resourcing will be to no good end, or at least to an insufficient one. Because if the funding is simply like the water that flows irrigating a field that we’ve neglected for too many years, then the governance structures are the channels through which that water flows. And we are run by Grand Committees; whether you like it or not, this is a body that functions through Grand Committees with authority and responsibility and at the moment we do not have a Grand Committee for our housing or the entirety of our housing structures and provision. We do for the Barbican, the best healed part of our provision, but not those who live outside the Square Mile or those who live elsewhere within it.
So, we who have moved this motion would like to address that. And if members can cast their minds back to 2020, those of us who are here, Lord Lisvane undertook a review of our entire governance structures and he recommended that we have a housing committee. We considered that over the course of about a year and we decided to defer that decision to this civic year. So now moment and historic duty require us to take a decision. The movers of this motion are not prejudging that decision, we are recommending and seeking the Court’s approval to create a structure and a process through which the best possible decision can be taken.
We wish a number of Members to convene to go deep into these issues supported by officers, supported by expert guidance which will include residents, and in a deliberative, consensual and measured fashion consider the evidence before them. That should not be contentious. That is all we ask, is that Members are convened at a reasonable moment, allowed sufficient time to delve deep and then report back to this full Court. So, my Lord may we believe this motion is consensual, we believe it is reasonable and we believe it is appropriate. So, it gives me great pleasure to move it formally and call on colleagues to rise and address this matter.
17:00 | Charles Edward Lord (Farringdon Without)
It gives me enormous pleasure to second the motion. The City of London Corporation has a proud record of being the provider of municipal housing. We were one of the first, if not the first, local authority in London to provide municipal housing. But we have allowed our eye to leave the ball and as a consequence of which we have a situation with our housing stock that is lamentable, and that was acknowledged by this honourable Court earlier in the year.And one of the reasons that I think we have taken our eye off the ball is because of the governance arrangements for housing. My Lord Mayor, other than you and perhaps maybe half a dozen of us in this room, I suspect no one was around or interested in the changes that were made in the early part of 2002 to create what is now the Community and Children’s Services Committee, and at the same time to merge the housing department with social services and education. It was probably the right thing to do at the time, but actually in hindsight, it probably wasn’t. In terms of the department itself putting social services in with housing and education meant that the statutory director, now the executive director, for the department has to be a social worker.
As a consequence of which we lost leadership at the executive level from someone who had a background in housing management. And at a committee level we have a committee which has so many responsibilities, in fact the Community and Children’s Services Committee covers most of our local authority functions, and as a consequence of which it can’t provide the level of scrutiny and oversight that our housing stock requires. And I think that’s one of the reasons that regrettably you are in a position today where we have not been as good a landlord as we should have been.
Mr. Wheatley in proposing the motion drew our attention to the fact that Lord Lisvane in his very measured report on the City’s governance should have a Housing Committee which would cover both our social housing stock but also the Barbican residential estate. We postponed consideration of that. Now I believe is the time for us to return to that discussion. I think that this motion with the amendment….[out of time] please support the motion.
21:13 | Deputy Chris Hayward (Broad Street) – Chairman of Policy and Resources
From speaking to honourable Members over the past few weeks, it does seem to me that there is some appetite for a proposed Working Party to investigate the governance around our housing arrangements. Equally, many colleagues have relayed concerns about timing and not diverting focus from ongoing efforts to fix the estates. Therefore, I would like to move an amendment to the motion, which I hope Mr. Wheatley will support.That amendment has two substantive parts. Firstly, to alter membership of the Working Party, amending 2B and deleting 2C and secondly to specify when the working party will first meet amending 2D. I have prepared this amendment and given it to the Town Clerk so that this could be circulated to all Members and I hope you are all received a copy of it. I propose we amend the proposed membership point 2B to ensure input from the relevant committees. That is to say the Chair or Deputy Chair of the Community and Children’s Services Committee, the Housing Management and Almshouses Sub-Committee, the Barbican Residential Committee and the Policy and Resources Committee. Those responsible for, and knowledgeable of, housing and of course the case of P&R governance within their brief. I’m also proposing the deletion of 2C which specifies a number of residential members. The inclusion of those ex-officio members will place some residential members onto the working party but substantively this relates to City residents only and it is important to note that many of those living in our housing, live outside of the city. I also think it’s important that we don’t artificially narrow our engagement aspirations with those living in our housing by virtue of having a small number of residential members on the working party. We need to be broad and inclusive in that engagement and listen to what all our residents think and I want to see a full consultation with residents as part of the working party’s activities.
