Just over a year ago, in summer 2025, a young woman entered the communal unisex showers in the basement of the Derby City Council offices. It was nothing unusual; many organisations have showers for people cycling to and from work. On this day, as she was getting changed in her cubicle, she was disturbed by what sounded like a man and woman engaging in sexual activity in the adjacent shower. It was embarrassing for her so she waited for them to leave. When she opened the door, she saw a man in the shower area.

She subsequently reported the incident to her manager. The matter was then raised with the Council’s site security team led by Andy Brammall Director – Digital & Physical Infrastructure and Customer Engagement. As part of the initial enquiries she was shown staff ID photographs of people who, it’s understood, might have been in the area at the time. She was able to identify the man whom she had seen in the showers – it was Paul Simpson, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Derby City Council.

She didn’t know who he was.

Paul Simpson confirmed that he was “in the showers” at the relevant time but categorically denies being involved in sexual activity.

Derby News understands that she identified Simpson as the man she had seen on emerging from her cubicle following the incident she reported, rather than merely identifying him as somebody who had been present in the wider shower area.

Once the man identified was understood to be the Council’s Chief Executive, the matter was escalated to Brammall.

Brammall worked directly for Simpson.

As the CEO is a Statutory Officer, the disciplinary process is a constitutional matter. The Leader of the Council, Nadine Peatfield, was advised by Emily Feenan, the Monitoring Officer, that a fact-find investigation started the process to assess whether there was a case to be answered. The initial fact-find was carried out by Feenan and Heather Greenan – Director of Policy, Insight & Communications

Both Feenan and Greenan worked directly for Simpson.

Their fact-find concluded, per Simpson’s solicitors, that there was “insufficient evidence to substantiate an allegation”.

Simpson’s solicitors have confirmed that “there were at least 5 individuals in the area at the time”. They have not been clear whether this was by direct headcount, or by reference to the swipe card records accessed when the woman first raised the issue. It is the opinion of Derby News that, as there are a number of private shower cubicles , that it would not be likely that an individual could be categoric about the number of people present at any point in time. Assuming that the number of 5 was derived from the swipe card system then this would be a maximum, as the swipe card system only records people entering the area, but not leaving it.

Simpson’s solicitors have confirmed that he was “not aware of the first fact-find” investigation and was not interviewed as part of it. 2 other people (non – Derby City Council employees), of the 5, were also not spoken to.

There seems to be a number of obvious and material lines of enquiry that were not pursued during the first fact-find.

A second fact-find exercise was requested to examine the Council’s processes and procedures. It’s not clear who actually commissioned and scoped this investigation. Simpson’s solicitors state that when he was interviewed for this 2nd fact-find he “did not know its purpose at that time”.

The outcome from these two fact-find investigations still left unanswered concerns. An independent report was commissioned which was due to be delivered to the Leader of the Council in April 2026.

On 15th April 2026, the Council reported that Simpson had handed in his notice to take a job at East Riding of Yorkshire Council as the Interim Executive Director of Corporate Resources. He left 2 weeks later on 30th April and started his new job in May. ( His replacement in Derby, Sam Dennis was announced on 21st April)

Following Simpson’s departure further reviews took place into the process and governance of the various investigations.

There is no public evidence that the subsequent employment circumstances of Feenan, Greenan or Brammall resulted from their involvement in this matter, or any wrong-doing:

• In July 2026 it was announced that Emily Feenan and Heather Greenan would not be in work, and would not be involved in Council business.

• It is reported that Andy Brammall has since resigned.

There are a number of issues that raise questions

The initial investigation

It is unusual in any corporate environment that a person is investigated by someone junior to them.

The November 2015 Constitutional document, approved at Full Council, has a section “Disciplinary Procedures for the Chief Executive” which details the process.

“Where it appears that an issue has arisen which, if proven, could result in disciplinary action being taken against a Chief Executive, the matter will be referred to an Investigating and Disciplinary Committee (“Investigating and Disciplinary Committee”) for consideration.”

Importantly the Committee is made up of Cllrs – not Officers. The CEO accounts to the Cllrs in Full Council.

The critical issue is that the version of this document now on the Council website is dated May 2026! This refers to the above Investigating and Disciplinary Committee but provides for a preceding “gatekeeper” process that would “trigger” the Committee involvement.

“3.2 Triggering the procedure will be determined by the Monitoring Officer in the case of complaints against the Chief Executive or Chief Finance Officer, and the Chief Executive in the case of complaints against the Monitoring Officer.”

The Monitoring Officer being Emily Feenan.

Constitutional changes should normally be approved by Full Council (as was the November 2015 issue); no evidence has been found of a Full Council resolution for the May 2026 changes.

The procedure apparently followed in 2025 involved an officer-led preliminary fact-find. That bears similarities to the Monitoring Officer “gatekeeping” stage appearing in the May 2026 version, but not in the earlier wording identified by Derby News. It remains unclear what constitutional authority governed the procedure actually used at the time

Paul Simpson’s departure from the Council

On 13th April 2026, a permanent job was posted on the internet for an “Executive Director of Corporate Resources, who will also serve as Deputy Chief Executive and statutory Section 151 Officer” at East Riding of Yorkshire Council. 2 days later Derby City Council announced that Simpson would be leaving. This announcement was 20 days before the closure date for applications for the permanent role; interviews were due to be carried out on 3rd July.

s151 Officer is the Chief Finance Officer

Simpson became “Interim Executive Director of Corporate Resources (and S151 Officer)” which wasn’t quite the job as advertised. The role reports into the Chief Executive.

In the Derby City Council news announcement, the quote from Simpson does not mention his new role at all; it majors on the rationale for him leaving:

“…I feel this is the right moment for me to hand over the reins. By stepping down at this stage, I want to give the Council the space it needs to build a new leadership structure and ensure everything stays on track as we move through Local Government Reorganisation.”

Opinion

What began with one employee reporting an incident in the Council’s shower facilities ultimately developed into a much wider governance issue involving some of the authority’s most senior officers

It should have been as simple as the Investigating and Disciplinary Committee examining the incident, and forming a conclusion. The involvement of several senior officers, repeated fact-finding exercises and a subsequent independent review means that there remain legitimate questions about how the original allegation was handled

The questions which won’t go away are:

• Why was the allegation not referred to the councillor-led Investigating and Disciplinary Committee identified in the procedure apparently applicable at the time? Such a referral would have placed consideration of the allegation with elected members rather than officers working within the organisation headed by Simpson
• Who made the decision to conduct a fact-find investigation, and under what authority?
• How is it that from May 2026 there has been a new version of the Constitution which changes the process to include a preliminary investigation led and controlled by the Monitoring Officer (Feenan)?
• There is no evidence that Simpson left the Council because of the shower allegation. His departure is nevertheless relevant to the chronology: within weeks of the independent report being expected, he left a permanent Chief Executive post and took an interim Executive Director position at East Riding of Yorkshire Council reporting into a Chief Executive.
• Most fundamentally, was the original allegation ever investigated through the process required by the Council’s Constitution — and what, if anything, was ultimately established about the shower incident itself?

The available evidence does not allow Derby News to establish what happened inside the shower cubicle. What it does establish is that a serious allegation involving the Council’s Chief Executive was raised and that important questions remain about whether it was properly investigated.

It is understood that a formally constituted Investigating and Disciplinary Committee is being set up with the intention of fully investigating this whole case.