Just as Boston Borough Council was cobbling together its cunning plan for the Great Quadrant Development Meeting, news came in which completely moved the goalposts – and made the idea of democratic decision based on the pros and cons of the scheme completely pointless.

On Monday, the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership trumpeted the announcement of a £40 million funding boost for Greater Lincolnshire – including almost £5 million for the Quadrant scheme.

The GLLEP said: “The Government’s Growth Deal, which the LEP and its partners have been negotiating for nine months, will give Greater Lincolnshire new resources and powers to build infrastructure, create jobs and train local people.

Six projects were listed to receive government cash for 2015-16 – with the Quadrant receiving the third largest sum.

They are:

• Grantham Southern Relief Road – £16 million

• Boston Quadrant – £4.75 million

• Boole Technology Centre, Lincoln – £3.38 million

• Unlocking Rural Housing – £4.13 million

• Bishop Burton College – £7.5 million

• Skegness Countryside Business Park (including western relief road) – £4 million

Ironically, we note that two of the projects involve relief roads – which if Boston didn't need one before, it certainly will when thousands of new residents move into Wyberton.

So what is the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership?

In its mission statement, it declares: “The LEP is a partnership, not a bureaucracy. We understand that our partners, individually and collectively, have primary roles to play in realising our vision. That means we work with them to support existing and upcoming projects – we are clear that the LEP should focus on where it can add value to the efforts of others.".

And what is the GLLEP’s connection with Boston?

As far as we can see – none at all aside from the borough council appearing on a list of “partners” alongside all the other district councils in the county and beyond.

The GLLEP board is chaired by Ursula Lidbetter, Chief Executive of the Lincolnshire Co-Op and her deputy is David Dexter, of Horncastle, a founder member of the Federation of Small Businesses.

Private sector board members represent Butlins in Skegness, Siemens and the Lindum Group in Lincoln, P C Tinsley of Holbeach Hurn, the University of Lincoln and the Employment Agency, whilst the public sector representatives are from Lincolnshire County Council, North and North East Lincolnshire councils, East Lindsey District Council and the NHS.

So, how do Boston’s interests – and in particular those of a local property developer get on to the GLLEP’s radar.

The most likely answer must be through Boston Borough Council –  although Chestnut Homes is described as the “lead applicant.”

And if the council is backing such a huge grant – we’re talking about £4.75 million towards a project costing £23.8 million – which is almost 20% of the total, then it surely isn’t going to turn the plans down, is it?

So why not cut to the chase, cancel the public planning committee meeting to save a few quid and rubber stamp the whole thing as a done deal?

Which is what will most likely happen in any case.

***

Even before the news of the GLLEP deal, the Quadrant Development rumbled on, with Boston Eye readers queuing to have their say.

One e-mail drew specific attention to the benefits to be had by the council if the scheme goes ahead, amid fears that Worst Street regards self-interest as a major benefit from housing schemes.

“Having spoken to a member of the council's cabinet last Friday regarding the Quadrant development, I pointed out that there were many more houses empty in the borough than were to be built in Q1 – so why was there a need for the 500 houses?” wrote our reader.

“Would it not be more beneficial to encourage the owners of these properties to make them available?

“The response I got was ‘why would the council want that?’ and ‘why would they not want the Quadrant development to go ahead?’

“‘If the Government targets are met for the provision of affordable housing, the council would receive loads of money in grants.’

click to enlarge photo

“I have to ask if councillors can really make an unbiased decision on the development with large amounts of cash available if they pass the application.

“Do they not have a conflict of interest?

“Then I did some research about the government’s New Homes Bonus Scheme, which basically details how things work. The word bribe springs to mind.

“Here are the website details.

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/increasing-the-number-of-available-homes/supporting-pages/new-homes-bonus

I also came across the schedule which details the cash available.

So having looked at this and heard the cabinet member’s comments it looks even more of a formality that the Quadrant Development will go ahead.

“What a great democracy we live in.”

***

Two further areas of comment from readers have offered even more food for thought.

In the first, a correspondent suggests that more could, should – and perhaps can still be done – to consider a different site for a new Boston United stadium that avoids concreting over half of Wyberton.

“During the Quadrant presentation some months back in Wyberton Parish Hall, a question was asked as to why this ‘new’ project was not integrated in some way on the land somewhere near the DABSI/ PRSA Arena.

“The managing director of Chestnut Homes stated that some of their people had looked at this location, but found the amount, or standard of available land was not thought to be adequate for the project.

“However, because of this answer, I have since had an informal and specific meeting with the company which owned, and indeed subsequently provided the land for the PRSA.

