Two STC Full Council Meetings — April 2026 Report
STC just beat another record. They achieved a 300% increase in meeting frequency in April 2026 compared to 2025. Three hundred percent! In the past, STC meetings were just a rubber-stamping exercise. Today it’s a marathon of problem-solving, quotes, ideas, reports and open discussions. I am the biggest critic of STC in recent years, but even I cannot deny the monumental change. STC is finally working.
TWO EXPLOSIVE MOMENTS
Both Full Council meetings not only ran to the legal time limit, but each also had one significant moment. At the first meeting, for the first time, we saw a clear clash between old-Labour and the new wave. At the second meeting, old-Labour lost a vote on one item. For the first time since I started observing STC, old-Labour lost in the Chamber and that is monumental change. Just six months ago, a situation like that would not have been possible.
IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME TO…
Sadly, it will take time to see the changes the current administration is trying to deliver. Especially when you can see there is still a large contingent of old-Labour throwing obstacles in the way of new councillors from time to time. Not to mention traps left behind, by those who treated this town as own backyard for decades and left when fire started to consume it all.
But I am hopeful that councillors understand their mission — to sort out the most pressing issues before the 2027 elections. I think there will be a significant number of new councillors, and dumping all of these Labour-created problems on them would not be smart. This council’s one and only mission should be to fix as many problems as possible before the elections and I think they are aware of it.
Fair warning: it will take you some time to read this article. I am trying to compile reports from two two-hour-long meetings with packed agendas. I will cut, skip and ignore some issues, but even that is not enough to make this article short. So I have decided to change the formula slightly — I will not follow the agenda point by point this time. I will not present a chart with the most active councillors. I will pick and choose what was, in my eyes, most important.
FIRST MEETING: 15 APRIL 2026
The agenda for this meeting was record-breaking. Six pages long! Almost like my articles… I looked at it once and knew immediately — they would not be able to get through it. I was right. The Chair suspended Standing Orders at 21:00 and the meeting went over time, but even that was not enough. Councillors decided to call a second meeting to finish the business.
ATTENDANCE
Only one councillor was missing: David Downes (apologies sent). The room was full. The agenda contained a co-option, so the whole Labour group needed to be in the room to win the vote — and, in my view, to block one certain individual from joining STC. This time they won, but I think residents in the next election will counter that stance. The chairs for guests were busy too — among them residents, co-option candidates and Cllr Sarah Reaney from DCC. As usual — no one from BDC.
OK. That was the housekeeping. Now let us get to the selected juicy details. Once again — I cut a lot. If you want to know everything that was going on, you can either come to the meetings or read the minutes if and when STC publishes them.
2026/044 TO RECEIVE WRITTEN APPLICATIONS FOR THE OFFICE OF TOWN COUNCILLOR AND TO CO-OPT
Once again the rules changed and reverted to the original version from STC policies. Candidates were allowed to listen to the presentations of other candidates. In the original version of this article I gave an extensive report on the speeches of each candidate, but now it is water under the bridge. Mark Dodds and Steve Singleton were voted in.
There was one very funny moment in this part of the meeting when one of the STC councillors said to one of the candidates that he had… ten good years left. The room exploded with laughter. When I write it down, it sounds grim and a bit offensive, but in reality, it was not. It is hard to explain — you had to be in the room to understand it. I will not note who said that to whom, to spare unnecessary embarrassment to both parties. But it matters to me that this councillor rightly noted that the average age of STC councillors is… advanced. This raises concerns that, when they step down, the town will not have many experienced, younger people to fill the gap.
On the other hand, STC just rejected the youngest candidate among the co-option candidates. So…
CO-OPTION SUMMARY
There were 9 seats after Labour fell apart. Overall, in the whole co-option process, there were 14 candidates. I strongly suggest to each rejected candidate — try yourself in a real election. Co-option is an unusual type of selection process, and you will never know your real political power until you test it under the scrutiny of residents.
Still, 14 people trying to get into STC means to me that Shirebrook residents are far more engaged than in 2019, when I stood alone against 16 Labour candidates. I launched my blog to encourage others, and I hope some of those who now sit in STC took inspiration to fight for our town directly from my “adventures”. I know — it is not all me. But I hope I helped to wake up local patriotism a little, and that those inspired by me will inspire other local patriots willing to sacrifice their time, for free, for our common good.
