STC EMERGENCY MEETING, 3 SEPTEMBER 2026

Under old-Labour, most of the key issues at STC were settled in the back room and then rubber-stamped in the chamber. Decisions were discussed far from residents and left minimal trace in the minutes.

Emergency meetings almost never happened. With the wave of new councillors, emergency meetings have become more frequent, reflecting both the dire situation STC is in and the willingness of new councillors to turn the ship around. I can say this much: the councillors and the meeting both delivered.

BEFORE I START, A WARNING
You might expect a report from a council meeting to be dry, boring and long, but this is one of the most interesting articles I have written in months. It is full of controversy, facts, ideas and projects. A great deal is happening, and if you want Shirebrook to bloom, you should keep your fingers crossed for this renewed STC. I do.

The agenda was so packed that the meeting ran longer than usual and councillors suspended standing orders to extend the time. You can look at this agenda here:
https://www.shirebrooktowncouncil.gov.uk/uploads/fc-2026-09-03-agenda.pdf?v=1787839818

I have tried to keep this text as compact as I can, which is why I will hold back on the colourful language — for the most part. I have allowed myself to add one screenshot, and one AI-generated image of the town council’s new antihero. You will not be disappointed.

ATTENDANCE
Not a single Bolsover District councillor representing Shirebrook turned up. Kane, Wilson, Tait and Jane Yates — all elected on a Labour ticket — once again stayed away from one of the most important meetings in the town’s recent history.

County Councillor Sarah Reaney (Reform) was in attendance, as usual.

Twelve STC councillors attended, along with one STC employee. As is now traditional, Cllr Luke Shorthose (Ind) and Cllr Ricky Holland (Lab) did not appear — my attendance figures published in August put Holland on 57% for the year, and Shorthose on 10%. Cllr David Downes (Ind), on 43%, was also absent. The genuine surprise was Cllr Kerry Kirk (Ind), who until now had a 100% record and recorded her first absence of the year. You can review the attendance record, updated in August, here: https://shirebrook247.com/2026/08/02/stc-councillors-attendance-update/

Twelve residents took seats in the public gallery, including yours truly.

NEW VENUE
For the first time in my STC’s living history, the meeting was held at the Leisure Centre rather than in the Town Hall. It has its advantages and its drawbacks.

The drawbacks? The room is an awkward shape, and if every councillor had turned up there would not have been room for them all at the table. Councillors need to think about that for the future. The second drawback is the air: the room is not air-conditioned and ventilation appears to be non-existent. I have severe asthma, and unlike healthy people I experience air quality as a physical sensation — if the air is bad, my body tells me immediately and unpleasantly. The chamber at the Town Hall was poor in that respect. This room at the Leisure Centre is worse.

The advantages? The biggest is the saving to the taxpayer. At the Town Hall, someone had to be paid to be there and open the door. At the Leisure Centre that cost disappears — the building is already staffed and already open.

The second advantage is safety. The Town Hall chamber has CCTV. On both occasions when I requested footage of incidents that took place in that chamber, I was told the system had not been working. The Leisure Centre also has CCTV, and that system reportedly does work.

Overall I still think its better venue for STC meetings. How odd is that, right? STC spend so much money to build Town Hall, went into debt and weird lease deal with BDC to build it and in reality it was completely unnecessary…

TOWN OFFICIALS
It looks as though the public servants have abandoned ship. The Town Clerk has not attended a council meeting in person since July 2025. The assistant did not appear either. On top of that the locum clerk was absent, and the public was told she has declined to extend her contract and will be leaving shortly.

Strange, for a council that spends more on staffing than on anything else (80% of all its tax income) that there is now apparently nobody available to work in the Town Hall or even take the minutes at a meeting. This time STC asked, and voted in, a member of Leisure Centre staff to act as Proper Officer. In my view that is not her job and she should not have been put in that position — but it is one more piece of the mess inherited from the previous administration, and one more thing for the new councillors to fix.

That is the technical detail out of the way. Now let’s look at what was actually discussed.

PUBLIC SESSION
For a long time STC denied residents a public session. This time it was allowed, and the first to speak was a woman representing a group of residents who have organised to oppose plans to turn one of the town’s footpaths into a road open to motor traffic(unpaved part of Stinting Lane).

The group calls itself KOPS — Keep Our Pathways Safe. It was set up on 28 August and has already grown to more than 125 members. If you want to join or help, you can do so through their Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/28333481546283188

Their representative spoke at length about the group’s aims, the history of the path and their struggle with the bureaucracy. The good news is that they are well organised and fired up, and they had met Cllr Shaun Cheeseman (Reform) before the meeting to get the ball rolling.