“They assured me that they had only  heard of an enquiry having been made some time ago, with someone from the football club, but that no real detail had ever been presented, or gone into, and since had heard nothing else.

“They also assured me that they had had no contact of any consequence with anyone, but had heard on the grapevine that a neighbouring farm might also have had some additional land, and it was thought the developer might have been interested in it at the time, and which may have been available to supplement any shortfall.

“So it seems that there may have been alternative options that the developer is either ignoring or has his own reasons for rejecting.

“Looking back, and given the level of past investment in the PRSA, such an offer, if progressed, could help the arena enormously – and in turn the people of Boston.

“With this in mind, am I wrong to suggest that, a directive ought to have been presented to the contractor at the outset of enquiry by our senior officers, in order to find a way to alleviate the expensive burden carried by the borough, and to encourage all similar sporting developments to be constructed in this one area.”

***

The PRSA suggestion also appears in another e-mail in which the little remarked departure of council leader Pete Bedford from his role on the Planning Committee raised the eyebrow of at least one of our readers – a Person Who Knows Whereof He/She Speaks – and who  tells Boston Eye:-

“One of the most challenging proposals ever presented to Boston Borough Council is about to test the values and integrity of our ‘local’ politicians.

“The recent, but sudden resignation of Councillor Peter Bedford from the Planning Committee, may, at some stage, give rise to some questions.

“One cannot help but wonder if he simply awoke one morning and decided it would not be fair for him to sit in judgement on this soon to be presented planning proposal – especially given its seriousness and size, and the possible impact this will no doubt have upon the parish and ward of Wyberton.

“Maybe he has reservations about the fairness of seeking to replant this once proud, semi-professional Boston United Football Club to some outlandish village called Wyberton!

“It would be an unusual and unselfish act, rarely seen in politics, were it to actually be the case.

“However none of the above is actually the case.

“Councillor Bedford has long been an attending supporter of Boston United.  He, along with other ‘staff’ members of Boston Borough Council have been well-known attenders and supporters of the Pilgrims.

“I am not suggesting there is anything wrong in that, providing everything is correctly and properly handled.

 “So, what steps are in place to re-assure the public of Boston that the actions of everyone involved in deciding the outcome of this proposal are both fair and unbiased?

 “I have never understood why it is the duty of expectation for elected members to declare any interest at the outset of a meeting, yet I am unsure if this same expectation is extended to officers of the council – especially those who are in responsible and/or advisory roles. It seems to me that such positions could easily be subject to undue influence from outside bodies.

“Finally, it is only fair on all councillors on this panel to –  for once –  have the freedom and anonymity of a secret ballot.

It is, I suggest, the duty of every serving councillor to earnestly consider the serious and likely impact on the residents of Wyberton, to ask themselves whether they would welcome this project in such close proximity to their own residence, or should they counter propose that there is in fact a more suitable and acceptable location for such a sporting development.

“Indeed a location that has, over many years, cost the public of Boston many, many, thousands, if not millions of pounds.

“This group of councillors could be the very first group, brave enough to make a non-political statement to the people of Boston, by rejection of the proposed location, and then seek to put forward a proposal to relocate to a more sensible and tailor-made location such as suggested above.

“I can assure members there is ample land and opportunity in that location despite what has been suggested.”

***

There was a certain sense of schadenfreude during the full council debate on the Quadrant planning application when a suggestion from Wyberton ward councillor  and Parish Council Chairman Richard Austin to allow the two main campaign groups a guaranteed chance to have their say was kicked into touch.

Councillor Austin’s novel proposal that “the council must be seen to be fair” was dismissed in favour of a free-for-all that will allow objectors and supporters each to have half an hour to state their case in bite-sized nuggets of three minutes each for the first ten people to register as an objector and three minutes each for the first ten people to register as a supporter.

If more people register to speak than there is allocated time for, the chairman – Worst Street trouper Councillor Mary Wright – has authority to extend the public speaking time, subject to any extra time being shared equally between objectors and supporters.

That’s all right then.

It rules out any possibility whatever of people claiming that they didn’t get a chance to have their say.

Doesn’t it?

And why the schadenfreude, we hear you ask?

Simply because we lost count during Councillor Austin’s reign as leader of Boston Borough Council of the number of times calls for his administration “to be seen to be fair” fell upon deaf ears.

***

Perhaps we’re being picky about definitions, but one thing about the Quadrant proposals that seems to have escaped most people is how little is actually known about the overall scheme.

A quadrant is one quarter of a circle – which suggests that there will be four phases of planning and building.

Q1 is being sold largely on the creation of a new home for Boston United – and the stick behind the carrot is the threat that without it the club has no future. Many of the people in favour of this choose to overlook the fact that it will swamp Wyberton with another 500 houses.