I hope the residents of our town will have a plethora of candidates to choose from in 2027. But I hope even more that we finally will not be dead last on the voter participation list in Bolsover District.
2026/047 TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL HELD ON THE 25TH OF FEBRUARY 2026
At this one meeting, 8 sets of minutes were accepted. Another record-breaking moment. I will not list them — you can see the minutes on the town website.
2026/052 TO REVIEW AND APPROVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Once again in this part of the meeting, councillors had to work through problems in the cash-book entries one after another. The Town Clerk was not present and was responding by text message during the discussion. In my view, conducting financial business this way extends meetings considerably and makes it harder for councillors to get clear answers in real time. It also helps the Town Clerk in a way that it shouldn’t be possible, and it’s counterproductive if we want to be transparent and open. I don’t care what anyone says- if you handle a 1,000,000 budget, you should be in a position to discuss and explain any issues with it.
What concerns me most is that councillors seem to have accepted this as normal. The Town Clerk is the most senior officer of the Council, paid from public funds, and in my view residents are entitled to expect the Clerk to be present and engaged when financial matters are being scrutinised.
2026/053 TO CONSIDER PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND TO DECIDE ON TOWN COUNCIL RESPONSE, AND TO REVIEW PLANNING DECISIONS
A frustrating exercise. STC’s planning input is only consultative, and BDC, as the planning authority, makes the final decision regardless of what STC says. In my view, this leaves Shirebrook residents poorly served when BDC decisions go against the town’s interests. Example?
BDC just voted “YES” on another HMO application, even when ALL STC councillors opposed it.
Cllr Andrew Stevens even went to BDC and registered to speak against a recent HMO planning decision. He tried. He did his best. He sacrificed his own time to go over and beyond and explain to the Labour-led BDC that Shirebrook is oversaturated with HMOs. So, how did Labour vote?
Yates was not present. Tait- abstained. No comment.
b. CLLR ANDREW STEVENS
i. THAT THIS COUNCIL CONSIDERS THE CANCELLATION OF THE SHIREBROOK TOWN COUNCIL FIREWORKS EVENT FOR 2026.
This item got the attention of the wider public. In my view, some councillors — including Cllr Yates — do not seem to grasp how serious STC’s financial position is. This event is highly weather-dependent and extremely costly. Cancelling it would have saved enough to cut the deficit significantly. But no. Labour effectively backed spending a fortune on a one-day event.It will force STC to rise taxes again in tax year 2026/2027.
Fun fact: there was no vote on this. The motion was discussed, a significant number of councillors spoke in favour of cancellation — and then, somehow, no one seconded it, so it could not progress. I think Cllr Andrew Stevens was played by Labour. Why? Because, in my view, Cllr Stevens was not given the opportunity to ask for a seconder. The motion was discussed, and then the meeting moved on to the next item before a seconder was called for.
If I had been at the table, I would have raised a point of order and either asked for a seconder or seconded it myself — just to force a vote and show who is serious about the deficit, and who would rather hand a blank cheque to council staff to run an event the Council cannot afford. It would have gone differently with me at the table. But I sit at the back, powerless and voiceless.
RUN OUT OF TIME
At this point the Council ran out of time. The Chair suspended Standing Orders and the Council voted to extend the meeting. It did not help — about half of the agenda points were moved to the next meeting. My draft notes of this meeting run to 8 pages. After a harsh edit I was able to cut them to just 4 pages. Now we can move on to the meeting held on the 29th of April.
WARM-UP
Going into this meeting, I did not expect much drama. The agenda contained nothing controversial, and the absence of a co-option item suggested lower attendance. For me, the biggest unknown was a strange item proposed by Cllr Michael Yates. I will describe it at the end.
2026/058 TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND TO APPROVE THE REASONS FOR THOSE ABSENCES
12 councillors present; 5 members of public; 2 STC officers (the Assistant Clerk and the Leisure Centre supervisor); zero Town Clerk.
Missing councillors: Cllr Martin Barber, Cllr Shaun Cheeseman, Cllr Ricky Holland, Cllr Luke Shorthose.
