BDC declares war on Scarcliffe Council
The post-apocalyptic landscape shown in the photograph illustrating this article is a view of the playground built by Scarcliffe Parish Council, which has been closed by a ‘decision’ of BDC. This is the result of the war BDC declared on Scarcliffe Parish Council. There is a saying: a picture speaks a thousand words. I, however, have more than a thousand words on this subject.
Of course, the title war is not a literal war like the one in Ukraine. The war between Scarcliffe and the BDC is political. Although the sound of war drums can be heard clearly in the Scarcliffe Chamber, on the other side of the barricade (the BDC), someone is making sure that as few residents as possible know about this war. Sadly- the first salvos in this war have already been fired.
If the war breaks into a full-blown war, it will cost the taxpayer between 4,500 and 45,000. In any case, war costs money – whether it is real or merely political. This war involves not soldiers but politicians, civil servants and carefully selected private contractors. As usual, this war’s victims will be innocent and unaware citizens.
The following is the next instalment in the ‘A visit to…’ series, which accounts for my travels around Parish Council meetings in our home Bolsover District. I am doing these articles to compare other parish councils with STC. As with most previous visits: I’ve noticed interesting differences and learned some new facts and things I didn’t know about before.
I should start my account of this trip with the most exciting moment of the proceedings, i.e. agenda item 11 (the update on the play area mentioned above). Still, after some thought, I have decided to discuss the events in the order in which they happened. This is the only way I will be able to reflect on the change of atmosphere I felt in the Chamber when the Chair started the discussion on agenda item 11.
If you live in Shirebrook and are not interested in Scarcliffe but would like to read about the latest BDC scandal– scroll down the screen looking for the paragraph ITEM 11- WAR IS COMING? NO! WAR IS HERE! However, read on if you want to read about the differences I noticed between STC and SPC.
MEETING PLACE
The meeting took place in Palterton Village Hall. As you can see in the picture below – it is not an overly lavish building. From the outside, it looks rather ordinary.
Inside, however, it is nicely maintained, painted and tidy. No extravagance, no eye-catching opulence, but useful. There is enough room in the Chamber for both councillors and the public, for whom a few chairs have been provided.
One of the items on the agenda was to discuss the ‘usability’ of the building. Then one councillor mentioned that it used to be a building owned by Miners Welfare, but when it started to fall into disrepair, the Council took it over and refurbished it. What surprised me most was that the entrance to the Chamber leads directly off the street, and the councillors left the door open during the meeting as if to invite residents inside. Although I saw several people passing by – none of the residents even looked inside. I was the only one watching the proceedings.
CHAIR OF SPC
Until the start of the discussion on topic 11, I could describe the behaviour of the Chair of STC as professional – calm, welcoming, eloquent, open, allowing discussion in a strictly democratic spirit. However, as soon as he started the update on item 11, it was apparent that the issue was so outraging him that, at times, he lost his “train of thought” and the calm he had maintained since the beginning of the meeting. In my notes, I noted literally: “suddenly he stopped being nice, he is even angry”. I don’t use the word ‘angry’ lightly. This is probably the first time I used this word on S247, which should highlight the change in the Chair’s behaviour when he discussed this matter.
By the way, this issue also shook the calm of other councillors. There was an immediate sense of tension in the air. At one point, the vice-chairman said: “I’m getting too emotional”, and leaned back as if to let the other councillors know that he didn’t want to talk about it anymore because he didn’t want to say something he would later regret.
In conclusion, judging leaders after one meeting is hard, but I always try to share my first impression. My impression is positive- a determined man in a position where he respects and treats his duties with seriousness, personal culture and responsibility. He “managed” the room with a sure hand. Things moved at a brisk pace and in an orderly manner.
FIRST MAJOR DIFFERENCE- AGENDA REVERSED
Before I left for the meeting, I printed out the agenda for myself at home. One technical difference from the agendas drawn up by the STC struck me at the very first moment. The first item on the Agenda at Scarcliffe is a discussion on deciding which items in the meeting should be exempt. In STC, “exempt” items are always at the end, and whether to use the clause or not is decided by… I don’t know who.
There has already been a situation at STC when, during a discussion, one of the Labour Party councillors stated that the topic currently being discussed needed to be covered by an ‘exempt’ clause. This happened in the middle of the meeting. Not at the beginning of discussing the issue, but in the middle. I had to turn off my recording devices and, at the Chair’s request, delete the recording from the device losing the whole document. Had there been residents in the room- they would have been ruthlessly ejected from the Chamber. It seems to me that the solution used by Scarcliffe helps avoid such situations.
THREE VILLAGES COUNCIL
This is an element that I have encountered for the first time. Well, it was emphasised at every turn that SPC consists of three villages- Palterton, Scarcliffe and Hillstown. I am not a resident of that ward, but I felt that all villages received the same attention. This was particularly emphasised when discussing funding distribution for Jubilee events, where councillors highlighted that Hillstown received more than the other villages due to its largest population.
I have visited similar councils before (consisting of more than one population centre), and never before have councillors given such importance to treating all parts of the Council equally. An SPC-specific curiosity. I only mention this because it’s the first time I’ve encountered it. This element has no reference to STC as our Council comprises only one “population centre” (apart from a small section of Langwith, which is indistinguishable from Shirebrook anyway due to the lack of any visible border between residential areas).
TOWN CLERK
As at most meetings I have been to, the Town Clerk was relatively invisible, speaking only when asked. He intervened in the discussion on his own initiative only once – with some technical remark, which was not important enough for me to comment on it in my notes.
