Every council has meetings.
Some have strategies.
Some have visions.
A few even have plans.
What they are supposed to have, particularly when tens of millions of pounds of public borrowing are involved, is a clear understanding of risk.
Recently, a Freedom of Information request asked Shropshire Council to produce exactly that: the documentation showing its financial exposure to Cornovii Developments Ltd, the authority’s own housing company.
It was not a hostile request.
It was not complicated.
It simply asked to see how well the Council understands the liabilities ultimately carried by local taxpayers.
Because instead of risk analysis, financial modelling or internal assessment, the Council provided something else entirely.
It showed where meetings happen.
And in doing so, it raised a far larger question than the one originally asked.
The response was revealing.
Meetings Were Produced. Risk Was Not.
Rather than disclosure of financial modelling or exposure assessments, the Council explained that governance arrangements exist:
• oversight delegated to the Housing Supervisory Board
• key decisions considered by Cabinet
• reports available on the Council website
In short:
There are committees.
Unfortunately, committees are not risk assessments.
Governance explains who discusses matters.
Risk management explains what happens when things go wrong.
The FOI asked for the latter. The Council supplied the former.
The Documents That Didn’t Appear
Conspicuous by their absence were:
• quantified exposure analysis
• internal financial risk modelling
• stress testing scenarios
• officer briefings on potential liabilities
• internal communications between Council officers and Cornovii personnel
When clarification was sought regarding emails and internal correspondence, no confirmation was given that such material had been disclosed.
Which leaves taxpayers contemplating two uncomfortable possibilities:
Either the analysis exists but remains unseen.
Or it does not exist at all.
Neither option inspires calm confidence.
The Officer Timeline
This matters more because of who has recently left the stage.
Cornovii did not appear spontaneously. It was built and overseen during a period when senior officers played central roles in shaping Shropshire Council’s commercial strategy.
Names familiar to anyone following events include:
• Mark Barrow, heavily associated with major development and growth initiatives during the company’s formative years.
• James Walton, whose more recent departure arrived at a moment of increasing financial scrutiny.
Alongside these departures sits another significant name.
Andy Begley, the Council’s Chief Executive during a period in which Shropshire’s commercial and development ambitions accelerated, also exited the authority as financial pressures and scrutiny intensified.
Chief Executives do not manage individual projects day-to-day. But they set direction, culture and risk appetite. Large-scale commercial ventures such as Cornovii do not emerge in isolation; they develop within a strategic environment endorsed at the very top of the organisation.
If successive senior officers associated with the Council’s commercial strategy have now moved on, who retains institutional memory of the assumptions, warnings, and risk tolerances agreed when these decisions were made?
Because corporate structures remain long after their architects have departed.
And liabilities have an unfortunate habit of staying behind.
Because risk, unlike officers, does not resign.
Political Ownership: Not Just One Party’s Problem
For avoidance of doubt, this story does not begin with the current administration.
Cornovii was created in 2019, when Shropshire Council operated under a Conservative majority.
The political ambition then was familiar across local government: build homes, generate revenue, and ease financial pressure through commercial activity.
Since then, political control and cabinet memberships have evolved, with housing and finance responsibilities passing through different hands, including current Cabinet leadership and portfolio holders connected to housing and development policy.
Which creates an awkward reality:
No single party now owns the decision.
But every administration since has inherited the risk.
The Curious Case of the Missing Exposure
Cornovii exists in a convenient grey zone.
When success is discussed, it is portrayed as a commercial enterprise.
When scrutiny arrives, governance structures are emphasised instead.
Yet the financial exposure ultimately rests in only one place:
with Shropshire residents.
If the Council possesses a clear, quantified understanding of that exposure, this FOI request presented the perfect opportunity to demonstrate it.
Instead, the public received organisational charts.
Why This Matters Now
This is not academic.
If Cornovii performs well, councillors speak of regeneration.
If it falters, consequences appear elsewhere:
• service reductions
• rising precepts
• increased financial pressure on already stretched communities
Risk does not vanish. It transfers.
And taxpayers are last in the chain but first to pay.