Regarding 2D, I’m conscious that we have limited resource. Our housing team is working on the recently announced social housing inspection and progressing long overdue repairs to our estates, laying the groundwork, I hope, for our transformative Housing Investment Programme, of which more in due course. Our Governance and Member Services team, given the number of committees, are also at capacity, especially until they fill vacancies. Therefore, I’m proposing that we alter point 2D to amend the start date of this working party. This would allow for us to properly allocate the required resource from officers in both departments. I hope this makes clear that this is not a case, not a case of kicking the can down the road.
The honourable Member acknowledges that moving this motion in this way circumvent standing orders 261 and 262. Those standing orders relate to the normal approval processes for working parties whereby they would require a business plan which should include the resourcing arrangements from consideration by your Policy and Resources Committee. I hope Members concur that this proposed solution will give officers time to organise resourcing arrangements for this working party should this honourable Court choose to support it today.
25:14 | Deputy James Thompson (Farringdon Without)
I believe the amendments put before us today by the Policy Chairman ensure that this Working Party has the right membership and is sufficiently resourced in order to explore all options for the best way forward for housing governance. Our governance arrangements currently reflect the diverse nature of our housing. As the Chairman has said, it can be easy for some to forget the large number of our housing tenants that we house live in boroughs around London and not the Square Mile. In February 2024, your Community and Children’s Services Committee agreed that we should undertake a comprehensive review of these governance arrangements in 2026.I agree that having that review guided by the relevant and interested members in the form of this Working Party with the membership proposed by the Policy Chairman is the right approach. Whether this Working Party resolves that these current arrangements are the right ones or determines that we need something new is for that working group to examine and bring back. The salient point is that it reaches its recommendations through deep and proper engagement with our residents, both within the City and beyond, and it listens carefully to their views. Ultimately, we must ensure that we are best positioned to deliver for the residents across all of our housing provision.
An important step has been the appointment of our new officer team that is in place who I know are working at pace to improve conditions across our housing stock together with members on our various committees dealing with housing, who I also know are working hard to deliver for those living in in the homes that we provide. The proposed extension of time is necessary to allow our officer teams to progress this work, to focus on the inspection that is currently in process, and to find the funding solution, all of which are moving at pace. With all of that in mind, as someone who is very has been very involved in the delivery of affordable housing, I am very supportive of this motion with the amendments proposed by the Policy Chairman, which will create a more effective and efficient Working Party to carry out this review. I know members today will probably have a range of different views on that outcome and the outcome of the review, but I don’t think that is for us to decide today. I hope with that in mind, Members will support this motion.
28:05 | Mark Wheatley
I think the amendment improves the motion. It addresses both composition and timing concerns that have been raised. So, I’m happy to take it, Town Clerk, and to recommend that the amended motion be debated by the Court.28:43 | Adam Hogg (Cripplegate)
I welcome the Policy Chair’s amendment but I’m not sure it goes far enough. Two years ago, I would have supported Mark Wheatley’s motion, but things have moved on. Action has been taken to start addressing the dreadful state of our housing estate. I speak as Deputy Chair of the Major Works Renewal Board for the Golden Lane Estate. This group of officers, members, and residents has been set up to provide scrutiny and oversight of this complex program. Golden Lane residents need certainty – to suggest different governments arrangements just as the project is starting will further undermine any confidence they still have that finally their problems are being addressed.Servicing the Working Party will put unwelcome demands on already stretched officers, distracting them from delivering real change. So, I support the amendment as far as it goes, but setting up a Working Party should only take place when the program is well embedded and residents recognise that their needs are being properly addressed. I believe we must put our blinkers on and make real change happen.