Cllr Andrew Stevens (Reform) tabled a motion for STC to support the group’s aims. It was carried unanimously. The council also resolved to oppose the reclassification of the path as a BOAT — a Byway Open to All Traffic. County Councillor Sarah Reaney (Reform) stated her support and undertook to work against the change at county level.

I do not know who initiated the reclassification, but growing opposition among residents is clearly visible. I would like to be hopeful. The history of this town teaches otherwise: whatever the residents of Shirebrook want, BDC and DCC have tended to do as they please. Perhaps this time will be different. Fingers crossed for KOPS.

At this point the agenda kicked in.

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies received and accepted.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None were declared.

3. MARKET DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — UPDATE
Cllr Andrew Stevens (Reform) took the floor. The legal team had advised the council to carry out a risk assessment before signing, and had otherwise cleared STC to proceed. Cllr Michael Yates (Labour) asked whether the development agreement had been signed. Cllr Stevens had just answered that: risk assessment first, signature after. Meanwhile BDC had removed the fencing, which left STC between a rock and a hard place.

Cllr Yates went on to blame STC for the problems with the deal. That struck me as a strange position to take. The project has been controlled by BDC since its inception. It was executed poorly, with substandard solutions, and it ran well past its original deadline. All of it because of BDC. This sounded like Labour blaming Labour.

It is worth pausing here to set out a fact that residents of this town already know, but which readers elsewhere may not. Cllr Michael Yates is married to Cllr Jane Yates, who has been Leader of Bolsover District Council since January 2025 — the authority sitting on the other side of this (dis)agreement.

Cllr Stevens said that BDC had tried to press STC into signing without guarantees. Cllr Yates continued to push for the deal to be signed anyway.

Cllr Martin Barber (Ind) was the one who finally said out loud what the room appeared to be thinking: that Cllr Yates argues BDC’s corner rather than STC’s. He did not pull his punches, taking residents through his dealings with Cllr Yates point by point. It was unusually direct for a council chamber. From where I was sitting it looked like a man who had simply had enough of the political games and had decided to say so in public, knowing full well it could cost him.

He also said that he had previously complained about Cllr Yates taking part in discussions where Barber considered him to have a conflict of interest. BDC rejected that complaint.

Under the Localism Act 2011, the interests a councillor must formally declare and withdraw over are disclosable pecuniary interests — money, essentially. Employment, contracts, land, securities, licences. A spouse’s interests count, but only if they fall into those same categories. A spouse holding elected office on another council is not, in itself, a disclosable pecuniary interest. That is almost certainly why the complaint was rejected, and on a narrow reading of the rules the rejection may well be correct.

But note who decided it. A complaint concerning the husband of BDC’s Leader was determined by BDC. That is how the system is built — code of conduct complaints go to the relevant authority’s own Monitoring Officer — and in my view that is exactly what is wrong with it. Are we surprised by the outcome? I am not.

A CONFLICT OF MORALITY
More to the point: in my view a councillor whose spouse leads the authority on the other side of a negotiation should declare that interest and withdraw, whatever the code technically requires. The rules set a floor, not a standard. It would be the decent thing to take yourself out of the equation when one of the figures across the table is your wife.

Cllr Yates denied having any conflict of interest. Cllr Barber maintained that Cllr Yates was pressing STC to sign without warranties — and warranties were the sticking point throughout: the guarantees that would protect STC from future liabilities. Cllr Yates argued for signing. The rest of the council argued for signing only once the agreement was safe for STC and of benefit to residents. That order of priorities is itself new; previous administrations did not set them out so plainly.

Cllr Steve Singleton (Ind) asked for an “ETA to nirvana” — his way of asking when the deal might actually be signed. Cllr Stevens said the matter sits with the legal team and that the documents are numerous and thick. In plainer language: nobody knows because BDC still insist to plays games.

At this point standing orders were suspended to allow a resident to ask a question. The resident asked why STC agreed to open the Market while matters were still with the legal team. Cllr Stevens said that BDC acted alone and put STC in an awkward position. Cllr Singleton said the main problems now lie with the building rather than the market itself.

AND THEN IT BEGAN
Cllr Yates then tabled a motion to sign the deal on the spot. It was not seconded. Not one other councillor in the room was willing to put their name to it, and under Standing Order 1(b) a motion that is not seconded cannot be progressed. The motion fell.

