The Policy and Resources Committee met on Thursday 22 October 2026 to discuss several key items, including proposals for Business Improvement District (BID) ballots for the Eastern City and Fleet Street Quarter areas, and the Local Government Pension Scheme for member allowances. The committee approved both BID proposals to proceed to ballots of levy-paying businesses, with two votes against and one abstention for each. They also unanimously voted to support the recommendation against applying the Local Government Pension Scheme to the Member Allowance Scheme, citing affordability concerns. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to a debate on a ward boundary review, ultimately approving the recommendations of the working party to not proceed with a review at this time, with 20 votes in favour and 3 against.

Eastern City and Fleet Street Quarter BID Ballot Proposals

The committee considered proposals for the renewal of Business Improvement District (BID) status for both the Eastern City and Fleet Street Quarter. These BIDs, established in 2022, are seeking approval to proceed to ballots for a second five-year term. Both proposals have been assessed against the council's policy objectives and BID strategy framework.

For the Eastern City BID, the proposal aims to build on its first term's successes, focusing on themes of Your People, Your Place, and Our Partnerships. Key initiatives include enhancing public realm, supporting the night-time economy through services like the City Safe Bus, and continuing cultural and community activities. The BID levy rules propose a 1% levy on businesses with a rateable value above £600,000, capped at £50,000. The estimated investment over the five-year term is £28.5 million.

The Fleet Street Quarter BID proposal also seeks to build on its first term, with four strategic themes: Destination Fleet Street Quarter, Placemaking and Public Realm, Community and Social Impact, and Safety and Support. Initiatives include public realm improvements, cultural programming, community engagement, and safety partnerships with the City of London Police. The proposed levy is 1% on businesses with a rateable value above £180,000, with a cap of £50,000 per hereditament and a total cap of £65,000 for businesses with multiple hereditaments. The estimated investment over the five-year term is £15.3 million.

During the discussion, concerns were raised about the proposed 25% increase in the levy threshold for the Eastern City BID, with one councillor stating they could not support the proposal due to inflation being significantly lower. The timing of the proposals was also questioned, with a suggestion that they should be considered alongside the upcoming budget. Officers clarified that the timing was necessary to allow for regulatory processes and avoid a gap in coverage.

Ultimately, the committee voted to approve both the Eastern City BID ballot proposal (Item 4) and the Fleet Street Quarter BID ballot proposal (Item 5) to proceed to a ballot of their respective business rate payers. The vote for each was carried with two against and one abstention.

Member Allowance Scheme and Local Government Pension Scheme

The committee considered a report on the Member Allowance Scheme (MAS) and the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). Legislative changes from May 2026 allow councillors to become members of the LGPS in respect of their elected office, making their allowances pensionable. The City Corporation has the choice whether to apply these new regulations.

The Civic Affairs Sub-Committee recommended that the City of London Corporation should not apply the LGPS to the Member Allowance Scheme, citing affordability and uncertain funding costs for employer contributions. The report noted that if the scheme were applied, the employer contribution would be approximately £225,000 per annum, based on all 125 Members claiming the allowance. An Equality Impact Assessment highlighted that not applying the LGPS could disproportionately affect members with protected characteristics who are more likely to experience pension gaps.

Despite the EQIA's findings, the committee voted unanimously to support the recommendation of the Civic Affairs Sub-Committee not to proceed with applying the LGPS to the Member Allowance Scheme. The committee also considered whether the names of MAS claimants should be published online, but no decision on this was recorded in the transcript.

Ward Boundary Review

A report on the Ward Boundary Review was presented, detailing the work of a dedicated working party. The working party considered whether changes to ward boundaries, names, the number of councillors per ward, or the total number of councillors were necessary. However, changes to the number of wards or aldermen were outside the scope of the review, as these would require primary legislation.

The working party concluded that there was no material case for a ward boundary review at this time. While some members felt strongly that the overall number of councillors should be altered, it was agreed that this should be considered alongside other wider reforms, such as franchise reviews, which would require primary legislation and could take considerable time. The report noted that worker growth in the City had not automatically led to an increase in registered voters, and the number of people on ward lists had remained broadly stable.

A proposed amendment by Leila Boulton sought to commit the council to reducing the number of councillors before the 2029 election and instructed officers to bring forward options. This amendment was debated extensively, with arguments focusing on efficiency, the time commitment for councillors, and the external perception of the Corporation. Ultimately, the amendment was defeated with three members voting in favour and eighteen against.

The committee then voted on the substantive recommendations of the working party, which were to not proceed with a ward boundary review. This recommendation was approved with 20 votes in favour and 3 against.

Questions on Matters Relating to the Work of the Committee

Two questions were raised by members:

1. Fair Funding Settlement: A question was asked about when the City Corporation would consult its residents regarding the government's fair funding settlement and potential challenges under the Sustainable Communities Act. The response indicated that the Corporation had secured three-year transitional funding and believed its unique characteristics required a bespoke arrangement, making a challenge under the Sustainable Communities Act inappropriate. Resident engagement occurs through an annual public city question time.
2. Mitigating Tax Increases: A question was raised regarding measures to mitigate the impact of potential tax increases on City businesses, such as increases to the bank surcharge and business rates on higher value commercial buildings. The response reiterated the Corporation's consistent urging to the Chancellor to do no harm to the financial services sector and highlighted existing measures to strengthen competitiveness, including the City Business and Investment Unit and the Destination City initiative.

Other Business

The committee noted that items 8 and 9 (Revenue Outturn and Financial Services and Markets Bill) were for information only and no members wished to speak on them. The meeting then moved into the exclusion of the public for non-public agenda items.