Despite wasting huge amounts of money on its press department AKA The City of London Lie Machine, our local council has failed to fix its public image problem. This isn’t really very surprising when you consider that our local authority is an undemocratic and unneeded feudal hangover. Earlier this month My London ran the following piece by Ben Lynch on transparency at the City of London council:

The City of London Corporation has been accused of fostering a “culture of non-transparency” due to the extent to which sections of its meetings are held in private. According to analysis carried out by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) across more than 70 committee meetings in September and October almost 40 per cent of the items listed were to be discussed behind closed doors…

To get a sense of how often this occurs the LDRS reviewed committee meetings held in September and October.

All items, other than the motion to exclude the public, were counted, including those which are simply administrative such as ‘apologies’ and those listed as ancillary to substantive issues. Meetings that were either cancelled or inquorate were also discounted.

By the LDRS’ estimations, in September and October there were 1,096 items down to be discussed, of which 678 were to be included in public session and 418 in private. This equates to almost 62 per cent in public with the remaining 38 per cent behind closed doors.

Committee meetings which had a notably large number of private items included Policy and Resources, the Pensions Committee and the Civic Affairs Sub-Committee.

To give an indication as to how this compares to typical councils, which admittedly do not have the responsibilities the Corporation has, in September and October neighbouring Westminster had just three items held in private.

Two of these related to discretionary housing payments and one National Non-Domestic Rates (NNDR) Discretionary Relief and Hardship Relief applications. The council did, however, restrict certain documents, such as some of those associated with licensing applications.

At a recent Finance Committee meeting Alderwoman Grekos challenged an item on the Corporation’s investment in social housing which was to be discussed in private session. Alderwoman Grekos argued it was an “inappropriate use of non-public session” due to the significant interest in the condition of the Corporation’s social homes, such as those on the Golden Lane Estate.

When put to a vote the majority of the committee opted to keep the item in private with a paper due to be made public once it comes to the Court of Common Council in December.

Deputy Beth Coombs, a colleague of Alderwoman Grekos in the Castle Baynard ward, was the only member to side with her and vote to take it into public session.

Alderwoman Grekos told the LDRS that the Corporation is able to take the public interest into account and decide that items due to be discussed privately should be heard in an open session. However she claims she’s not aware of a single case where this has happened.

She added: “In my experience, the City of London Corporation, with its culture of non-transparency, is too focused on its own interest to recognise the public interest.”

Another source told the LDRS: “The number of reports and information placed into the non-public section of the City’s agenda has been a long and ongoing issue, which members have constantly and consistently raised.

“Far too many items are discussed behind closed doors instead of in the public domain, especially housing reports. It’s very understandable why tenants and leaseholders have concerns; democracy and trust are based on transparency and openness, even more so when these issues directly affect them.”

A spokesperson for the City of London Corporation said: “We are fully transparent and accountable. Any suggestion otherwise is completely unfounded. The vast majority of our business is conducted in public, reflecting our open democratic processes.

“Unlike traditional local authorities, our responsibilities go far beyond a typical borough, covering commercial, statutory, and voluntary sectors across the capital and beyond. When reports are considered in private, it is fully lawful and done so to protect sensitive information – including personal data, commercial details, or legally privileged matters.

“These sessions comply with relevant legal requirements to safeguard confidentiality and ensure decisions are fair, informed, and lawful.”

City of London Accused of ‘Culture of Non-Transparency’ Over Extent Meetings Are Held In Private by Ben Lynch, My London, 1 December 2025. See the original here.

While the council considering nearly 40% of its business in private may, or may not, meet the letter of the law – as the Corporation claimed when speaking to My London – this is neither transparent nor democratic.

It hardly needs stating that the additional ‘responsibilities’ our local authority currently takes on should overwhelmingly be discussed in public. They impact everyone and are publicly funded. While the council treats its sovereign wealth fund City’s Cash as private, it isn’t credible to claim a local authority’s assets aren’t public.

Likewise, if a traditional local authority does things the way they were done in a feudal and pre-democratic past, then the Corporation’s spokesperson gets matters back to front when she, he or they, invoke ‘traditional local authorities” in response to My London questions. The term traditional should be applied to the City of London, rather than the boroughs that surround it, which are modern and democratic.

A recent City of London Lie Machine press release about New Smithfield and New Billingsgate Markets has won the City council some sympathetic coverage. The recent plan of simply closing Smithfield and Billingsgate markets – rather than relocating them – was generating negative coverage and determined opposition (click on petitions against on linked page), so the council seems to have U-turned.

In the press release linked to above the take-away is the City council is once again trying to relocate the markets. However this will now be to the Royal Docks in Newham rather than Dagenham, which was the original but dropped relocation site after the ‘plan’ changed to closure. We hope relocation rather than closure is achieved but we won’t hold our breath.

The legacy media doesn’t seem to be commenting on the millions of pounds wasted on the Dagenham relocation fiasco, although that may change – especially given that this was money that could have been spent on maintaining the social housing the council has left to rot. We’d also like to know exactly what’s going to happen to the Dagenham site.

The City council seems to see no need to be transparent and accountable when it draws on its City’s Estate fund, which it has repeatedly refused to deploy to repair and maintain its social housing.

The Corporation uses this lack of transparency to escape its obligations to any community that isn’t part of its bubble, since it only pretends to care about the public good. To paraphrase Martha Grekos, our council is too focused on its own self-interests to care about anyone else, and the council ‘leadership’ views City residents – in particular – with contempt.

For our coverage of the issues around Smithfield and Billingsgate from the end of last year, see here and here.