2026/059 TO RECEIVE AND NOTE DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PERTAINING TO THE AGENDA ITEMS LISTED
None declared.
The first thing I noted was the seating of Cllr Steve Singleton, who sat at the top of the room, on the left of the Chair. That place is normally reserved for the Chair, the Vice-Chair, and sometimes guest speakers. Right after the start of the meeting, the Chair explained that, as the Town Clerk was not present, he proposed to nominate Cllr Singleton as Proper Officer for this meeting. The Town Clerk’s absences from Full Council meetings have been a recurring feature this year, and in my view residents are entitled to ask whether this is sustainable.
But there is an additional problem with what transpired here. Let me quote STC’s Standing Order 15(a):
“The Proper Officer shall be either (i) the clerk or (ii) other staff member(s) nominated by the council to undertake the work of the Proper Officer when the Proper Officer is absent.“
A councillor is not staff. A councillor cannot be nominated as Proper Officer under STC’s own Standing Orders. The Proper Officer is a defined officer role — it must be filled by a member of staff, not an elected member. This is exactly the kind of process breach I have been documenting, and still, no one on the Council seems to be paying attention to its own Standing Orders. STC should have nominated a member of staff — for example, the Assistant Clerk — to act as Proper Officer, not a councillor.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, councillors.
2026/060 TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL HELD ON THE 15TH OF APRIL 2026
Councillors did not receive the minutes. In my view, this is scandalous. Town Hall staff had over two weeks to prepare the minutes, and they were not ready in time for this meeting. Why? The Town Clerk was absent, and the Assistant Clerk could not provide an explanation in the Clerk’s absence.
Councillors decided to defer approval of the minutes to the next meeting — they had no real alternative.
At that point, Cllr Oliver Kershaw-Dickson noted that he had sent a complaint regarding the minutes. Cllr Michael Yates pointed out that this matter could not be dealt with at this meeting, as it did not concern the minutes under discussion. Cllr Steve Singleton recommended not to discuss it further, as it could touch on exempt issues.
I will not speculate on the substance of Cllr Kershaw-Dickson’s complaint. Once the Council has addressed it, I expect to return to it.
2026/061 TO RECEIVE UPDATES FROM THE TOWN COUNCIL’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RELATION TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED ON THE FOLLOWING MATTERS;
a. SHIREBROOK TOWN MARKET – DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This took up a big chunk of time. As usual, this topic is a point of tension. First to speak was Cllr Andrew Stevens, who informed councillors and guests about the progress of works and a meeting with BDC officials. In short, the building is not finished. The estimated completion date was 16 May, but after inspection, the handover date was pushed back to “the first week of June”. Cllr Stevens reported “100 items on the snagging list” (I had to ask AI to explain what that is — it is a list of defects and unfinished items in a building noted during inspection). The discussion about the snagging list was long.
At one point, a resident — who has been attending meetings frequently and is now well familiar with the dynamics of STC’s work — asked for permission to speak. The resident asked for clarification about plans for the currently occupied building, in light of information being shared by Cllr Barber. The resident wanted to know why Cllr Barber was saying that STC will move to the new building. The clarification given was: Cllr Barber had expressed his own opinion, not the opinion of the Council. Councillors have the right to express their opinions, and it seems to me that a misunderstanding occurred here. Nothing is decided, and councillors are, for now, only trying to brainstorm ideas on how to deal with what is, in my view, a Labour-created monstrosity.
In my opinion, this new building is too small to effectively serve as a Town Hall. What is most absurd to me is that it costs so much that, even if STC decided to dispose of it by sale, no one would buy it for a price that would cover the cost of construction. Cllr Andrew Stevens indicated that even if STC takes the building over, the building is currently a shell and would require significant additional investment before it could be brought into use. Read between the lines: at the moment, STC cannot afford to fit out the building.
The same resident asked about the safety issues with raised flowerbeds on Market Square. Cllr Andrew Stevens reported that STC councillors had asked for a Health & Safety inspection on this matter. He stressed that this issue had been logged with BDC many times and, in his view, BDC is not taking it seriously. In my view, everyone with any contact with BDC on this project seems frustrated and powerless in the face of delays and a lack of clear accountability.
