A visit to the South Normanton

After a very informative visit to the Withwell Parish Council meeting, this time, I went to South Normanton Parish Council meeting with big hopes to compare Shirebrook with a town the same size as our home town. The visit to the WPC made a very positive impression on me. However, when I left the South Normanton meeting, I had an ambivalent feeling. Why? About it below.

SOME FACTS FOR START
All data are taken from Audit reports (pre-pandemic), Census and www.police.uk. The following six facts should give you an idea of how deeply our town is in trouble. The worst part is that the facts are just the tip of the iceberg – what’s wrong with the STC is hidden beneath the surface, in the shadows. However, this article is mainly about SNPC, so I’ll focus on that.

FACT 1: POPULATION
South Normanton has 9,400 inhabitants.
Shirebrook has 9,700 inhabitants.

You could say that South Normanton is Shirebrook’s twin town. The population is almost identical. But, sadly- this is where similarities end.

FACT 2: TAX IMPOSED ON RESIDENTS THROUGH PARISH PRECEPT
South Normanton imposed £ 250,000. 
Shirebrook charged £ 579,000 (heheheeh).

Despite a similar population, Labor taxed us twice as much. And then some extra on top.

FACT 3: PARISH COUNCIL DEBT
South Normanton has £ 2,862 debt on books.
Shirebrook has £ 456,000 debt on books (hehehehe).

You could see why I’m concerned about debt? It’s been on the books for years, and the Labour Party Chair of STC prefer to close meeting when I ask questions about it.

FACT 4: COUNCIL STAFF WAGES EXPENDITURE
South Normanton £ 122 000.
Shirebrook £ 493 000(hehehehe).

I’ll give you some time to pick your jaw up off the floor. Hold it tight because it’s not over.

FACT 5: OTHER COST OF PARISH COUNCIL
South Normanton £ 166 000.
Shirebrook £ 456 000(hehehehe).

I should comment on it, but somehow I just can’t.

FACT 6: CRIME
It is a little outdated data from 2019 and not from an audit, but my own research, based on data provided by www.police.uk

In 2019 South Normanton registered 1100 crimes.
In 2019 Shirebrook registered 1400 crimes(this is not that funny).

Now you know the first differences. Same size towns, same circumstances, same economic surroundings. Completely different financial situation. What else is different?

DARKNESS! I SEE DARKNESS!!!
Same as in Withwell- the entrance to the car park of the building where meetings take place is completely shrouded in darkness. Not a single light to help drivers navigate the entrance and observe signs. Funny enough- discussion about this issue was on the agenda. So I can assume this problem will be fixed soon.

YOU HAVE A NICE PLACE HERE. IT WOULD BE A SHAME IF SOMEONE TOOK IT OVER…
SNPC does not have its own Town Hall like Shirebrook. Instead, they meet in a public building called Post Mill. I won’t go into detail, but at first glance, it looks like the Post Mill is maintained partly by Parish Council grants and partly by its income. Unfortunately, I would have to delve into the SNPC documentation to confirm this, and I don’t have the time to do that. So here I have to admit that I don’t know precisely the formula for running the Post Mill.

From what I understand, Post Mill is governed independently of the town. The Post Mill board is separate, although I have heard from conversations behind the scenes that there are councillors who work at the Post Mill and sit on the parish council simultaneously. This is causing ongoing controversy in South Normanton. 

From my point of view, it seems that this way of managing (separate legal personality) the building is better than how STC manages its “interests”. Separating LC from STC structures and giving it its legal personality as a charity or CIC with STC as the sole shareholder would open the way to new funding sources, increase transparency, and probably reduce costs. It would be a much clearer solution as long as no councillors would work for money at LC. A topic to think about later.

Either way, I will not be awarding points here to either of the Councils. Both authorities have a problem with transparency in property management.

I CAN’T HEAR ANYTHING!
The fact that Post Mill makes money is evident as soon as you enter the building. A large, well-stocked bar, lots of people relaxing with a drink, and some activity for the residents. Such activities were just taking place during a council meeting, as loud music was constantly coming from behind the wall where the meeting was to be held. The music was so loud that no one in the audience could hear anything the councillors were saying, so the beginning of the meeting was marked by moving the audience’s chairs closer to the horseshoe of the tables at which the councillors were sitting. It didn’t help me much – I could hear mainly the steady and highly annoying bass sound coming from behind me.

