Two companies based in Honiley and under the control of Warwickshire businessman Peter Warwick are in a legal battle with Stratford-on-Avon District Council over more than £900,000 of unpaid business rates.

The council's cabinet – the Liberal Democrat panel of councillors in charge of major service areas – is to consider its options set out in a private paper on Monday.

But despite the sizeable chunk of public funds at stake, the council is keeping the alternatives under wraps, citing commercial confidentiality.

The public part of the council's report details how it relates to three properties involved in the development of Stratford Gateway, a wider site that the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) took ownership of in August 2024. 

As part of that deal, the district council agreed to take on business rates liabilities until it was developed with the dispute relating to those costs prior to the WMCA completing its part of the deal. 

According to the report, Mr Warwick's Gateway One Limited was involved in working with the council to develop the area back in December 2013 but the owner informed the council of his intention "to dispose of his interest in the site" and "obtain the maximum return" in 2021.

Amid development plans, the council wanted to keep separately-owned plots tied together and struck a deal with the WMCA to take ownership with agreement that the district "would meet the cost of the business rates until the site was developed", which it has since August 2.

The council's private report "details the main issues and identifies options for the council" on the dispute related to business rates prior to that date on three properties owned by Valhalla Limited and Thorngreen Limited.

The total bill is £911,363.89 and Companies House records show that, like Gateway One, both firms trace back to Mr Warwick and have registered offices in Honiley, on the edge of Kenilworth.

The council's overview and scrutiny committee – a panel of councillors that offers feedback and recommendations to decision makers – considered the matter in its own private session that lasted for more than 45 minutes on Wednesday. 

Ahead of the public and press being asked to vacate the chamber, the council's head of housing, revenues and customer service Hannah Buckley confirmed: "There is ongoing litigation in relation to this dispute.

"Therefore, given that this is highly confidential, that there are legal matters and commercial matters, the proposal is to move this into exempt session."

Cllr Sarah Whalley-Hoggins questioned the need for that given that the firms have been named.

She asked: "Have we checked whether they need this to be in closed (session) or would they have been happy for this to be an open debate?"

Deputy monitoring officer Sue Mullins, who came in as the council's senior legal adviser for this part of the meeting, replied: "It is my view that we don't need to. This is a decision for the council to take based on its position in relation to confidential information."

Cllr Whalley-Hoggins abstained – didn't vote either way – on the decision to take the debate behind closed doors but the rest of the committee opted to do so.