Fallout from last week’s fractious full council meeting  – which sounds as though it more closely resembled  a classroom from which teacher has been called away  that rapidly descends into  the kindergarten  atmosphere that we all remember from our childhood than a meeting of minds dedicated to the service of the people of Boston through mature governance and civilised debate.

This week sees the announcement of the RESIGNATION of the UKIP group leader and party veteran Sue Ransome … CLARIFICATION  of Labour’s position within the uneasy set up at Worst Street … and a further BITE BACK by UKIP’s current  deputy leader.

  

***

Councillor Ransome’s statement was short and to the point:

“I have stood down as Leader of the UKIP Group, due to a 'leadership style disagreement'.

“I will still be a UKIP Lincolnshire County Councillor, a Boston Borough and also Kirton Parish Councillor.  I will still work hard for the people who have elected me and continue to fly the flag for UKIP as I have for the last fifteen years.

“Anyone, in the County Division of Boston East, Station Ward of Boston Borough or the Parish of Kirton can contact me with any concerns and I will endeavour to assist them.”

***

Sadly her decision echoes earlier problems encountered by UKIP after elections in 2013 for the county and the borough, which saw the party fragment and individual members change their political names.

The result was that nothing other than acrimony was achieved to the disbenefit of the councils concerned, and their electors.

It seems to us that the best way forward for UKIP now is to determine what its members want to achieve for the people of Boston and to set that as their sole target and forget about internal wrangling.

But, somehow, we don’t think that this will happen.

*** 

Last week’s criticism by UKIP Deputy Leader Councillor Paul Noble prompted a lengthy response from Councillor Paul Gleeson – Labour’s group leader … 

***

Clarification continued when Councillor Noble told us that car parking revenue figures he quoted  at last week’s full council meeting were correct – despite accusations by Finance supremo Aaron, Councillor Spencer, and “indirectly” by Conservative running dog Councillor Alison Austin, of supplying or quoting inaccurate information on this issue to back up his arguments.

Quite why these people feel that they are so clever and that everyone else – especially newly arrived UKIP councillors – are either idiots or liars defeats any kind of logic.

Sadly the smug Spencer/Austin duet overlook the fact that once upon a time they were new to local politics – but now regard length of service as conferring some sort of right to be offensive in a way which normal, reasonable, polite and civil people would not –  and which, sadly, they believe constitutes ‘politics.’

We call it the “I’m a councillor …” syndrome – uttered in a voice which implies that this makes an individual someone special, rather than merely being someone who has offered themselves for public service.

***

A similar – and surprisingly smug response – came when talk turned to UKIP’s proposals about traffic problems at the Monday meeting, from a newly elected and still wet behind the ears Labour councillor.

Nigel Welton – who despite his inexperience is vice-chairman of the environment and performance committee – declared that a task group had already been set up to look at parking in Boston.

This, apparently, was enough for him to claim that Councillor Noble was merely seeking a sound bite in the Boston sub-Standard.

And if this was  not enough to underline his naivety, he reportedly blustered on … “If Councillor Noble has no confidence in procedures that this council has in place, maybe he has no right being here.”

Smug idiot alert …

Councillor Noble’s right to be in the council chamber is precisely the same as that of Councillor Welton – in that both men stood for election and were successful.

The difference between the two in terms of status, is that Councillor Welton is the fortunate beneficiary of an arrangement between the Labour and the Tory groups … and as the only other Labour card  in the Worst Street pack of jokers now has a status that might not have come his way otherwise.

***

Google Street view

The other interesting piece of fallout came in an intervention from the normally well-informed and erudite council ‘leader’ Pete ‘Nipper’ Bedford.

When Councillor Noble suggested that a house on Sleaford Road which prohibits the smooth passage of traffic using Sleaford Road – and the access to ASDA and a couple of doctors’ surgeries – could be demolished, ‘Nipper’ was quick to intervene to declare that the house in question was Grade I listed and “must stay.”

Wrong!

The house in question – number 5 Sleaford Road – was listed on 13^th March 1996 during the seemingly endless debate over the building of  the (then) new ASDA store.

At times it almost looked as though the whole project would stall, as the council kept asking for minor tweaks, and we became embroiled in a debate about rearranging things in order to save a cherished monkey puzzle tree from being felled.