30:05 | Philip Woodhouse (Langbourn)
I note the Chairman of Policy’s comment about kicking this down the road and I would like to make a request that under 2D that every effort should be made please to bring forward the dates of March next year. I feel this is an extremely important part of this negotiation.30:37 | Munsur Ali (Portsoken)
I arise in support of this motion and I think it’s a sensible way to go forward, however, there are a couple of things I really wish that we take note of. Firstly, as an organisation, we own property within our jurisdiction, we own property, housing property that is, outside our jurisdiction. The third part is there is also another housing association within our jurisdiction and we’ve had these conversations, Chairman, and I think this opportunity should be taken into consideration to make sure we address all of those challenges, otherwise where we have some leaseholders who have a different position as opposed to tenants, and then other housing associations as well, lots of things can fall through the gap. So, my request would be that we take into consideration something like the Guinness Housing Association, which is within our jurisdiction but we are not landlords of but it’s in terrible situation as well, and I think a collective approach like this will give us that one opportunity to address all of those aspects and I would very much request some reassurances around that.31:54 | Deputy Peter Dunphy (Cornhill)
So, I support the amendment and I support the motion. I think what Munsur Ali has just said is absolutely right. We have as a council an interest in housing in very many ways and what I would also like to do is to ask of the working party in advance, to not just take note of the Lisvane recommendation that there should be a dedicated Housing Committee, but he also very strongly recommended that there shouldn’t in general be a proliferation of new committees in the Corporation, and that this committee if created and is welcome should be done in such a way that there is not a net increase in the number of committees, which would also assist in terms of the issue of officer dedication and officer time.33:02 | Deputy Helen Fentimen (Aldersgate, Labour)
It’s clear to me that some Members of this Court really do wish to consider the governance arrangements for all of our housing estates, which includes the Barbican. Many Members will also be aware that there are very significant differences in the funding arrangements and the priorities of our estates. This was understood by the Barbican Residential Committee and Community Services Committee between 18 months / two years ago. And at that time in recognition of those differences, the management structures were separated so that we could specifically focus on the issues pertinent to the Barbican Estate and those that were quite different for social housing estates.We are, as you’ve heard, at the moment undertaking a massive extensive work plan for social housing and the Barbican Estate. We’ve heard about that in this Court very recently over the last few months. We also know that we’re right in the middle of a Housing Safety Regulation inspection. It is critical to us that we do not take officers off that important work and that we secure the best possible outcome for our housing. For these reasons, I cannot support the motion as written.
However, I believe that the amendment goes some way to address the concerns that I and others have, not least timing. We have already given commitment to consider governance in 2026. This change in timing honours the commitment that has previously been given. It will also ensure that the officers who are part of the critical work will not be distracted over the next few months at the most important time.
Finally, I would want to ensure that the widest possible engagement of residents from all estates are included in some way in the review. They are all important, they all have references, comments to make, and it’s not just those within the Square Mile. It’s important that all of our estates are consulted and part of this process. So, if the Court is minded to support a review of governance and agrees to this amendment, then I feel much more able to support this as written today.
35:43 | Gaby Robertshaw (Cripplegate)
I stand here in favour of the motion and the amendment which makes the possibility of a Housing Committee, so long needed, more within our grasp. I represent residents in the Square Mile on the Golden Lane Estate who have suffered because of the neglect, and had a Housing Committee been considered 25 years ago I am fully of the opinion that the situation we find ourselves in, and we’re having to sort out now, would not have happened.36:36 | Deputy Ann Holmes (Farringdon Within)
I support both the amendment and the motion. I just would like to put in a caution that if we’re setting up a Housing Committee, we do bear in mind that that also should be looking at development issues as well as maintenance of our estate. And that if we’re calling it a Housing Committee, we also have to incorporate into its purview over 50% of the City’s residents who do not live on any of our estates. And those are just things I would not like us to lose sight of.37:25 | Mercy Haggarty (Cripplegate, Labour)
I thank you very much for bringing this motion which I think is brilliant and it’s so, so necessary. I would just very quickly like to pay tribute to the officers who despite the inadequate funding and governance arrangements, the ones that I’ve worked closely with, the Director of Children’s Services, the Director of the Barbican Estate and the Director, the Assistant Director of Housing are exceptional and have worked incredibly hard for a number of years. So, I’d just like that noted and I’m delighted to support the motion.38:36 | Deputy Chris Hayward
I start by thanking all Members who participated in speaking on the amendment and I think and I want to thank them for what seems to be a broad range of agreement. I hope we’ll find out when we come to the vote.First of all, can I just say to Mr. Hogg that I notice he speaks against it, but basically I believe it’s important if we are to have any credibility with our Resident Reset policy whatsoever, that we are seen to be transparent and actually honour our commitments and promises that we previously made to residents and so I hope that we will be able to demonstrate that we are not going to dictate or direct to our residents what sort of form of governance they have to have without listening to them, without listening to the detailed deliberations of the Working Party.
