Strip away the dense terminology and political vocabulary in City Bridge Foundation’s new 12-page mission statement, and it could easily be mistaken for a Green Party pamphlet or a climate campaign blog.
The document celebrates “cross-cutting strategic ambitions” centred on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, alongside Climate Action. It repeatedly invokes the language of climate, racial, social and economic “justice”.
Yet the statement comes from a 700-year-old City of London charity with a clear and practical responsibility: looking after the capital’s non-rail bridges across the Thames. Its portfolio includes Tower Bridge, one of Britain’s most recognisable landmarks. Thanks to investments worth around £1.5 billion, that work is carried out without cost to taxpayers.
The latest policy document, titled Standing With Londoners, suggests that the current board has priorities beyond helping people travel across the river. The word “Thames” appears only once, while far more attention is given to the ambition of becoming a “social-justice funder” for “all Londoners”.
Critics would argue that serving the public means using this substantial financial reserve to focus more closely on the foundation’s original purpose, rather than directing large sums towards selected charities and left-leaning campaign organisations.
One London Conservative MP described the foundation’s approach as “woke nonsense” last night.
The foundation has awarded major grants to organisations including Spectra CIC, which received £1 million to help “build capacity in the trans and sex-worker sector”, and Race On The Agenda, given £1.5 million to “combat racial injustice”. Those projects may support particular communities, but critics ask why a charity created to maintain bridges is not using more of its wealth to repair and preserve them.
City Bridge Foundation, which is responsible for some of London’s most famous bridges, awarded more than £1.1 million to an organisation allegedly linked to Hamas
The foundation gave money to the Muslim Charities Forum, whose treasurer also chairs another charity being investigated over alleged links to Hamas (Pictured: Robert Hardman visits Hammersmith Bridge)
London’s bridge problems have already made the capital an international punchline. In 2020, The New York Times mocked Britain’s inability to carry out basic repairs after Hammersmith Bridge became a symbol of infrastructure failure. The Victorian landmark, also seen in the most recent James Bond film, was described as evidence that “London’s bridges really are falling down”.
Six years later, the bridge remains closed to traffic. Elsewhere, Albert Bridge has endured a year-long closure, while Waterloo Bridge is reportedly facing serious concerns of its own. That raises an obvious question: could the richly funded City Bridge Foundation help?
Its answer is no. The foundation says its core responsibility is maintaining the five bridges under its direct care. Its additional role is to provide grants to charities supporting communities across Greater London. But that wider remit was created by the organisation itself in 1995, when it sought permission from the Charity Commission to amend its governing rules. If those rules could be changed once, critics argue, there is nothing preventing another application.
That leads to more fundamental questions about ownership and accountability. Who does the money belong to, and who authorised these priorities? The funds ultimately derive from Londoners and their predecessors, who paid tolls to cross the river. Over hundreds of years, those proceeds have been transformed into a vast investment portfolio.
The foundation has a single overarching trustee: the City of London Corporation. The corporation appoints the board, which in turn selects the committee responsible for deciding how the money is distributed.
For decades, the political Left has portrayed the City of London as the ultimate stronghold of wealthy, pinstriped capitalism.
But a different philosophy now appears to have taken root in the Square Mile. Has the City itself gone woke? That is the question critics are asking after a City-linked charity with centuries of experience protecting routes across the Thames awarded £1.2 million to an organisation alleged to have links to Hamas, a proscribed terrorist group.
The story begins with medieval monks and merchants who established what was then known as Bridge House Estates in the 12th century. Its purpose was straightforward: to create and maintain a way across the river.
They built a stone London Bridge to replace its wooden predecessor and funded the project by charging travellers a toll.
Careful investment of that income eventually enabled them to construct Blackfriars Bridge and Tower Bridge. The organisation now also oversees Southwark Bridge and the Millennium Bridge, once nicknamed the “Wobbly Bridge”. After almost eight centuries of accumulation, the City’s leaders made a major decision in 1995.
They concluded that the organisation could move beyond the routine business of civil engineering and begin using some of its surplus wealth to support charitable causes.
Since when, as the rebranded City Bridge Foundation, they have quietly given away £840 million to hundreds of charities, some very deserving, some less so, some overtly political and some with no obvious connection to the City.
Last week, The Times revealed that two cheques amounting to a whopping £1.2 million had been handed to an organisation called the Muslim Charities Forum. Its treasurer just happens to be chief executive of another foundation, Al-Khair, which is alleged to have connections to Hamas. The Charity Commission has opened a statutory inquiry into Al-Khair after one of its associates was arrested in the UK and charged by the US with allegedly providing ‘material support’ to Hamas.
Critics have argued funds should be put towards protecting other bridges in the capital owned by local authorities or TfL (Pictured: Hammersmith Bridge)
No one is suggesting the City Bridge Foundation had any idea of a possible Hamas link. However, it all adds to the impression of an organisation with more money than it knows what to do with.