However, there are occasions when the Town Clerk has to dominate the Chamber. In the case of the SPC, the Town Clerk was “called to the plate” twice: the first time to answer a question I asked in the audience section and the second time when discussing the auditor’s report.
Both the Town Clerk and SPC Chair described SPC’s financial situation as “healthy,” but I will wait until I have a full report comparing the audits of all the Parish/Town Councils in our District for you to read. However, it is worth noting that the SPC has not raised taxes.
Ending paragraph about Town Clerk- when discussing financial matters, Chair officially thanked him for keeping things in order. From what I guessed- the previous Town Clerk had left behind a mess. The improvement in the situation, according to councillors, was so far-reaching that it was requested that praise of the Town Clerk’s work be included in the minutes. I bet he would have preferred a raise or some sort of bonus.
ITEM 11- WAR IS COMING? NO! WAR IS HERE!
As I mentioned earlier, the chamber atmosphere changed as soon as we started discussing item 11. When preparing for the SPC meeting, I missed one crucial research point- checking who has the majority in this parish. I did this only after returning from the meeting. I now know that Labour has the majority in the SPC. In other words, the Labour-led Council is fighting Labour-led Council using taxpayer money to do so. Hence the whole situation has become even more confusing to me than it looked at first glance.
GET TO THE POINT ALREADY!
Printing out the agenda at home, I noticed item 11: “To consider an update on Cross Street play area”. So I typed the phrase ‘Cross Street play area’ into Google, and this is what I saw:
I thought to myself- ‘not very inviting looking play area’. To be honest, it looks as depressing as the play area next to the Lidl in Shirebrook.
Labour seems to have some sort of perversion about destroying playgrounds. Then I thought SPC might have won some funding to turn this depressing place into an actual play area, so they would discuss it. As this place is on the way from Shirebrook to Palterton, I decided to stop there to take a photo by hand, in better quality than Google StreetView offers.
Upon arrival, it turned out that the picture on Google was outdated. I can’t tell you how surprised I found these sights.
Armed with these photos, I set off for Palterton. As I mentioned- the first part of the meeting was quiet. When they started talking about this play area- everything changed. From what I understand, the timeline is this:
1 SPC gets funding to build a play area;
2 PC signs an agreement with the BDC to lease the location they chose for the play area;
3 SPC spends about 40,000 on equipment and construction;
4 At some point, the play area, becomes subject to antisocial behaviour;
5 BDC threatens to close the play area;
6 SPC to counteract antisocial behaviour notifies the police, CCTV van services from BDC, and installs solid fencing and a lockable gate;
7 SPC decides that the play area will be locked after dusk in summer and after five o’clock in winter;
8 BDC enters with its own fence, closes the play area, posts a notice on its fence that it is terminating the lease and giving 28 days to remove “items” from the site or will remove those “items” at the expense of the leaseholder;
9 SPC tries to prevent the destruction of the playground; Chair detailed a list of actions taken, but ultimately SPC has no choice…
10 SPC seeks legal advice that the BDC is acting unlawfully, and according to the lawyer, the only way out is through the courts. The estimated cost of the procedure is 4,500 to start.
11 The lawyer representing the SPC writes a letter to the BDC, which temporarily blocks the execution of the “eviction”.
12 SPC decides to call an “emergency council meeting” when it receives a reply to its letter from BDC. The meeting will have only one item on the agenda – to discuss potential next steps and decide whether to take the BDC to court.
If there is an error in the timeline, it is due solely to the chaotic way the matter has been discussed. However, it is possible to underline all events with one sentence: someone very much wants to weaken the position of councillors in Scarcliffe. After all, the blame for the playground closure will not fall on BDC. Residents will blame SPC. The play area is just a very costly tool.
LABOUR vs LABOUR
At one point, Chair really started to lose his temper. His emotions got the better of him. He underlined that decision to close the play area was taken without any discussion at the BDC meeting. He stated outright that the decision was made by ONE councillor and several council officers. He was shouting, waving his arms around, and with every sentence, he was closer to revealing who was this mysterious councillor. Who pulled the strings in the BDC to close the playground without any discussion in the Chamber of BDC?
Do you remember the “Glapwell Scandal” and the BDC Executive Committee decision made against a vote of the Full Meeting of BDC? This time someone went even further- they didn’t even discuss it. One councillor just made a decision, and BAM- no play area for Hillstown anymore. I understand SPC Chair’s frustration-I have had time to learn Labour’s regional leader’s dirty tricks.
At one point, the Vice-Chair wrote something on a piece of paper and handed it to the Chair. The Chair read it, calmed down a bit, and handed the piece of paper back. It seems that when the vice handed over the piece of paper, he did so to stop the Chair from revealing the name of the BDC “decision-maker”.
Who are you, you nasty decision-maker? Should I start sniffing around to find out?
COSTLY WAR
On the way out, the councillors asked me what I thought about it. What can I think? Exposing the taxpayer to a loss of £45,000 just to stroke the ego of some power-crazed local politician is sheer madness to me. However, it seems to me that there is more at stake in this case than a playground. It appears that someone from Labour in BDC is waging war on the SPC leader, and this scandal is just a side effect. It looks like an internal war is going on in the Bolsover District Labour Party branch.
What can I say in conclusion to this whole affair? I guess only that I hope BDC, along with the mysterious councillor who wants to destroy the playground, should come to their senses.
Mysterious councillor: do you really want to obliterate a nice playground for children under 10 and make a car park there? It will be the most expensive car park in Bolsover District and maybe even the whole county. Read that last sentence out loud again and come to your senses!
Sylwester Zwierzynski