The house that now stands so inconveniently in the way of traffic using Sleaford Road was one of a number of similar buildings.

Ridiculously, they were believed to be so important that although some would have reluctantly to be demolished, just one should remain as a “specimen” to show what had been sacrificed  – which was then listed … Grade II and not Grade I.

As far as the leader’s edict that this means the house “must stay,” there ought to be room for manoeuvre in the name of common sense.

There are specific criteria for listing buildings.

Briefly,  these cover architectural interest, historic interest, historic association, and group value ... which applies to buildings that form part of an "architectural ensemble."

Number 5 Sleaford Road was built around 1830, and  whilst the criteria say that most buildings built between 1700 and 1840 are listed, after 1840 more selection is exercised –  with only buildings of “definite quality and character” designed to include the major works of principal architects likely to qualify ... so the place could fairly be said to be borderline.

None of the main criteria apply to the house.

"Architectural interest" relates to buildings of importance because of their design, decoration and craftsmanship. 

That’s a clear no-no.

"Buildings of historic interest" illustrate an aspect of the nation's social, economic, cultural or military history.

Nope.

And "historic association" refers to buildings that demonstrate close historical association with nationally important people or events.

Three strikes ... and you’re out.

Like us, by now you might be wondering why this building was ever listed to begin with – and we suspect that the dead hand of Worst Street was meddling in there somewhere.

But all is not lost.

At the time of listing the interior of the building was not inspected, and its subsequent uses have rendered it increasingly unattractive.

It is not impossible to apply for listed building consent to remove such an eyesore, and we see little reason why this could not be done.

Government guidelines say that demolition of historic buildings is seldom necessary “for reasons of good planning” – which certainly do not apply here –  but more often is a result of neglect or the failure to make imaginative efforts to find new uses for them or to incorporate them into a new development … which fits the bill perfectly.

Just think how much more easily traffic would flow in and out of Boston with a roundabout where this ugly bottleneck now causes such huge problems.

***

 

It looks as though Boston is losing out at the hands of Lincolnshire County Council yet again.

Regular readers will recall that as part of the Boston Barrier scheme, Clownty Hall set aside £11 million towards keeping water at consistent levels between Grand Sluice and Black Sluice Pumping Station.

There were said to be considerable economic benefits attached to this, as it would attract more waterborne visitors and also make possible Boston’s entry into the ambitious Fens Waterways Link, which would create a major new network of non-tidal waterways between Lincoln, Boston, Peterborough, Cambridge and Ely.

However, as money got tighter, Head Office decided earlier this year to adopt a “phased approach” – which means the postponement of the water management scheme that would have kept levels constant.

The official line is that this means some benefits will be felt sooner, and the barrier will open on time.

“The initial steps we are looking at include creating new or improving existing facilities to increase access to the Haven and the availability of moorings in and around Boston,” said a spokesman.

Whatever benefits may accrue, it now seems most unlikely that Boston will ever see the big plan come to fruition.

Whilst the county’s excuse sounds plausible, it also rings somewhat hollow given the news that Lincolnshire County Council has been working for years on a £900,000 scheme to create 110 metres of new commercial moorings and 60 metres of leisure moorings along the west bank of the River Nene – and has now submitted plans to South Holland District Council.

This time, the official line is that: “Sutton Bridge is something of a forgotten gateway into Lincolnshire.

“Through the development of the marina we aim to reverse this by creating an arrival point for boaters and an interesting attraction for those passing on the A17.

“We hope the development will provide a significant boost to the local economy, something that will benefit businesses and residents alike.”

Hmmm.

***

Whilst the news that councils in England will be able to keep the proceeds of their business rates is excellent, you can never be sure what it might mean in Boston.

We worry that here, any windfall will soon vanish into vanity projects such as the Moulder Leisure Centre and the PRSA – or may even see the creation of new ones.

Interestingly, the plans will give councils the scope to charge less than at present,  which is predicted to see authorities “competing” for business by offering lower rates than their neighbours.

Given Boston’s track record, we fear that things will only get worse.