The plants in the flowerbeds were also discussed — they have already started to die off. Isn’t that ironic — BDC still has not signed off on the site, and the planting is already dying. From what I understood, the contractor responsible for the planting has a contractual obligation to maintain the flowerbeds for a year after planting; a “defect liability term of one year” was mentioned. From my point of view, this is highly speculative — especially when you keep hearing that there is no one from BDC available to answer questions directly.
Not a single BDC councillor representing Shirebrook was present at the meeting. In my view, residents are entitled to ask why.
Cllr Andrew Stevens assured the meeting that councillors are working overtime to record all defects in official correspondence and to push the contractor to address them. All I can say is — good luck.
b. SHIREBROOK TOWN HALL – LEASE
Cllr David Downes asked which lease was being referred to: the existing one, or the newly negotiated one. Cllr Andrew Stevens replied that the matter is with “legal people” and cannot be discussed in the open part of the meeting at this time.
I would really like to know how the new councillors view this 100-year contract that Labour signed, leasing part of the Town Hall to BDC. Because if STC leaves the Town Hall and moves to the new building, how will BDC react? Will they sue? Will they demand something back? But, as usual, when something might look bad for Labour, in my view, it immediately becomes an “exempt” issue.
026/062 TO RECEIVE REFERRALS FROM TOWN COUNCIL COMMITTEES
a. LEISURE COMMITTEE — TO DISCUSS AND DECIDE PRICING STRUCTURE FOR NEW 3G PITCH.
Councillors approved the price change.
b. TO ENDORSE THE ACTIONS OF THE TOWN CLERK AND LEISURE CENTRE MANAGER IN THE PURCHASE OF NEW REFRIGERATOR.
The old fridge decided to go to colder pastures. Suddenly and without proper notice, which created unpleasant consequences. Councillors approved the purchase of a new one.
2026/063 TO RECEIVE UPDATE/PROGRESS REPORT IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED PUMP TRACK DEVELOPMENT AND AUTHORISE CLLR. M BARBER AS THE LEAD ON THE PROJECT
The lead councillor was absent, but the councillors decided to open the matter for debate. Cllr Barber and the LC supervisor were voted in to liaise with the appropriate bodies on financing of the project.
I have cut most of my notes from this point. I think there will be time in future to write more about it. For now I just want to note that the project is launching with full STC support.
2026/064 TO RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM THE TOWN CLERK
I am not sure what “TLC” stands for, but the LC supervisor reported that everything was ready to go, and then “Covid” stopped the project. I was a councillor after Covid, and in my view, much of STC’s energy in that period went into managing reputational issues rather than delivering for the town. If I remember well there was one meeting about funding, but it ended without any serious follow up. Cllr Andrew Stevens tabled a motion to re-establish the TLC and facilitate funding applications.
b. TOWN CLERK PROPOSAL – MEETING DOCUMENTATION APPROVAL TO ISSUE BY EMAIL
Several councillors noted that they have problems with access to documents and to “.gov” email boxes.
c. TOWN CLERK PROPOSAL – PLANNING DOCUMENTATION APPROVAL TO REVIEW BY EMAIL
Agreed.
d. CLERK’S REPORT – PROJECT APPROVALS AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
I have only marked “??” in my notes because, firstly, the Clerk’s report was tabled for noting in the Clerk’s absence, and in my view, with the Clerk not present, neither councillors nor the public can meaningfully scrutinise it. Secondly, I do not have access to the documents that the councillors have in front of them.
i. VIREMENT REPORT – LEISURE CENTRE MAINTENANCE BUDGET
Same observation as above.
ii. REVIEW OF QUOTATIONS FOR THE VALUATION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL ASSET AT 1 JUBILEE COURT
Deferred to the next meeting.
iii. REVIEW OF QUOTATIONS FOR THE VALUATION OF THE COUNCIL ASSET AT ALDERWAY (IF AVAILABLE / UPDATE WILL BE PROVIDED IF NOT)
Deferred to the next meeting.
iv. QUOTATION REPORT – RECORDING EQUIPMENT FOR MEETINGS
The cost of the quotes received was too high in the councillors’ view. Councillors decided to ask the Clerk to look for cheaper options.
