Cornovii, Kettel and the Questions Shropshire Council Now Ought to Answer

This is not an allegation of wrongdoing. It is a public-interest article asking for clarity about public assets, public decisions, and public money.

Shropshire Council and the Promise of Transparency

Shropshire Council says it remains committed to transparency. Splendid. In that case, what follows should be very easy to answer.

Material supplied to The Alternative Council after the 26 February 2026 Council meeting raises questions about Cornovii Developments Ltd, the London Road Estate in Shrewsbury, and a reported arrangement involving Kettel and a rent-to-buy model. That same material also points to a new “Investment Properties” entry in the Cornovii accounts, rising from nil to £10,231,500 by 31 March 2025. Those are not conclusions. They are questions waiting for proper answers.

What the Source Material Says

The material supplied says a website announced that Cornovii had entered into a partnership with Kettel to market eleven London Road Estate properties on a rent-to-buy basis, comprising one two-bedroom, nine three-bedroom and one four-bedroom home. Again, that is something the Council can either confirm, explain, or correct. Human institutions do occasionally manage one of the three.

The same source material also refers to poor communication with the public about Cornovii receipts and dividends, and to claims that the Council loan facility to Cornovii has risen from £49 million to £69 million, with the final increase said to support entry into a joint venture and private rental sector housing. Those points come from correspondence supplied to The Alternative Council, not from a council document included in this bundle, so they should be treated as matters for confirmation. But that is precisely why the questions now need asking in public and in writing.

Who, or What, Is Kettel?

What makes the matter more interesting is the identity of the companies involved. Kettel Investment Management Ltd is a London company incorporated in May 2024. Its stated activity is the management of real estate on a fee or contract basis. Its current directors are Lars Kreutzmann, Trevor George Stunden and Milan Pavlovic. Its sole shareholder and person with significant control is We Are Kettel Ltd, which holds more than 75% of the shares and voting rights and has the right to appoint and remove directors.

The parent company, We Are Kettel Ltd, is also London-based, but its stated activity is “business and domestic software development”. Its current directors are Milan Pavlovic, Alexander Jack Tupper and Trevor George Stunden, and its shareholding includes not only the founders but outside investors such as Entrepreneur First Operations Limited, Fair By Design (GP) Limited and MNL (Ascension) Nominees Limited. In other words, this does not, at first glance, resemble the standard profile of a Shropshire-rooted housing delivery partner. That does not make it improper. It does make it worth explaining.

Why the Structure Raises Legitimate Questions

Then there is the subsidiary’s size. Kettel Investment Management Ltd’s first filed accounts show no turnover, cash of £22,318, total assets of £37,151, total liabilities of £51,859 and net assets of minus £14,708.

What the filed figures do show is that Kettel Investment Management Ltd was not a large, established housing operator standing on its own feet. It was a newly incorporated subsidiary with negative net assets, modest cash, and significant liabilities, sitting beneath a parent company whose stated activity is software development rather than housebuilding. That does not make the arrangement improper, but it does raise an unavoidable question: what due diligence was carried out into the subsidiary’s financial dependence on its parent, and what protections were put in place in case that support changed?

None of that proves anything sinister. It does, however, make the obvious question unavoidable: on what basis did a council-owned company decide that this was the right vehicle to sit alongside a public housing venture?

Kettel’s own terms say its business does not fall within financial services regulation. In plain English, that means users do not receive FCA-rule protections or access to the Financial Ombudsman or Financial Services Compensation Scheme. That may be lawful, but it is certainly something Shropshire Council ought to have explained before wrapping a council-linked housing offer around it.

The Questions Shropshire Council Should Now Answer

• Was Cornovii’s arrangement made with Kettel Investment Management Ltd or with We Are Kettel Ltd?

• What due diligence was carried out into the finances, experience and suitability of the Kettel entity involved, and who carried it out?

• Was there a procurement exercise, tendering process, waiver, or direct award?

• Who took the decision to enter the arrangement, when was that decision made, and where was it recorded?

• Was the arrangement used only for the London Road Estate, or was it intended to become part of Cornovii’s wider operating model?

• Were the eleven London Road properties deliberately held back for a rent-to-buy route rather than an immediate open-market sale, and if so, why?

• Is the new “Investment Properties” figure in Cornovii’s accounts connected to this arrangement, whether in whole or in part?

• What fees, commissions, revenue shares or management charges are payable to Kettel, and are any future properties already tied into that arrangement?

• Why was this not explained clearly to councillors and the public before the arrangement became active?

A Simple Test of Transparency

None of those questions is extreme. None is unfair. None requires speculation. They are the sort of questions that arise naturally when a council-owned company appears to enter a housing arrangement with a newly incorporated London subsidiary of a software-led parent company, while the public is expected to make do with broad assurances and selective fog.

These are not wild questions. They are basic questions. They concern who took the decision, what due diligence was carried out, what contractual terms were agreed, how public assets were being used, and why councillors and the public were not given a clearer explanation at the outset.

If Shropshire Council is genuinely committed to transparency, this is the moment to prove it. Not with another warm bath of governance language, not with another nod to oversight, and not with another recital of good intentions. Just with documents, dates, decisions and numbers. A rare local government treat.

If Shropshire Council has straightforward answers, it should now provide them. If it does not, that in itself tells its own story.