***

After last week’s mention of the Assembly Rooms and the flying of flags, we are told that information on the days that flags are flown appear on the club’s website ... such as http://www.assembly-rooms.co.uk/dukeofcambridge/   and that the next one in the diary will of course be Remembrance Day!

***

Town Centre portfolio holder Councillor Paul Skinner has continued his policy of asking others to do his job for him with an appeal in the Boston Sub-Standard to talk Boston UP not DOWN.

This is all well and good – but we have to say that talk is not enough, and that action is necessary.

Councillor Skinner falls back on a list of attractions which the town has dined out on for decades – Boston Stump, and the twice weekly market … rather like an old soldier endlessly retelling his part in some ancient battle.

To this he adds membership of Die Hansa, which we fear will do little for the town other than provide some interesting jollies for its councillors, and the signing of the Mayflower Compact, which will see councils work together in the run-up to the 400^th anniversary of the departure of the Pilgrim Fathers from Plymouth – an episode of historic drama in which Boston’s role is as an ingénue rather than a star performer.

We think that one of the biggest problems highlighted by Councillor Skinner’s list of things that have been done is the way that the council loots other peoples’ bank accounts.

So far it has managed to grab £67,000 of the £1 million Boston Big Local’s funding in just two years.

And for what?

 … To fund Boston in Bloom for instance – although quite how our meagre displays compared with others earned a gold award is anyone’s guess. Check out the pictures like the one on the left (not Boston!) on the internet if you doubt our words.

 … To fund a vacuum cleaner to suck up discarded cigarette ends – and now to supply pocket ashtrays.

A nanny council move,  if ever we heard of one 

For things like these, Boston Borough Council receives money to pay for  jobs which are its responsibility in the first place – funded by an organisation whose ground rules specifically prohibit such payments.

Then there is Transported  – the group name for a bunch of luvvies which enters its third and final year in a race to blow the last few quid of a £2½ million grant from the Arts Council “to increase the number of people engaging in and enjoying high quality arts experiences in Boston and South Holland.”

And if it’s money, then Boston Borough Council will be first in the queue with a wheelbarrow.

This is why we have posters and banners here, there, and everywhere – stuck on anything that stays still long enough to have something slapped on it.

The faces of “Local Heroes” will adorn our dustcarts – an unusual way of recognising the achievements of  local volunteers.

More banners will ornament the route into the town from the railway station through a “revamped” B&M  open space – for which read car park.

Only Boston Borough Council would consider that spending £3,500 to create a sand pit for two days as an attraction was money well spent – although, of course, it’s not their money.

***

Other things on Councillor Skinner’s list of triumphs (which are nothing to do with Worst Street) include a “Network Development Officer” for Boston to “further develop” business opportunities, and who has revived “the Town Team” –  whose activities are shrouded in silence. 

He also cites grant schemes to improve the look of the town centre – which have been available for years but not taken up – and “events in the Market Place” which appear to comprise the dwindling (and never publicised)  craft market.

When the Market Place was first “refurbished,” Worst Street promised a wide variety of events and entertainments – none of which have materialised.

To cap it all, Councillor Skinner declared: “I’d rather pose the question, ask not what Boston can do for you, but what can you do for Boston? We can all help by looking for the positives and talking the town up – our reputation and our perceived attractiveness depends upon it.”

If his phraseology seems familiar, then it is.

It may surprise some readers to learn that he is not exactly being original.

It is a crassly butchered version of one of the most famous quotations in  recent history – the opening words of John Kennedy’s inaugural address as the 35^th President of the United States on Friday, January 20^th  1961  following his election as the youngest ever American President.

Do we detect delusions of grandeur in Councillor Skinner, perhaps?

***

However, one thing that did amuse us in Councillor Skinner’s rant was an item of new play equipment in Central Park about which he chose to boast … 

You may need to read it a time or two, but we think that “rock and bowl duel axis roundabout"  needs amending to dual to remove the implied undertones of violence. Unless, of course, one user puts a bowl on his head whilst another hits it with a rock!

***

Finally from the world of words, a heading from a Boston Borough Council e-mail caught our eye.

Whilst in the previous administration the identity of the old bags in question might not have been too challenging to guess, we find it a little harder to identify who might be the subjects referred to this time around.

Although at least one name does spring to mind … 

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