As well as appointing its own poet in residence, for example, it pays each one of its 29 staff more than £60,000 a year.
The revelation about the Muslim Charities Forum surfaced in detailed research undertaken by Looking For Growth, a pro-business campaign group.
One of its priorities for London is to break the bureaucratic logjam that has closed Hammersmith Bridge because two councils and the Mayor of London cannot work out a way of reopening it. The knock-on effect across west London’s other bridges and the impact on business has been severe.
Looking For Growth took a deep dive into the City Bridge Foundation and its finances. It was astonished to find that the charity was not simply just giving handouts to conventional charities – from Age UK to Mencap – but big sums to lobbying groups and activists.
‘Hammersmith Bridge has been shut since 2019, but the City Bridge Foundation’s rules stop them from being able to step in and fix it,’ says Dr Lawrence Newport, chief executive of Looking For Growth.
‘Instead of using its money to fund social justice causes – including a group campaigning against a new river crossing – the City of London Corporation must change the Foundation’s rules to get it back to its original purpose.’
Within the City Bridge Foundation there is dismay that this low-profile, ancient body is suddenly under attack for its philanthropy. Speaking to some of those on the inside, I find incredulity that they should be expected to fund bridges other than their own.
One senior figure, not unreasonably, asks why a well-run charity, which has been carefully managing its funds for centuries, should pay out hundreds of millions because the halfwits running 21st century local authorities have been so inept.
We can all sympathise with that argument. Yet this is a charity that has paid out £840 million to do plenty of other things that are the responsibility of the state – whether fighting racial injustice or looking after elderly people.
Furthermore, Looking For Growth points out that the charity has been paying millions to organisations with clear political agendas. Why is a body in charge of bridges giving £5 million to the Esme Fairbairn Foundation to ‘tackle the causes of deep-rooted structural injustices facing people in towns and cities across the UK’?
Established 65 years ago, the Esme Fairbairn Foundation has a long track record of good deeds, but also support for controversial single-issue causes such as pro- immigration outfit Right To Remain or the Media Standards Trust, precursor to the anti-Press group Hacked Off.
With more than £800 million of its own in the bank, does Esme Fairbairn really need another £5 million, which might otherwise be spent on bridge-building?
The foundation also commissioned a deep-dive into its connections with the slave trade. It would, no doubt, have cheerfully handed millions to the reparations crowd were it not for the frustrating discovery that it had next to nothing to do with slavery. That’s the problem with a charity that predates slavery, I suppose.
The City Bridge Foundation might cling to rules of its own making and insist it can only maintain ancient City bridges. But it circumvented those rules to take on the Millennium Bridge in 2003. And, if it is happy to spread its largesse far beyond the Square Mile, why can’t it help bridges beyond the City, too?
In response to questions from The Mail on Sunday, a spokesman for City Bridge Foundation said: ‘Our first responsibility is the maintenance of five Thames bridges at no cost to the taxpayer. Only funds not required for the bridges are available for our charitable work supporting Londoners.’
As for the possible Hamas connection: ‘Our grant was specifically made to Muslim Charities Forum for its work in London.
‘Every grant application is subject to robust checks and ongoing monitoring.’
There remains zero enthusiasm for helping any other Thames crossings. ‘Our five bridges are open, safe and in good condition. London’s other bridges are the responsibility of other organisations, which we work with through other industry groups.’
Pressure for change is not going to go away, though.
‘Our bridges have been left to wrack and ruin, making it more difficult to get around and leaving Londoners more divided,’ says Tory MP and Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp.
‘We are being sold down the river by this Left-wing pressure group masquerading as a charity,’ the MP for Croydon South adds.
‘They should spend less time and money on divisive campaigning and more time building bridges.’
He urged a clean sweep of the board ‘so this charity can return to its purpose of improving London’s infrastructure – like Hammersmith Bridge – instead of wasting money on woke nonsense that actually undermines our society.’
That view is echoed by urban analysts, such as Ike Ijeh, head of housing, architecture and urban space at the leading think-tank Policy Exchange. ‘At a time when London’s bridges are increasingly in need of urgent repair, the City Bridge Foundation should be reminded that its vast revenues are not its inheritance but Londoners’,’ he said.
‘And it is high time that inheritance was used to the strategic benefit of the majority of Londoners and not to line the coffers of the social justice identity complex that all too often divides London.’
Ultimately, here is a classic case for students of what academics call ‘groupthink’.
Just look again at the foundation’s website. The board and the funding committee are full of professionals keen to trumpet their City credentials and charity experience. However, out of the 15 people responsible for an organisation that builds and mends bridges, I count just two engineers.
Additional reporting by Nicholas Pyke