Questions raised over land ownership at village on list for thousands of new homes

RESIDENTS of a village in south Warwickshire have one big question for their parish council – do any of your members stand to make money from us being swamped by new housing?

That was the question being asked again and again at a packed public meeting in Wilmcote as residents queried which parish councillors owned land that might be built on if the village becomes part of a massive new settlement of 6,700 homes.

Under the South Warwickshire Local Plan, currently being prepared jointly by Stratford and Warwick district councils, Wilmcote, Bearley and Pathlow are the designated location of such a settlement that would be built on a swathe of land straddling the A3400 Birmingham Road.

A total of 54,400 homes will need to be built between 2027 and 2050 in south Warwickshire to meet government housing targets – 27,000 of them in the Stratford district.

But at Wilmcote’s public meeting last weekend, questions about the likelihood of 6,700 new homes being built in around this picturesque village – which is also the location of the historically important Mary Arden’s Farm – eventually turned into an animated cut-and-thrust about land ownership.

It began when a man asked: “Is it true that three members of Wilmcote Parish Council have got a vested interest? In any decision, can’t they be asked to stand down, so people can come on to the parish council who have knowledge of local development?”

The question brought loud applause. And then another man – hinting at the parish council’s duty to represent local opinion in regard to this massive development – asked: “What is the parish council going to say? What is the parish council’s view?”

Another man declared: “It’s quite vital to know what the parish council thinks. If the parish councillors have got a vested interest in the land, how can they be unbiased?”

On the question of the parish council’s view of the proposed development, a woman asked: “How many people on the parish council voted for, and how many voted against? We have a right to know.”

But Cllr Ian Shenton (Cons), who represents Wootton Wawen on Stratford District Council and Arden on Warwickshire County Council – and was in attendance as a councillor from a neighbouring ward with considerable knowledge of the local plan – pointed out that the parish council’s position would amount to just one comment among many. It was the mass of individual views that mattered.

Someone else said: “The parish council has a duty to express the views of its residents. Why is the parish council not prepared to say what happened at the parish council?” (It transpired that the minutes of the last parish council meeting had not yet been published.)

A man asked: “Am I correct in thinking that three members of the parish council have a vested interest? Yes or no?”

A chorus of voices asked: “Why can’t you answer, now?”

At this point Cllr Colin Ray, the chairman of the parish council, said: “Three members recorded that they had a vested interest.”

This brought the following sarcastic quip from a man: “So they haven’t got the builders’ interests then?”

Another man said: “Surely somebody knows who owns the land. Are these people parish councillors?” Someone else shouted: “There’s a clear conflict of interest!”

Then another man declared: “Anyone with a vested interest on the parish council should be excluded from any discussions and from voting. This needs to be very clear.”

Cllr Ray pointed out that this was indeed what happened. Anyone with an interest would not take part in any discussions on that particular topic.

And then the parish council clerk Liz Butterworth spoke. Referring to the last meeting of the parish council, she said: “There are three [members] who have an interest. One was not there. Two said they had a non-pecuniary interest.”

A woman waspishly piped up: “Does that mean they’ll give the land away for free?”

The meeting came to an end with Stratford district councillor Thom Holmes (Lib Dem, Kinwarton) – whose ward covers Wilmcote – saying that if anyone had concerns about a council or councillors’ conduct they should report them to the monitoring officer at Stratford District Council.

(A non-pecuniary interest is a private or personal interest that is not financial in nature but could still impact a person's official duties. People with non-pecuniary interests are required to declare them and take steps to manage them.)

On Wilmcote Parish Council’s website those currently listed as parish councillors are: Colin Ray (chairman), James Boyes, Leo Mahon, Christine Nurser-Stephens, Kathleen Shilvock, Sarah Hession, Karl McMillan and Gavin Stewart.

It was not revealed at the meeting which councillors declared a non-pecuniary interest and this won’t be known officially until the minutes of the last parish council are published.

After the meeting former Wilmcote parish councillor Janine Lee told the Herald she was in the process of setting up a Wilmcote Action Group to fight the development proposals.

And explaining the anger over land ownership that erupted at the meeting, she said: “The point is that the land owners have made the land available to build on - and have therefore pushed Bearley and Wilmcote into the top four likely settlement sites, out of 12, to be developed. This is what has made people so angry – why there was so much anger in the room.”

She said factors that could count against the development going ahead would be the enormous cost of improving the road infrastructure in the locality and the fact that a unique building like Mary Arden’s Farm – the home of Shakespeare’s mother – was in Wilmcote.

Another factor was flooding. “We sit on clay here and it’s always flooded,” she said.

During the meeting Cllr George Cowcher (Lib Dem, Wellesbourne South), the deputy leader of Stratford District Council and its portfolio holder for planning and economic development, stressed that nothing had yet been decided. But he also said: “If we’ve not made adequate progress this autumn, the government will take it out of our hands. There’s real pressure on us to keep going with this plan and get it right.”

It’s estimated that around 180 people turned up at the meeting. At the close, 145 of them registered their opposition to the proposed settlement, and one declared themselves in favour.