To Mr. Woodhouse, can I say this – Mr. Woodhouse, the dates of March are very simply calculated. The Housing inspection will not be over until February. And therefore, I’ve simply taken the next available date, i.e. the beginning of March, allowed for any potential overrun because we know these things can, which therefore takes it to the end of March. As I say, not kicking the ball down the road, simply doing it for that purpose.
Mr. Ali, I agree with Mr. Ali that we should include all housing views on this. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to reach out to all those in housing in the City, from whatever background, to establish their views and I hope the Working Party, if it’s established, will make sure that its remit is as broad as possible and particularly, as I’ve said many times, bringing in the views of all our residents.
I think Mr. Dunphy’s quite right to refer to no proliferation of committees. Committees, Members, are expensive to establish, expensive to resource and Lord Lisvane, whose report I had to deal with the consultation of over the COVID period, specifically said we had too many committees, we needed to reduce them and we have; we do not want that trajectory to now go into reverse and start increasing them. That said, this is a one-off committee. It needs to be examined and if there’s justification from the Working Party, which would obviously have to come back to Policy and Resources who consider governance and then back to this Court, then we listen to their deliberations in favour or not of another committee.
To Helen Fentimen, we did make of course as she indicated in her remarks, a commitment to come back to the Court at the beginning of 2026 and we need Members to honour that if we are to retain residents trust, that we don’t break our word on promises that we already have given. It would be churlish to kill this today and then come back again in January. You know residents could be forgiven for wondering what on earth we were playing at.
To Ms Robertshaw, thank you for supporting the motion because I genuinely believe it discharges our democratic commitments and to those who elect us and put us in this place. To Anne Holmes, I agree, housing, any housing committee, if it’s brought forward, if, and of course we’re not at that stage, this is purely looking at the rights and wrongs and principles or not, should look at development and maintenance.
And I thought we finished this discussion and debate on a very positive note which I heartily endorse, at Mercy’s tribute to our officers who really have done an incredible job under huge pressures over the past few years on our housing estates. They are to be absolutely applauded and I’m so grateful to her for making that point. I hope in closing that you will support the amendment.
42:28 | Mark Wheatley
I think there’s little to add. I hoped that we would commission a Working Group to go deep. It’s clear that members have intelligently taken it broader and just to pick up on Mercy Haggerty and the Chairman’s point to recognise the good work of officers who’ve been, in my humble opinion, dealing with inadequate arrangements with almost perfection. So, my Lord Mayor I’m very pleased to take the amendment and hope that it passes.42:57 | Town Clerk
To remind members then the amendment before you is set out in full on the hard copy in your hands. In short, it has the effect of specifying that the first meeting of any Working Party shall take place in March and revising the proposed composition of the Working Party such that four of the twelve places are reserved for ex-officio roles and there is no specific allocation for residential members. The amendment is before members and to agree.