Here I have to give a point for STC. Our meetings take place in peace and quiet, which favours concentration. Sitting in the Chamber of STC, I feel that I am taking part in something important, sublime. Sitting in an SNPC meeting, I was aware that five metres away from me, people were drinking beer and talking about the latest football game, while behind me, people were jumping to the rhythm of loud, oppressively loud music.

WE NEED MORE CHAIRS!!!
The first shock of the meeting. There were so many spectators in the hall that there were not enough chairs for some of us. After all, there were 12 councillors in the room when the proceedings opened, plus an equally impressive number of spectators who had to bring chairs from another room.

Compared to Shirebrook: I’ve been to dozens of STC meetings. However, since they are held at Town Hall- I have only seen one spectator at one meeting (EDIT: this article was written before the last STC meeting). It’s as if the residents of Shirebrook don’t believe in the authorities they elect themselves. No one but me is looking at their hands… it is terrible. Very bad. Democracy that is not cared for stops working for the people.

Point for the SN.

I KNOW WHO IS WHO
Each councillor had a card with their name on the desk in front of them. A small thing, but very helpful for people who attend a meeting and don’t necessarily know all the councillors. The fact that SNPC makes sure that everyone in the room knows who is speaking is a big plus and an incentive for residents to visit meetings and check what the people they voted for are doing.

A point for the SNPC.

COUNTY COUNCILLOR? AT PARISH MEETING?
Once again, I am reminded of my old joke that the Labour Party should change its name to the Lazy Party. At the start of the meeting, the Town Clerk gave the floor to… County Councillor Julian Siddle. Yes. It turns out that the County Councillor REGULARLY visits meetings of all Parish Councils in his area. I don’t think I need to mention that the CC representing SN is not from the Lazy Party. But, I will say it anyway- CC Julian Siddle is not from the Labour Party.

I have never seen a County Councillor report on her activities at an STC meeting. Everyone knows what party “our” CC represents (I can’t even remember her name even though I was her challenger in the CC election- she is so invisible and inactive). So who does the CC from South Normanton represent? Well, Julian Siddle represents the Conservative Party. That’s the difference between someone who stands for election because he wants to change things for the better and someone who takes the region for granted and doesn’t “have to do anything” because they will win anyway. Someone who wants to make a difference- works. Those who win ‘because they deserve it’ will do nothing.

It’s not over. In between a lot of news, CC Julian Siddle announced that the CCTV system demanded by residents and which he had personally worked on – was up and running. He gave his first report on its operation.

CC Julian Siddle was elected in May 2021 and is already reporting on the first phase of the STARTED CCTV project. Lazy Party in Shirebrook announced a project to build CCTV in our town in 2016. To date, not a single camera has been built.

Lazy Party style!

At the last STC meeting, the Chair of STC defended the position by saying that work on our CCTV was interrupted by a pandemic. Hmmm… I don’t remember any pandemics in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. I don’t know. Maybe I missed them? However, as far as I can see- the actual work on CCTV only started after I started on S247 mercilessly berating the Labour Party for not keeping their 2016 promise.

This is how democracy works – there MUST be opposition so that those in power are forced to act, not sit on their hands. So even if you always vote for Labour Party in local elections, I hope you will consider giving a few votes to the Conservative Party so that Labour can feel the breath on their back and the watchful eyes on their hands next time.

This is not the end of the story. From what I have gathered- CC Julian Siddle is still working on developing the CCTV network in the town. Although the Town Clerk has asked not to talk about this as it is an “exempt” subject.

CC Julian Siddle spoke for a long while about many of the issues he is dealing with. However, I missed a lot because I was still shocked at how quickly you can implement a project that residents want when someone is working on it who… works, not plays political games with residents’ safety. So how do these CCTV games stack up for Shirebrook residents? I don’t think I need to answer that question…

What surprised me most was that no one was shocked by CC’s presence. Moreover- the Chair gave him the floor at the beginning of the meeting as if everyone was used to it and expected it. In STC, this would be an unprecedented event.

[EDIT: sometime after publication CC Julian Siddle contacted me to add some information. First: CC Julian Siddle not REGULARLY but ALWAYS is on Pinxton and South Normanton Parish meetings. That is even worst for STC since our CC NEVER gave any update about her work. Second: CCTV that he championed is installed in and around football fields).

Point for SN.