Q2 is said to include development of a further 200 acres which will be likely to include “a(nother) marina, housing; open spaces; retail and leisure units; community facilities, and employment land.”

But – “the timings depend on sales and progress on Q1, and also the time-scales for the conclusion of the local plan process,” so you can make of it what you will.

And what about Q3 and Q4 – assuming they ever come to anything at all.

As our French friends would say … pas d’un oiseau.*

Ought a glimpse of the overall picture – however vague – be worth asking for?

***

  

We were somewhat bemused to hear that Boston Borough Council  is being encouraged by MP Mark Simmonds to adopt  powers to restrict where off  licences can open.

The  call came after  Mr Simmonds and  Lincolnshire’s police and crime commissioner Alan Hardwick  met Home Office crime minister Norman Baker to talk about Boston’s anti-social behaviour problems.

Mr Baker reportedly told them that action could be taken to restrict the number of licensed premises in a designated area, using something called  a Cumulative Impact Policy, which can not only block more licensed premises but can also designate areas as alcohol free –  which could bring in the street drinking ban which many local people would like.

Mr Hardwick offered the backing of officers to enforce new rules – which gave us the best laugh we’d had on that particular day.

In that strange way he apparently has of speaking, we read that Mr Simmonds said: “I am pleased with the outcome of this meeting. The minister was clear that action can be taken to tackle anti-social behaviour in our town and stated that laws already exist to protect communities from this type of behaviour and offered to arrange a meeting between Boston Borough Council representatives and the Home Office team so that they could properly understand the measures they can implement.”

Complaints that there are too many off licences in Boston, and that nothing is being done to stop even more of them opening have been on-going for years, and the excuse has always been that  without strong and valid objections, nothing can be done to prevent what is simply open competition between traders.

Now that is appears not to be the case, everyone is jumping up and down with glee and anticipating an end to all of our problems.

But there’s just one question.

The Home Office tells us: “Cumulative Impact Policies were introduced as a tool for licensing authorities to limit the growth of licensed premises in a problem area. This is set out in the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.”

Many local authorities have been using them for years to reduce the problems of street drinking – Doncaster, for instance first adopted a Cumulative Impact Policy in January 2008.

It would appear that we have been misled for many years, and told that nothing could be done when the reverse is the case.

Had our licensing committee members been better informed and more on the ball, a lot of what are now serious problems for Boston could have been nipped in the bud – as could another problem highlighted in our next story …

***

Beneath the unappetising headline “No pee, no poo, no go,” Boston Borough Council alerted us to the news that “a lane off one of Boston’s most historic streets is being used as a test bed for areas requiring drastic action to combat anti-social behaviour.”

Apparently all attempts so far (whatever they might have been) to persuade people not to use Archers Lane, off Wormgate, as an open-air toilet have failed.

“Now one end of the lane, nicknamed “poo corner” (and we thought that they were taking it seriously!)  has been temporarily fenced off, physically preventing access …

“The ‘gated’ lane will test the effectiveness of denying access. Gating orders are not normally issued,” trumpets the council

The latter sentence is a complete understatement.

The council’s B-TACky committee considered the suggestion of a gating order to deal with problems in Punchbowl Lane a couple of years or so ago.

A report at the time said: “Research undertaken by Lincolnshire County Council’s Countryside Access Manager showed that gating orders were principally driven by the police and/or Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) teams and used as a last resort to address crime and anti-social behaviour.  The impact on a right of way’s legitimate users and the alternative routes they would need to use, together with a lack of formally reported incidents, were the primary reasons gating orders were not pursued. 

“Research also showed that liaison would be needed with neighbours to take security measures and a gating order would be funded by those immediately affected ...  In addition, the legislation required evidence that other solutions to reduce identified problems had been considered.”

Whilst the problem is doubtless an unpleasant one, we are not sure that a back of the fag packet solution is the answer.

The thin end of this particular wedge was hammered in some time ago.

Where people congregated on neighbourhood community benches – whether or not they caused trouble – the council ripped them up.

Where homeless people camped out in bushes the council hacked them down.

When shrubbery in the park was used as an open air toilet the council dug it out.

The outcome was to turn areas of the town which were formerly pleasant to view and which added to the town’s amenity value into unwelcoming wastelands.

Now the idea is to make some parts of Boston a no-go area – without any real authority.

What next?

Local checkpoint controls and body searches to flush out the town’s toilet terrorists?

***

Mention of B-TACky reminds us that something approaching democracy and transparency seems to have slipped past the committee.

Last week we remarked on how a promised public meeting on the future of Garfit’s Park had somehow morphed into the doling out of an easy to manipulate questionnaire and a “drop-in” meeting for locals to share their opinions with a couple of committee members.