[vote taken]
On the contrary, the Lord Mayor declares the amendment to be carried. We now return to debate the substantive motion as now amended. Does any member wish to speak on the substantive motion as amended?44:04 | Deputy John Fletcher (Portsoken)
I didn’t speak on the amendment because it is a considerable improvement on the original motion and I’m pleased it went past because it does go a long way. But I can’t let the main motion go without expressing some deep concerns that I have. It is clear from what the Chair of Community and Children’s Services and other Members said that the current group of officers are doing a fantastic job in turning around the super tanker, and as the allocated member for Middlesex Street I can say I see evidence of this on a daily basis. So, I personally must say we must make sure if this motion is passed, that the officers are not distracted from their principal task of getting the current job done and the proposal of the motion, Mark Wheatley, started off by saying we have an issue with our social housing, so, we must make sure that this remains the priority officers not being distracted by change of governance.The second thing that deeply concerns me and I’ll say it now, though it won’t stop people voting for the motion, because I hope when, if the motion is passed, and when the working group gets going they take this into consideration, is protection of the views of our social housing tenants. Bringing in all of the leaseholder tenants from the Barbican into a committee is going to change the balance. Already on places such as our second biggest estate, I think it is Golden Lane it’s 50/50 between leaseholders and tenants and by the nature of the beast, I mean this is as no criticism, leaseholders tend to have sharper elbows and louder voices because they have investment in property. So as this Working Party carries out its deliberations, if the motion is passed, I ask it and ask Members to take into account that we must protect the voice of our social housing tenants, who are the most vulnerable within our society. Having said that, I will be voting in favour of the motion and urge Members to do so.
46:38 | David Williams (Farringdon Within)
My concern is that if you’re living in property which has been under-maintained, your priority is probably not a working group. And it seems to me that for whatever reason this Court and the Children and Community Services Committee upon which I’ve sat since I was elected a year or so ago, it’s our failure that has led to this situation over very many years. We should be contrite about that. And secondly, we need to make sure that we’re not presenting it as if this is our answer, because it can’t be. We’re at a moment where the priority needs to be work, not governance. And I’m sorry that a failure of previous governance has led us to the appalling position that we’re in, but the solution is not better governance. And at the moment, I’m concerned that Members like me, in a position to do so, better act to hold to account the work that we do in respect of the moment we’re in and the need for that development.And let’s be frank, we need to change from maintenance to renovation. Those two things are very different. We failed at maintenance and now we’re in a position that we need to move to something else. That needs to be the focus so far as I’m concerned. So, I’m going to vote for this motion, but the work is not going to be in this Working Party. That is to do as I see it, the maintenance that will come after the renovation, but that renovation is planned to take us 10 years at the moment, and my focus and I hope the focus of Members and officers in the Corporation, will be to speed that up, not to be in a Working Party dealing with how we might put in place governance structures to help in 10 years time.
48:31 | Adam Hogg
Can I first support exactly what Mr. Williams is saying just now. I’m very much in favour of what he’s saying and I think it’s important that we should be looking much longer ahead as to what we’re trying to do. The other bit I would just wanted to say, if I would have the temerity to correct the Chairman of Policy, I didn’t actually oppose the amendment, but I did say was I’m supporting the amendment but with the caveat that it’s, I think, it’s far too early to set up the committee.49:09 | Deputy Chris Hayward
Merely to respond to Mr. Hogg and to apologise to him for misrepresenting his views to the Court.49:42 | David Wheatly
It’s a bit like being at home for me – a lot of people rising to agree with what I propose but with very little enthusiasm. So please excuse me if I try to summarise the remarks that have been made to the motion as it stands by three excellent members. Mr. Fletcher, I’ve worked alongside you for a number of years, and my regard for both your head and heart cannot be overstated. You are a wonderful colleague, and your concerns for all residents, I trust, if the working group is established, will be taken on board and your concern that officers need not be distracted, I hope, is already addressed by the Chair of Policy’s amendment to this motion.Mr. Williams and Mr. Hogg, if I might put you together for a moment. All I would say is this working group is certainly not the answer, but I think it’s the group through which this wider Court will find an answer. For 30 years or more, we’ve allowed residents to be neglected. For 5 years or so, we’ve allowed Lord Lisvane’s question to go unanswered and the working group will find the answer. I hope and trust.
So, Town Clerk, Lord Mayor and Members all and officers who supported sharpening this motion, I would like to thank you and hope that at the end of this debate, we will decide and resolve to address the question of governance for housing once and for all.
[vote taken and carried]
– (auto-generated transcript provided by YouTube, with minor abridging, corrections, and tidying up)