Where the hell is our County Councillor? Has anyone seen her/him/it/or whatever pronounce this Labour politician uses today? Does anyone know? CC Julian Siddle is not a member of SNPC, but he represents that ward on County Council. So his presence at the meeting is a massive plus for councillors and residents alike- as I found out a few minutes later, as that wasn’t the last positive note of CC’s presence at the meeting…

THE PUBLIC IS… ANGRY
According to the rules- at every town/parish council meeting, 10 minutes are set aside for members of the public to ask questions. As I mentioned, many of the audience showed up, and many of those present had something to say. Shock- I did not expect such involvement from residents. In this field, both Withwell and Shirebrook are lagging far behind.

Point for SN.

Of course, I also had to add my three cents to the discussion. As God loves me, I sincerely meant to keep quiet as a mouse this time. Unfortunately, it did not work- my nature took over. I don’t want to dwell too long on why, but I just have to mention that SNPC is trying to get a loan of 500,000 from the PWLB. If you are a regular visitor to S247, you will know that STC also tried something similar some time ago. The STC failed miserably (the question remains whose fault it was). On this issue, the residents of our town will pay a considerable price. What’s worse- residents still have no idea about it, and I can’t talk about it- Labour decided to make this issue secret (exempt).

SNPC’s pattern is similar to STC- most residents have no idea of the threat posed by the PWLB loan. Those who know- are not happy with what SNPC is doing. Moreover- during the lengthy discussion on this loan, no one has mentioned the interest and the ultimate cost. Hence my interjection- I stood up and informed/warned the audience and councillors about the PWLB’s interest rate and how much this step could cost residents. In a nutshell: the PWLB is taking 2.59% per annum (at the moment). The total repayment on a loan of 500,000 with a similar repayment period to the Shirebrook loan will far exceed £1 million. Either STC or SNPC does not mention this in their discussions about loans.

Both councils should get a minus point here.

Why did the SNPC need half a million? The councillors decided to buy the old church building and set up… something. What? Probably a Youth Centre, but that would be a bit strange as there is already a thriving private YC in SN, which has operated for 19 years(!!!). One of the speakers was a man who participated in this YC as a teenager, grew up, went away to college, and is now back in town and volunteering at the same YC. 

Whoever runs this YC should be proud of it- this young man who spoke at the meeting on behalf of the youth living in SN is the best confirmation of how well the YC there works. So why does SNPC not allow YC to operate in the Post Mill area? Why is SNPC outbidding a private bid to take over a building where the YC could work for free? I don’t want to get into that. It’s not why I go to meetings of other Parish Councils.

Moreover- the “taxpayer” (SNPC) bid trumped all other private bids (and there were 4 in total). One of the offers was from a church whose pastor came to the meeting and confirmed that the church wanted to make the premises available to the YC for free. I don’t want to go into it, but believe me- this loan is controversial in SN. In my opinion, rightly so- as someone who watched first-hand what happened with the PWLB loan in Shirebrook, I recommend to SNPC councillors: don’t make the same mistake. You don’t need an extra 15000 (or more) in precept for something that will only generate costs.

The discussion on this topic was very lively. I have never seen anything like it at STC meetings: it was as if the people of Shirebrook had given up. Emotions ran high, and when it felt like the councillors were losing control of the crowd- the Chair ended this part of the meeting and moved on to the next item of business. For the sake of fairness, I have to say that he allowed the discussion on this item to last much longer than the scheduled 10 minutes. Now that I have mentioned the Chair – perhaps a few words about him.

THE CHAIR IS KINDA… SHY, INVISIBLE, NON-INVASIVE?
Oh, I have been struggling terribly with this paragraph. The words you have just read are the fourth attempt to describe how the Chair of SNPC conducts the meeting. On the one hand, I do not want to be too harsh. But, on the other hand, I want to write honestly, as I feel. Searching for words to describe what impression the Chair of SNPC left in me, I have a huge problem because he left me empty. A total lack of impression.

Paradoxically, I do not think this is a bad thing. The Chair at meetings should be the quarterback, but at the same time, he should be able to let others take an active role. This Chair allowed for that. He was simply there, but he did not dominate. The fact that the residents’ part of the meeting was… emotional. But despite this, the Chair allowed everyone to have their say; he did not shout at anyone. He did not master the emotions of the residents, but he mastered himself so well that he was almost invisible. He conducted the rest of the meeting without stumbling but also without expression. You may like it or not. I didn’t think about it until I started writing this article. To be honest – it didn’t bother me, although I still prefer the style of Chair of WPC – total control of what is happening in the Chamber.

I was not too fond of only one thing. Just for the record: in the STC, if a councillor is in any way related to what is to be discussed at a meeting, they leave the room. No exceptions, no discussion. He declares an interest and leaves the room. However, chair SNPC allowed a councillor who had a vested, financial interest in the subject under discussion to sit in the room and participate.