v. QUOTATION REPORT – CHROMEBOOK/LAPTOP DEVICES FOR ELECTED MEMBERS
Cllr Oliver Kershaw-Dickson took the floor and talked through details of the current offers. A discussion developed, mainly on the subject of the Council going paperless. Councillors were informed that they must use a council-issued device, as some documents cannot be stored on private devices. Cllr Oliver Kershaw-Dickson had received enough quotes but asked the Council for a little more time to try to negotiate a better price. From what I was able to note, the current offer is £130 per device.
vi. QUOTATION REPORT – AI PROVISION FOR MINUTE WRITING
I do not have access to the documents the councillors had. After a short discussion, councillors decided to defer this item until Cllr Barber comes back. Even so, the discussion was quite interesting and revealed what most of us know about AI — we know very little. AI is still a new and not-fully-understood topic for most people, and the concerns about the scope of implementation are justified.
The Assistant Town Clerk mentioned NORA — an AI tool developed by NALC (National Association of Local Councils). Some time ago, I did my own research on AI for local councils, and this tool did not appear on my radar. However, when I asked about it directly, it turned out there is a large amount of information available. In short, this is an AI tool built specifically for the needs of local councils, drawing on NALC’s database — NALC being the institution that holds the largest body of knowledge on local council needs and limitations. Interestingly, this tool competes directly with another AI being developed in the public sector by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. First time I checked, they called it “i.AI”, but now they call it “Humphrey” after the “Yes Minister” character.
AI is a new branch of IT — so new that the fight for dominance is still ongoing, and new tools and capabilities appear literally every month. During the discussion, councillors did not hide that they do not feel confident on this subject, which is understandable, because the public commercial market for generative AI really came into being at the end of 2022, and open-source solutions are typically a generation behind the cutting edge of commercial frontier models, though the gap has narrowed considerably. AI is still a major unknown, and my impression is that STC councillors would happily try an AI tool, but only one that has documented usefulness in a council of our size. Finding such a tool may take time.
vii. QUOTATION REPORT – VILLAGE HALL REPAIRS
The LC supervisor gave information about the quotes received. I went a bit off-focus here, because I was still thinking about NORA. When I came back to the room, councillors were in the voting stage on… something. I will check the minutes when they are published.
viii. QUOTATION REPORT – INITIAL OUTLINE REGARDING ARCHITECTS COST FOR MARKET BUILDING DESIGN
Deferred to the next meeting. Worth watching this one. If STC is planning architect costs for the Market building’s design, that may suggest the Council is preparing for a longer-term relationship with the building than has been publicly discussed. I will return to this in a future article.
2026/065 TO RECEIVE REFERRALS FROM TOWN COUNCIL COMMITTEES
a. LEISURE COMMITTEE — TO RECEIVE THE LEISURE / GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT IN RELATION TO THE GP REFERRAL SCHEME AND TO DISCUSS AND DECIDE ON ANY ACTION
The LC supervisor gave an update on the scheme. I have to admit I do not fully understand what this project is or why STC is involved in a GP referral scheme. From what I understand, STC must cover the cost, but BDC has funding that somehow has not trickled down to STC. STC wants to pay for another 12 hours of someone’s work around a project that, as a resident, I struggle to follow.
Cllr Michael Yates asked the questions I wanted to ask. He literally asked the questions that came to me while I was listening to the LC supervisor. And from his expression, I inferred that he, like me, was not happy with the answers. Cllr Singleton proposed deferring the decision until information on funding is obtained, so that the full cost does not fall on STC. The item was accepted in principle, and the LC supervisor was tasked with working out a budget.
I need to comment on this. In my view, STC is on the verge of financial collapse. The Council’s accounts and AGAR returns show that staff costs are consuming an unsustainable share of STC’s budget — a far higher share, in my view, than at comparable councils. According to STC’s AGAR returns, staff costs amount to 79.9% of the Council’s tax income — i.e. for every £1 collected from residents through council tax, around 80p is spent on staff. Until that imbalance is addressed, taking on new projects — even ones I would otherwise support, such as exploring AI tools — is, in my opinion, financially irresponsible.
In my view, residents are entitled to ask whether STC’s current staffing structure is sustainable, proportionate, and comparable to other councils of similar size. Hiring new staff is pure insanity.
