Bedford’s mayor Tom Wootton did not take part in Bedford Borough Council’s extraordinary East West Rail meeting after declaring both a “local and pecuniary interest” relating to the project.

The mayor was absent from Wednesday evening’s debate (May 27), which saw councillors unanimously approve an amended council response to the latest East West Rail consultation.

He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) he had been advised not to attend because the proposed East West Rail route crossed land connected to his family.

He said he did not want that to become “a distraction” during a debate which should “rightly focus on the homes facing demolition” and the “wider disruption the scheme could cause in Bedford”.

During the meeting, opposition councillors questioned the mayor’s absence, noting his administration’s long-running involvement in East West Rail discussions and the commissioning of a report into alternative route options.

Lib Dem councillor Christine McHugh (Goldington) told the meeting that it was a “great shame” the mayor wasn’t in attendance as East West Rail had been “a main plank” of the mayor’s election campaign.

“And throughout the last three years he has led the relationship between Bedford Borough Council and East West Rail.” she said.

“And indeed he signed off the £40,000 for a study into alternative routes.”

Councillor McHugh asked for confirmation that the mayor shaped the council’s position on EWR, and had helped with the consultation response.

The portfolio holder for environment, councillor Nicola Gribble (Independent, Renhold and Ravensden) replied: “Mayor Tom has had little input, the main input has been from officers and portfolio holders, so no, he hasn’t.”

Later in the debate, deputy mayor councillor Jim Weir (Con, Great Denham) said, as a point of clarity: “The mayor isn’t here because he has both a local and a pecuniary interest in East West Rail.

“So he cannot be here to take part in tonight’s discussion.”

The statement prompted surprise from some councillors in the chamber.

Lib Dem leader councillor Henry Vann (De Parys) responded: “I’m not quite sure what to do with that point of clarification.

“I don’t think [it] necessarily helps the fact that the mayor isn’t here this evening, and has led and steered and invested £40,000 in a consultant’s report and had huge influence over the council’s position on East West Rail.

“And we’ve just heard now that there is a local and a pecuniary interest in that matter, which I was astonished to hear.”

The nature of the declared interest was not discussed during the meeting.

Bedford Borough Council’s Code of Conduct requires councillors to declare certain personal interests during meetings.

A ‘local interest’ can include matters affecting a councillor, their family or close associates more than the general public.

A ‘disclosable pecuniary interest’ (DPI) is a stricter category covering direct financial interests such as land ownership, employment or certain business interests.

Under national rules, councillors with a DPI relating to an item under discussion must not participate in the debate or vote and would normally leave the meeting while the item is considered.

Knowingly failing to declare or register a disclosable pecuniary interest without reasonable excuse can be a criminal offence.