The Agenda for December’s Court of Common Council included a report from the Policy and Resources Committee on Investment in Social Housing. See Agenda Item 7 for the full report, summary and recommendations below:
SUMMARY
The City of London Corporation’s housing stock requires a level of investment that is unaffordable from within the current ring-fenced funds of the Housing Revenue
Account. Significant additional resources outside of the Housing Revenue Account
need to be applied to meet the ambition to bring existing housing stock to a good
standard over the next 10 years. Your Policy and Resources Committee, having
considered the significant issues facing the City Corporation’s housing stock and with
the support of your Finance Committee, accordingly recommends the allocation of City
Fund capital funds of up to £151.77m (including optimism bias).RECOMMENDATION
The Court of Common Council is recommended to approve the allocation of up to
£151.77m of City Fund Capital funds (including optimism bias) over the next 10 years
to support the major works renovation programme to bring the existing housing stock
to a good condition.– Deputy Chris Hayward, Policy and Resources Committee
Prior to Court meeting, GLERA wrote to Cripplegate Councillors referencing the email that Alderwoman Martha Grekos had sent to all Members of the Court. In response to GLERA’s email, Cripplegate Councillors forwarded their response to the Alderwoman’s email (see all emails below).
Two of our Councillors, Dawn Frampton and Sarah Gillinson, raised the issue of Leaseholder costs at Court (see transcript here). NOTE: GLE leaseholder Councillors (Gaby Robertshaw and Anne Corbett) are not able to raise Leasehold issues due to a perceived conflict of interest.
GLERA to cripplegate members
11 DECEMBER 2025
Dear Elected members
Whilst approval of the recommendation at the start of this report is helpful, it is clear that despite what officers have been hinting at us over the last few months, the funding is not there… there is a shortfall and it’s not small. Also, the expectation that leaseholders bear a very large burden is not addressed; the £47m figure, although not directly stated in this report, has remained unchanged.
Martha sent me a copy of her email to Court yesterday and for the first time there is a challenge to the expectation of leaseholder funding. The Corporation is obviously concerned about where they can find the money to support the HRA but, despite all the acknowledgment of long term negligence, there appears to be no concern for, or thought given to what is a fair amount to expect leaseholders to contribute.
The figure of £94,000 quoted in Martha’s email is obviously an average, some will pay more and some will pay less, but it is not something that should be accepted as a reasonable average, it needs to be challenged. Leaseholders need clarity that there is a significant rebate for the negligence to date, that those who have to wait longest for the works won’t have to pay more than their neighbours because of increasing construction costs (way above the general rate of inflation) and that they won’t be expected to pay for the cost of reactive repairs until their homes are upgraded which may be not for another 10 years. It’s unfair and very divisive.
And how do the Corporation expect to extract this amount of money from leaseholders? It is financially not sensible to factor that figure in as a given. Residents don’t have it – are the Corporation ready to take on the reputational damage of forcing people to sell their homes?
I hope you may be able to raise these issues and the ongoing concerns of residents around the lack of clarity on costs and the length of the programme in the debate tomorrow.
Best wishes
Sue
alderwoman grekos to all members
10 DECEMBER 2025
Dear Fellow Members,
The report at agenda item 7 of the Court meeting this Friday is the culmination of a process that started with a motion which I put six months ago and which is referred to, in its amended form, in paragraph 7.
The report gives the impression that its approval by the Court on Friday will solve the problem of funding the renovation of the Corporation’s housing estates. A quick look at the report’s own figures, however, shows that this problem won’t be solved by this approval. Here’s why:
The report states that the total cost of the programme is now £211m, plus an “optimism bias” of 78.99m, making a total of £289.99m. It also states that the HRA can fund £138.23m via leaseholder contributions (amount unspecified), borrowing (up to £35m) and depreciation (amount unspecified). That leaves a shortfall of £151.77m to be allocated from City Fund. The report only identifies £104.4m as available, however, with 41.4m as “certain” and £63m as “probable”. That leaves a minimum of £47.37m unaccounted for. It thus kicks the problem of full funding down the road.
The report refers fleetingly to “third party investment”, but does not explain why a third party would invest in our dilapidated housing stock in return for a slender income strip.
Previous public reports have indicated that £47 million should be contributed by leaseholders, approximately half of this sum by Golden Lane residents. That would result in an average contribution per leaseholder of around £94,000, which most cannot afford. It would compound the acknowledged scandal of the Corporation’s failure to maintain its housing estates over decades with another scandal of forcing the leaseholders to pay for the Corporation’s own failures.
Even if the Corporation did drive a large number of its residents out of their homes through charging extortionate contributions, that would still leave a shortfall of at least £47.37m.
The report is confusingly presented, but whichever way you look at the figures, they don’t add up to support the impression it creates that the funding problem is solved and that a line can now be drawn under this embarrassing matter.
The real solution to the funding problem is to draw on City’s Estate, which was the purpose of my original motion.
The report states that this is not recommended because it “would necessitate the disposal of investment assets”. It certainly would, and why not? Why should the Corporation maintain a £2 billion wealth fund at the expense of maintaining decent housing for its relatively small number of estate residents, whom it has been letting down for decades?
Arguments were deployed in the debate on my motion that the Corporation would no longer be able to pay for activities funded out of City’s Estate if it used that fund to any extent to pay for housing renovation. Examples were given of cuts to the funding of woodlands and the Guildhall School of Music and Drama. But there’s no need to cut funding for those activities. Any cuts required should instead affect members’ extensive benefits and spending money on the financial City, which doesn’t need our money.
I trust that the members representing the wards of Cripplegate and Portsoken, where the estates within the City are located, will not be satisfied with the half-measures in this report, or the potential beggaring of their leaseholder constituents. I also trust that those members will bring back a motion next month to use City’s Estate to fund estate renovation fully and not drive out the leaseholders.
With best wishes,
Martha
cripplegate members to alderwoman grekos
11 DECEMBER 2025
Dear Alderwoman Grekos,
As elected members for Cripplegate, we represent both tenants and leaseholders and work in close partnership with our residents, ensuring that their views and needs remain central to all that we do. This approach is fundamental to our work, both individually and collectively as a ward, in delivering services and improvements for residents in Cripplegate and beyond.
Our residents face a wide range of challenges, not least the poor condition of housing resulting from many years of inadequate maintenance and repairs. We welcome constructive ideas on how collaboration with other members might strengthen this work, provided such suggestions respect our established commitment to resident‑led engagement, acknowledge the relationships we have built with our communities, and avoid language that could imply to this court that we are not taking decisions on behalf of our residents and as such there could be severe consequences. As councillors, we live in the area we represent and are deeply invested in its future.
We note that we have not previously been approached by you to discuss our residents’ priorities or to share the work we have undertaken to address the housing challenges on Golden Lane. We would be pleased to do so, guided by and informed through our ongoing engagement with residents. Through the GLE Major Works Project Renewal Board, we are actively working with officers, residents and GLERA to ensure that leaseholder contributions are calculated fairly and reasonably. This has always been long standing commitment of Cripplegate members and remains a priority we will continue to pursue.
Had we had the opportunity to meet with you earlier, we could have explained that the substantive work to address the issues raised in your email has been underway since 2022. As always, the interests of residents are at the forefront of everything we do in Cripplegate, and they will continue to guide our actions.
Yours sincerely,
Team Cripplegate
PP: Alderwoman Liz King, Deputy Anne Corbett, Deputy Ceri Wilkins, Dawn Frampton, Jacqui Webster, Adam Hogg, Gaby Robertshaw, Mercy Haggerty and Sarah Gillinson