The Question That Will Not Go Away
So we arrive at a remarkably simple position.
A focused request asked for risk documentation.
The Council pointed to meetings instead.
Which leaves one unavoidable question:
Does Shropshire Council possess a clear, documented understanding of its financial exposure to Cornovii Developments Ltd… or is reassurance now expected to rest on the fact that committees exist?
Because hope may be comforting.
But it has never balanced a council budget.
The Risk That Sits Off the Page
There is a reason financial exposure matters.
Councils do not collapse suddenly. They narrow, gradually. Choices become smaller. Language becomes calmer. Assurances become more frequent.
Across local government, authorities that entered commercial development did so with similar confidence. Many discovered later that borrowing taken in optimism must still be repaid in reality.
If Cornovii carries limited risk, demonstrating that fact would strengthen public confidence overnight.
If the exposure is significant, then residents deserve honesty before circumstances deliver it for them.
Because when councils run short of financial room, the consequences rarely appear where decisions were made.
They appear where services disappear.
Libraries close quietly.
Maintenance slows.
Precepts rise politely.
And somewhere in the background sits a company structure originally described as an opportunity.
The public are no longer asking whether Cornovii was a good idea in 2019.
They are asking a simpler question in 2026:
Who is measuring the risk now… and who is prepared to own it?
Where Political Accountability Now Sits
Cornovii is no longer an abstract policy experiment. It is an ongoing financial reality overseen through Cabinet decision-making and shareholder governance arrangements.
That means accountability does not rest with officers who have moved on, nor solely with the administration that created the company in 2019 under a Conservative majority. Responsibility now sits with those currently holding the housing, finance and portfolio leadership roles tasked with oversight today.
Whether that responsibility lies with the relevant Cabinet Member for housing and development, or senior political leadership overseeing the Council’s commercial strategy, the principle remains unchanged:
Risk inherited is still risk owned.
Residents are entitled to know not only that meetings take place, but that someone, somewhere, is actively testing the assumptions made when Cornovii began — and is prepared to explain the results publicly.
Because structures do not carry accountability.
People do.
And at some point, soon, residents will want to know exactly who those people are.
If nobody can show the risk, why should we believe it’s under control?
And so we arrive back at the true authors of this mess: officers who risked none of their own money, possessed remarkable certainty about matters they scarcely appeared to understand, and proceeded regardless. Arrogance or apathy, take your pick. With “Misconduct in Public Office” now regularly whispered in local government circles, it is hardly surprising that residents are starting to ask whether the phrase fits rather too comfortably.
P.S.
There is, of course, another interpretation worth noting.
The sheer volume of applications also demonstrates something else entirely: developers clearly have strong confidence in the marketability of what they build. They believe the homes will sell.
Which makes the current imbalance all the more curious.
Private developers proceed on the basis of commercial certainty, while public infrastructure is expected to catch up afterwards, funded by existing residents through stretched services, rising precepts, and delayed upgrades.
If confidence exists on one side of the equation, perhaps certainty should be required on the other.
Residents may also have noticed an inordinate number of planning applications moving steadily through the pipeline, accompanied by levels of public opposition rarely seen before.
Perhaps it is time to attempt something radical.
Instead of approving developments first and debating consequences later, why not insist that infrastructure comes before the first shovel enters the ground?
Road capacity demonstrated.
Schools expanded.
GP provision secured.
Drainage proven.
A novel idea, certainly.
But then again, planning used to mean planning.
PPostscript: When the Chairman of Shropshire Council is assaulted at his own premises, the public might reasonably expect scrutiny. Instead, the Shropshire Star confined itself to sparse reporting, while the Border Counties Advertizer maintained a silence so complete it could almost be mistaken for policy.
The Question Nobody Expected To Be Difficult
The request sought documentation itemising or profiling Shropshire Council’s financial exposure to Cornovii Developments Ltd.Given Cornovii is wholly owned by the Council and funded through public borrowing, one might assume such analysis sits ready to hand. Any prudent authority lending substantial sums to its own development company would surely understand its downside exposure.
Instead, the response offered something else entirely.
The Alternative Council 