A few years ago I was the one who could not get a motion seconded. I know exactly how that feels, and I won’t pretend I didn’t enjoy watching it from the other side of the table. But I’d note the difference. I couldn’t get a seconder because I was trying to expose bad deals. He couldn’t get one because he was trying to force bad deal through. We are not the same.

STC then voted to continue pressing for warranties and guarantees in the agreement. Our STC is not BDC’s puppet any more. Good work, councillors!

4. STAFFING, LEGAL, HR AND LOCUM CLERK ARRANGEMENTS
The Locum Town Clerk leaves on 7 September. That is a problem. Cllr Andrew Stevens (Reform) spoke at some length about the situation at the Town Hall. To its credit, STC acted quickly and posted a proper job advert. It went under my radar, but thanks to a reader — thank you — I have a copy of it.

My hypothesis is simple: whoever walks into that building sees the mess left behind by the previous regime and run for the hills. The current locum was on a two-week rolling contract and chose not to extend it at the first opportunity. I do not know what became of the assistant.

5. APPOINTMENT OF TEMPORARY CLERK — UPDATE
I need you to look at the advert above one more time. It attracted two candidates. Two, for a full-time senior post paying up to £51,356, advertised through the Nottinghamshire Association of Local Councils.

So why did I ask you to look at the advert again? Because there is a typo, in a key place. Read the name of our town in the email address. The letter “r” is missing. That makes the domain non-existent. Any candidate who typed or copied the address as published would have had their CV bounce straight back at them.

I cannot say how many people tried and gave up. Nobody can. But when a council advertises its most senior post with an address that does not work, and two people apply, it seems fair to ask whether those two facts are related.

The advert also describes STC as a council with “16 enthusiastic councillors.” Readers who saw my attendance figures in August may want to sit with that phrase for a moment.

STC appointed a committee to carry out interviews and bring a recommendation back to a vote of the full council. Cllr Michael Yates (Labour) objected to that decision and said so loudly, prompting considerable commotion and objection from the rest of the chamber. He argued instead for the longer route, through the Personnel Committee, with the further votes and minuting that involves. The rest of the council took the view that a temporary clerk is needed quickly, before the town is left without an officer altogether.

PUT IT ON THE AGENDA!
At that point Cllr Yates decided to flip the proverbial table. He set the agenda aside, produced a prepared speech and began reading out a list of his grievances — and most insane one was a vote in May over which he says he was ‘misled’. More about that in article: https://shirebrook247.com/2026/09/06/whole-room-laughed-at-cllr-yates/

None of it was on the agenda. None of it had anything to do with staffing. And here is the part worth remembering: one of the grievances on that list was that STC ignores its own rules. He said it with a straight face, in a speech that was itself outside the rules. By the end, the list had established something he presumably did not intend — that he had voted for the thing he was now protesting about. Three months after the vote.

Do you understand now why some people in this town call him a clown? I would not go that far. I use the more precise term: political clown.


CONTROL THE CHAMBER
Seriously, new councillors: you need to find some backbone. Standing Order 1(t) is not ambiguous. A councillor’s contribution “shall relate only to the motion under discussion” and shall not exceed five minutes without the chairman’s consent. Nothing in that standing order allows a speech that has nothing to do with the item in front of the council. The chair should have ruled Cllr Yates out of order.

To be honest, Cllr Dale Smith tried to stop this unhinged speech, but other councillors convinced him to let Yates speak. On one hand- that is improvement compared to previous leaders. On other hand- at some point you need to act when borders are crossed. If Yates want to rant about- he should place his speech at agenda in proper way.

YATES RANT
So Yates ranted and aggravated whole room. Accusations, insinuations, weird statements, discord and finger pointing – that was key goal of Yates speech, not fixing or solving any of the issues. Someone should stop him and it was not only the chair’s job. Under Standing Order 1(p), any councillor could have raised a point of order, identified the standing order being breached, and the speaker would have had to stop. Sixteen councillors have that power. Twelve were in the room. Nobody used it.

Why was he allowed to run on? Forgive my bluntness, but it looked to me as though the rest of the chamber had decided it was easier to let him finish than to stop him. Like you allow sugar high child to wreak havoc to tire himself off.

Compare that with my own time in this chamber. Old Labour refused to let me speak even after I had forced my item onto the agenda. Cllr Yates reads out whatever he likes, whenever he likes, and the chair lets it run. Call it a double standard or maybe two-tier standard. Whatever was the intention behind it, the effect is to bury new councillors in paperwork and put them on the defensive, instead of leaving them free to do the work residents want them to do.