2026/066 TO CONSIDER MOTIONS / REQUESTS FROM ELECTED MEMBERS
a. CLLR. OLIVER KERSHAW-DICKSON
i. TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL ESTABLISHMENT OF A SHIREBROOK YOUTH TOWN COUNCIL. (Supporting documentation attached)
Cllr Oliver Kershaw-Dickson took the floor again. He presented data confirming that Youth Councils have been beneficial in the long term in every area where they have been launched. The room was very enthusiastic. Cllr Michael Yates and Cllr Shelley Arapi offered their support and their own time to help launch and run the project. Basically no one was against — and it is a great idea to involve the younger generation in the decision-making process. The Council unanimously moved the idea forward for further development.
b. CLLR. MICK YATES
i. THAT THIS COUNCIL RECOGNISES THE NEED TO ENSURE THAT SHIREBROOK TOWN COUNCIL’S OFFICE PROVIDES BEST VALUE AND MEETS THE OPERATIONAL, ACCESSIBILITY, AND FUTURE SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNCIL AND TO MEET THE COUNCIL’S FINANCIAL DUE DILIGENCE AND OPEN AND TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS.
Here is where I expected fireworks. It started at the previous meeting, but since then, councillors seemed to have rethought their stance, and the discussion was much more… pre-prepared (if that is even a word). Still, it was a monumental moment, because old Labour lost the vote on this issue. But let us start from the beginning.
Cllr Yates took the floor. In my view, his intention was to invite the rest of the Council to confirm that the current Town Hall is fit for purpose as it is. It felt to me like a response to Cllr Barber’s earlier expressed view that STC should consider moving to a smaller building. At some point, Cllr Shelley Arapi asked what exactly was being voted on, and I felt the same — what was the point of this exercise?
I tried to understand this agenda item. I read it multiple times. I still do not understand what was behind it. I could speculate that it was an attempt to make any future decision to dispose of the Town Hall harder — that if STC voted “yes”, it could later be used to block a move of council staff to smaller premises — but I cannot tell. I would ask Cllr Yates, but, in my experience, he does not engage openly with the media. Even when they ask easy questions.
At some point, Cllr Yates emphasised that he wanted the Town Clerk to prepare a report on the cost of moving, so that an informed decision could be made. Fair point — although I would ask: did he genuinely think any such move would happen without a report?
Many arguments for and against a possible move were raised during the discussion. The main argument against, as I understood it, was cost — and the space required to store documents in secure conditions. It was suggested during the discussion that historical cemetery records must be retained for extended periods (I think the word “forever” was used).
When the time to vote came, old-Labour looked like a deer in headlights. They were not expecting to lose. They lost. Badly. I think they need to get used to it. Next big whooping? 7th of May.
ii. AUTHORISES THE CLERK TO PREPARE A REPORT DETAILING THE COSTS OF RELOCATING THE TOWN COUNCIL OFFICES TO THE NEW MARKET PAVILION.
Approved.
2026/067 TO APPROVE THE DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL.
Next meeting is on the 13th of May and it’s the Annual Town Meeting.
THE END
4.5 hours of two meetings condensed into 10 pages. My back hurts, my fingers ache, my head is numb, and I still have to write the epilogue… You know what? I will feed this text to my AI and tell it to write the closing chapter on its own. Take it away, AI!
AI here. Sylwester is taking a break.
Two meetings. One council that is finally working harder than it has in years, and one that is still carrying the weight of decisions made long before the current councillors arrived. A 300% increase in meeting frequency. A Proper Officer nomination that may not survive scrutiny against the Council’s own Standing Orders. Minutes that were not produced on time. A Town Clerk absent from yet another Full Council meeting. A motion that died for want of a seconder, despite councillors speaking in favour. And — for the first time in this observer’s memory — old-Labour losing a vote in the chamber.
Sylwester’s back will recover. Whether STC’s finances do, before the 2027 elections, is another question. Residents are entitled to ask it. He will keep asking it. So, in his absence, will I.
Sylwester Zwierzynski (with AI help at the end) info@shirebrook247.com
Lead picture: deer in headlights made with Midjourney
Comic strip: trying to cut Labour spending everything on entertainment made with Images 2.0 by Chat GPT
