‘The Heath as been managed by the city corporation since 1997. But can the City of London Corporation survive?’

• NEXT month, on June 29, I shall be observing two birthdays – my own and that of the I871 Hampstead Heath Act.

The Heath as been managed by the city corporation since 1997. But can the City of London Corporation survive?

It is small, territorially, lacking economies of scale. Hence its reliance on charitable funds directed to itself, to fund its activities, some of which seem arguably inappropriate and wasteful.

Its small democratic residential franchise (8,000 or so residents) is over­shadowed by a much greater business vote which makes it out of kilter with modern democratic practice and belief.

There are related current instances involving criticism of the City of London Corporation which are significant to Hampstead Heath’s future.

The first involves Hampstead Heath itself (in disregard of the Hampstead Heath Act of 1871) where steep charges and restrictions have recently been introduced along with money generating activities, like a newly proposed, intrusive. cinema.

This, despite receiving payment of more than sufficient HM Treasury funds for running Hampstead Heath, known as “The City Offset”.

That amounts to a reported £10million annually, granted for accepting the management of the Heath by the Margaret Thatcher government, some 30 years ago, and little known at the time.

As the “City Offset” payment – of a reported £10million annually – is greatly in excess of the cost of managing the Heath, one may reasonably deduce that Hampstead Heath subsidises the corporation – not the other way round.

The related controversy, surrounds the city corporation’s decision to give itself (on appeal from itself to itself) property development permission for a development in Fleet Street, involving the demolition of buildings of architectural interest with conservation protection, for one blocking views of St Paul’s Cathedral.

One deduces a common cause: the need, due to its uneconomic scale, to generate cash at the cost of what seems like cultural vandalism.

The corporation’s action has been deplored by the architectural charity Save Our Heritage which has appealed to secretary of state Robert Jenrick.

The city corporation is a problem: first, because of its uneconomic size; second, because of its troubled governance as commented upon by Lord Lisvane in his report last year; third, because of its small, inadequate, popular democratic franchise.

Is society paying too high a price to preserve an outdated, uneconomic city corporation? Can it survive?

ROBERT SUTHERLAND SMITH
Widecombe Way, N2