In this case, the STC standard stands higher (leaving aside one councillor I will deal with shortly). However, I can’t compare it to the WPC because there was no such situation.

LONGEST AGENDA IN HISTORY OF AGENDAS
The agenda for this meeting had so many items that the page was printed on both sides. In addition to the usual things such as acceptance of the minutes of the previous meeting, discussion of planning applications, discussion of correspondence, discussion of cash-book entries, debate and votes on making grants to several organisations, discussion of the need to obtain quotes for essential work I also found two items that I had not encountered before at Shirebrook meetings(edit- due to the article “lying around” a bit on the back-burner the following paragraph has also become outdated).

QUEEN JUBILEE
Here is where CC Julian Siddle came in again. It appeared that CC Julian Siddle had agreed to help fund the Queen Jubilee celebrations in South Normanton. Despite this, one councillor went on to try and squeeze an extra £250 out of him (heheheh). Here I must pay tribute to CC Julian Siddle and the councillor who attempted to squeeze additional funds out of him. To CC for his interest in helping and the councillor for taking every opportunity to get extra money for his Parish.

It is also worth mentioning that the Post Mill staff have pledged that if the Parish Council covers the cost of the food- they will prepare the dishes for free on the day of the celebrations (I know how they will feel as I will also be working on this extended bank holiday- every single day).

I continue to think that this is one big waste of money. The Queen is disgustingly rich. Her family is involved in various scandals, including paedophile scandals where settlements are paid for with cash… exactly – whose money do they use to pay off his victims? I never thought I would agree with Dennis Skinner, but he was right about the “royal” family.

CATCH 22, NO, WAIT- ITS THE AGENDA ITEM 22
Yep – you read that right. Twenty-two items are on the agenda, and that is not the end of it. However, before I write about the final items, I must mention item 22. In this part of the meeting, councillors tried to decide whether or not to break up the usual business discussed into smaller committees. Unfortunately, the STC uses this method, and both solutions have pros and cons. It’s a real catch 22…

When you discuss everything in one meeting– everyone knows all but meetings will last long, and some councillors could feel that they are wasting their time. I understand the need for committees on District and County level but town/parish? 

On the other hand: splitting the council into “committees” will make some councillors clueless about what is going on in certain areas of the town’s structures. They will know all about what their committee is doing, but in my experience, I have to be at every meeting to know the actual state of the town. For example, I am not a Finance & Growth Committee member, yet I was at their meeting. So I know that Labour’s understanding of the word ‘Finance’ does not include debt, and the term ‘Growth’ refers only to taxes on residents.

The same with the Leisure Committee. I am not a member of that committee, but I have been to every one of their meetings. That is how I know that Leisure and parties are more important to the Labour Party than the safety of the people in our town. That is why we spend over 250,000 a year on LC and zero on crime and antisocial behaviour prevention.

Let me write it again, in bold and underlined:
Leisure 250 000 per year.
Crime prevention ZERO per year.

LEAGUE OF PARISH COUNCILS
So I’ve visited three Parish Councils so far (STC, WPC, SNPC) (at the time of last revisions to this article, as I’ve added to the list: Ault Hucknall Parish Council, Elmton and Creswell Parish Council, Glapwell Parish Council). It’s a bit early for a first summary, so I’ll end like this: initially, I thought that visits to other Parish Council meetings would just be a blog filler when I had nothing to write about. But the fact is that each visit has given me a wealth of knowledge (Glapwell was especially important because the word “Shirebrook” was in constant use there- I have some biiiig news about our town from that meeting). When Labour councillors at STC told me that STC could not be compared with other Councils- I think they were lying or manipulating me to let it go. They just didn’t want me to know how bad things were at STC compared to other Parish Councils in our district.

These visits have also given me a whole new perspective on STC activities and ideas on how to improve my work. Therefore, within the realms of possibility, I will be continuing my ‘Tour de Bolsover District’ to learn even more.

Withwell taught me to use a laptop at meetings- it was a bullseye idea (I never thought of this before because no one at STC does it, but after just one visit to WPC and a trial at STC, I figured it helped me tremendously). South Normanton taught me to have a name tag at every town council meeting. I don’t want to give away the details- but the visit to Ault Hucknall taught me TWO extra things. What will future visits teach me? I’ll talk about that in future episodes of “A visit to…”

Sylwester Zwierzynski info@shirebrook247