6. S106 MONIES OUTSTANDING — UPDATE
Item presented by Cllr Andrew Stevens (Reform). £651,000 remains outstanding. I am glad the S106 money has finally found its way onto an STC agenda. It is the first time in twelve years.

Of course Cllr Michael Yates (Labour) wasn’t happy about that. 12 years of inactivity of Labour councilors looks bad, so he blamed… current DCC. Later he and his wife commented on it on Facebook, arguing that it is purely a DCC matter (female Yates blocked comments- as usual). But the money has sat in a BDC account for twelve years, and the new councillors decided not to wait any longer. Taking up a matter that affects the town, rather than waiting for another authority to act? That is new quality in STC! Great job councillors! Fight, fight like hell for that money. BDC will try to stop you, but at least now residents know who stands where.

As I mentioned, Cllr Yates attributed the delay to Derbyshire County Council. Worth noting, then, that Labour held the DCC seat covering Shirebrook for years, and the money still sat untouched at BDC. And worth noting too that NOT ONE BDC councillor has attended an STC meeting to give an update on this money. Not once in my time as STC observer. All four BDC cllrs were elected on a Labour ticket- shocker, right?

JURISDICTION
Yes – S106 does sit outside STC’s jurisdiction. But STC have a right to ask questions. To that effect, STC voted to write to BDC asking about the delay and to press for the money to be redirected to health and well-being. Once again: good decision, councillors- political pressure must be applied or Labour will keep sleeping. Until now STC was like a dog, a tool, a cash-cow in hands of BDC and old-Labour elite. No more.

One more thing worth recording. When Cllr Yates pointed to DCC, County Councillor Sarah Reaney (Reform) was sitting near me, and her reaction was hard to miss. She was visible aggravated. Why? Because she was working for months to unlock that treasure chest. She has written letters, made calls and turned up to meetings about this money, and was not given substantive responses by BDC members or officers — that is documented in the FOI response I published a few weeks ago. There was 9 pages long PDF document showing her efforts and not a single page form any of DCC or BDC Labour councillors.

She is still fighting and finally she is not alone- she has support of majority of STC councillors from all political wings- from new Labour, through Indies and Reform. Whatever your politics, that is worth something. I wish our DCC councillor and STC councillors luck in that fight, because it would not be the first time a councillors fought to spend developer money sitting at BDC and lost. More on that soon…

7. SHIREBROOK TLC — UPDATE
£30,000 sitting in a bank account. A body connected to STC that most residents have never heard of, with signatories who are no longer councillors. Sounds shady? Because it is. Let me start at the beginning.

Years ago the council set up something called the Town Leisure Committee (because STC Leisure Committee wasn’t enough) and £30,000 found its way into its bank account. Then nothing happened, with the money or with the TLC, for years. What was a reason given to explain that inactivity? Covid. Something the rest of the country moved on from in 2021 has kept this fund dormant well into 2026. New councillors uncovered it and decided to put the money to use. Great, right? Yet another example of STC waking up from old-Labour slumber.

On 29 April the new council voted to re-establish the TLC. Cllr Martin Barber (Ind) completed the paperwork to take it over and restart its work. But the former councillors who are signatories on the account have not signed it over. Why? No idea. New councillors were told that if this is not resolved, the money is at risk of being lost to the town.

Cllr Dale Smith (Labour) proposed writing to them and asking, politely, for their signatures so the money can be used for the TLC’s stated purposes. His suggestion was that the council undertake to finish the project the TLC had started before Covid, so the former councillors would have no reason to hold it up.

Someone in the room said it plainly: this is public money, not their money. But nobody named the signatories. I find that odd. A room full of people, £30,000 belonging to Shirebrook sitting out of reach, and nobody asks who is holding it up.

At this point the council ran out of time and suspended standing orders to continue. We were halfway down the agenda.

8. FRIENDS OF SHIREBROOK CEMETERY — UPDATE
The Friends of Shirebrook Cemetery is a charitable group with paid membership, set up to keep the cemetery and chapel in the best possible condition. Until now they did quite good job, but councillors were told the group is struggling with activity levels and is weighing up whether to reinvigorate itself or wind up. It has a little over £800 in its account.

There was a short discussion about the cemetery and the chapel. The council recognised the need to renovate the chapel, and new councillors asked for permission to look for additional funding.