In the spirit of Winston Churchill’s famous claim that history is written by the victors all members of B-TACky have now been e-mailed to “assist” their considerations for future options for the recreation area.

They have been told that “a survey and drop in session have been arranged to support a future public meeting with the community and BTAC members” and that “it is hoped that the consultation survey responses will be helpful to BTAC members in preparation for the future public meeting to discuss future management options for the site.”

The drop in session will be held at St Thomas’ Church Hall this coming Wednesday 16^th July from 3pm to 7pm.

***

Boston Borough Council set a dangerous precedent earlier this week with the publication of a Meteorological Office and Environment Agency weather warning on its website.

A "yellow warning" for the possibility of heavy rain on Tuesday talked of the chance of localised instances of minor surface water flooding.

As this warning was clearly spotted on a weekday and during working hours, someone must have felt that it was worth a few brownie points to dump on to the borough’s website.

The problem here is if it creates a sense of expectation among readers, who may well turn to the borough for this type of information in the future – but will not find it if the warning is issued after 5pm or at weekends.

Best leave this sort of thing to the experts – although having said that the prediction followed the usual pattern where the Met Office in concerned, and the rain failed to materialise.

Which made the warning sound like the council crying wolf.

***

It seems that Boston Borough Council is perfectly happy burying its head in the sand where industrial relations are concerned.

Yesterday saw a major strike by several local government unions.

In Lincolnshire, it was the lead story on the BBC’s local news pages, and also topped the national news agenda for the BBC and Sky.

A number of district council websites warned about the possibility of disruption to services, as did Lincolnshire County Council.

But in Boston … nothing, nada, zilch, bupkis, diddly squat.

Of course, Boston is the borough council whose staff famously “voted with their hearts and their minds” to accept a rubbish terms and conditions deal which – had they rejected it – would have seen them sacked en masse.

Doubtless no one went on strike either.

And we are sure that those who did donated a day’s pay to the borough's war memorial obelisk fund!

  

***

Not surprisingly, the match between Lincolnshire County Council’s Highways Department and Boston drivers using John Adams Way and Main Ridge went into extra time, having been due for completion at the end of last week.

We say it was not surprising because of the days spent apparently without any sign of activity, and on the occasions when work was seen to be done it was often of the “one man digs a hole whilst four others look on” variety.

At least the work maintains the tradition of other areas of Boston which says that any newly-laid surfaces must accumulate plenty of water each time it rains.

Incidentally, the floristry adorning the picture is nothing to do with Boston in Bloom.

You are simply seeing how weeds crowd the street everywhere except in the town centre.

***

After that, it came as no real shock that a reading of the thrillingly named State of the County Roads – a report by Lincolnshire County Council confirmed our worst fears.

The percentage of the unclassified road network that reached an acceptable standard was just 68% in the south and east of the county – which includes our bit – compared with 74% for the north (the Lincoln bit) and 72% for the west … broadly the Grantham area.

And the report also said that just 34% of the unclassified road network was at an “acceptable standard.”

As far as potholes are concerned, permanent repairs were made to 9,229 potholes during April – 4,361 in the east, 2,614 in the north, 1,422 in the west and 832 in the south.

Boston provided rich pickings for the county traffic wardens in January.

There were 1,198 tickets issued in Lincoln, 598 in East Lindsey, 419 in Boston, 264 South Kesteven,  238 in South Holland, 150 in North Kesteven and  just 72 in West Lindsey.

If so many people were ticketed in Boston, why is it a) that we seldom see anyone out and about doing the job, and b) why are people still parking wherever they like regardless?

It seems that the only effect of civil parking enforcement – for Boston at any rate – is to provide shed-loads of cash for county hall whilst doing nothing to ease parking problems in the town

Two other interesting snippets that explain things quite well are also in the report ...

Only one in three road works in Lincolnshire are commissioned by the council ...

And  84% of the county’s highways contractors have performed to “a high standard” – which means that 16% haven’t.

***

click to enlarge photo

We always like it when people nail their colours – in this case blue – to the mast … but not when it serves to underline the poor deal that Boston gets from the Lincolnshire County Council Highwaymen.

Councillor Richard Davies, the council’s portfolio holder for highways – the one who came dressed as Bob the Builder for the opening of the new St Botolph’s Bridge – alerted internet users to the report on his Facebook page.

Whilst it’s one thing to encourage his followers to “Get the facts about the state of Lincolnshire’s roads …” we think that it is something else entirely to add the exhortation “make Grantham a better place to live, work and raise a family. www.votedavies.co.uk.”.”

***

* Not a dicky bird

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com