9. SHIREBROOK CREMATORIUM LLP — UPDATE
I have no notes on this item. At the end of the previous item I had to deal with an urgent personal message on my phone, and by the time I was back I had missed this item entirely and the start of the next one. I am not going to pretend otherwise. When I was a councillor I always set my phone to plane mode at the start of a meeting. As an ordinary resident I keep phone on silent, but on. From that point my attention was interrupted several times and the quality of my notes suffered.

Once the minutes are published I will come back to it to check what I missed. I intend to look at this one properly: an LLP is a company, and a town council being a member of one deserves more scrutiny than an agenda line.

10. OPERATIONAL AND SERVICE DELIVERY MATTERS
As I said above, I missed the start of this item. By the time I was following properly, the chamber was discussing the Mayor’s grant.

Councillors were told the Mayor’s office wants an agreement in place before the funding is released. I would not be surprised to see the £250,000 Shirebrook is due to receive still unresolved when the election campaign starts. Whatever the reason for the delay, the effect of announcing money close to an election is to give the announcement a political value it should not have. But Mayor is from Labour Party, so I expect shenanigans.

One date for the diary: the Mayor has announced a visit to Shirebrook on 23 October. I would like to attend, though I doubt an independent blogger is high on the invitation list — particularly one who has written about the £9,328 of chauffeur hire her office disclosed only after the Local Democracy Reporting Service pushed for it. Anyway, if you search online you’ll find loads of links to articles about our Mayor’s scandals. I’m attaching just one that sums up several of these affairs: https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/people/thousands-of-pounds-spent-on-chauffeuring-services-upmarket-restaurant-hire-ms-food-runs-and-waterpark-and-american-hotel-stays-for-east-midlands-mayor-and-staff-6035803

11. ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY; MEMBERS ARE ASKED TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY FOR THE COUNCILLOR DEVICES
The process was started by former councillor Tony Burns and is now led by Cllr Oliver Kershaw-Dickson (Reform). There are outstanding questions about confidential items and how the policy handles them, so it is taking longer than anticipated. Welcome to local government, where even the simplest thing turns into a year-long process of red tape, meetings, documentation and policy drafting.

The good news is that the devices are top-notch and were bought as part of a deal, at a price well below what the rest of us would pay. Councillors were told that this devices should pay for themselves within a few months in reduced printing and postage, and serve for years.

By this point I had been sitting for two and a half hours in a badly ventilated room with my phone buzzing like an angry wasp. Several other matters were discussed, but only one had my undivided attention.

Cllr Martin Barber (Ind) raised the Scribe system — software designed to simplify finance reporting — which was supposed to be up and running in January and still does not work. Another lesson for the new councillors: nothing in local government is easy or fast.

But I am not worried. This council works and sooner or later they will make Scribe work. Bottom line is thios: STC working hard. Finally. You can see it and you can feel it. Most of the active councillors are showing growing experience and a certain assurance in how they operate and speak. As someone who saw the worst of what STC could be, I could not be happier about how it works now. I would love to be part of it. For now, all I can do is keep my fingers crossed and wish the hard-working councillors well.

SPECIAL THANKS
At this point I have to extend special thanks to the Vice-Chair of STC, Cllr Andrew Stevens (Reform). He has put in countless hours of unpaid work to move STC out of paralysis. It was mentioned and appreciated by other councillors at the meeting, but I think the vast majority of his efforts fly under the radar of residents. The amount of work he, the Chair and a few other councillors have done in recent months is exceptional, and the agenda of this meeting confirms it — nineteen substantive items touching almost every issue neglected by previous administrations.

I also have to mention the Chair, Cllr Dale Smith. He is not flashy or outspoken, but he lets things progress regardless of the political consequences, which is not something I expected. I am still not a great admirer, but his chairmanship is more balanced and even-handed than that of any previous leader of STC I have had the chance to observe (Sarah Brook was good too, but she resigned, so…).

THE END
Even after the meeting closed to residents, the councillors stayed on with a list of six exempt items. I have no idea what time they finished. They worked hard enough to wear me out, and that seems the right place to end.

You have just read eight pages of a council meeting report. If you have reached these words, you have something rare: an interest in how your own town is run, and the attention span to see it through. Shirebrook needs people like you on the town council. Consider yourself challenged. Stand in the election, and help these few hard-working councillors spread the load, achieve more and achieve it faster.

Your town needs you. If you want to know what is involved, get in touch — I will tell you honestly what the job is like.

Sylwester Zwierzynski info@shirebrook247.com
Lead picture: made with Midjourney 8.2(alpha)