The dispute had been going on for three years, and began
after the pond was built. Complaints about noise from the pump were resolved
but the feud escalated when the neighbours took offence at plastic herons, a
Santa Claus figure and a 1½ foot Saudi Arabian flag that it was claimed was hung above the pond to
protect their koi carp but which the complainants said was put up to
‘intimidate’ them.
After regular complaints to the police and Boston Borough
Council about the ‘offensive’ items, Worst Street tried to end the dispute by
asking the warring neighbours to sign an Anti-Social Behaviour contract. When
the pond owners refused, the council sought an injunction against them.
After a number of county court hearings, the case ended up
at the High Court of Justice in
Birmingham.
The court ruling
stated that the neighbours complaining abut the pond and decorations ‘harboured
irrational thoughts about the significance of the display of the Saudi Arabian
flag’ – which they complained to the council about 11 times.
Judge Jane George stated that the distress caused by the
objects was down to the complainants’ ‘irrational and in some respects frankly
bizarre interpretation of what things meant.’
The court ruled that an injunction should be enforced
against the pond owners to stop them from hanging items in their garden ‘in
plain sight of the neighbours’ property’ but said that they should ‘not be
prevented from hanging items over the pond’ should they wish to do so.’
***
The sting in the tail was that the pond owners were ordered
to pay 60 per-cent of the £62,000 cost of the case – which came to just
over £37,000.
The balance – just under £25,000 – will come out of council
coffers … which means our coffers.
Judge George criticised both parties for not being able to
settle their differences and costing taxpayers, what she called an 'inordinate amount of public money.'
***
As we have often said in the past, Worst Street is a great
believer in the iron fist in the iron glove when it comes to dealing with the public
– especially when the sledgehammer is
uses to crack nuts with is not easily within reach.
Not only that, but its track record is less than glittering
when it comes using higher ‘courts’ in the widest sense – especially when
applicants appeal against its refusal to grant planning permission...
***
The East Lincolnshire Community Safety Partnership – which
comprises Boston Borough, East Lindsey and South Holland district councils – defines anti-social behaviour as ‘anything that affects a person’s quality of
life.’
“It is defined in the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and
Policing Act (2014) as “a person causing alarm, harassment or distress to any
person.” It includes all behaviour which impacts negatively on other people’s
lives in and around our community.
In order, it lists as examples of anti-social behaviour ...
• Verbal abuse
• Shouting and swearing
• Graffiti
• Vehicle related nuisance
• Fighting
• Drunken behaviour
• Throwing stones/eggs at windows
• Litter and vandalism
• Abusive neighbours
***
Frankly, it seems to us to be something of a stretch to
include a spat over a fish pond even in the lattermost category.
But then Worst Street does love to throw its weight about
doesn’t it?
***
The decision to order Boston Borough Council to pay a large chunk of the costs suggests that Worst Street was considered to have played
a role in this fiasco. So, if things had turned out slightly differently, the
cost to council tax payers could have been considerably more.
***
So who takes these decisions to hurl huge amounts of our
council tax at precarious legal challenges?
Presumably, the officers at Worst Street.
Do they discuss it with councillors?
Presumably not – as several members of the Cabinet and a number of ordinary councillors knew nothing about it.
Is it us – or does something seem a little awry here?
***
Since last we blogged, two items that we have banged on
about over the years re-emerged as if by magic … giving us – if nothing else –
a distinct feeling of déjà vu.
***
The first concerned the appalling state of the £750,000 St
Botolph’s footbridge with – according to one local report – the councillor in
charge of Boston’s Town Centre Nigel Welton expressing “frustration” over the
grime that has built up since the bridge was opened in 2015.
“It’s dirty, it looks
horrible,” he told the online Lincolnshire
Reporter.
“It’s covered in green mould.
“That’s the gateway from the coach station and the car park
that side into town.
“Once you get on the bridge you don’t notice it but from a
distance it just looks dirty and it’s a brand new bridge.”
According to the report, Richard Waters, Clownty Hall
principal engineer (structures), said the authority was aware of the algae and
aimed to have it cleaned ‘over the summer.’
He said: “Unfortunately, this isn’t as straightforward as it
may sound, and we are having to source specialist equipment that will allow us
to reach the extremities of the bridge with a pressure washer.”
***
Whilst this sounds fairly positive, the e-mail on the issue
from Clownty Hall was far from constructive.
It read: “Our structures team have already discussed this
with Boston Borough Council and are planning to clean it this summer, but it is a low priority.
“Additionally, and in addition to planned works, they are
having a run of things falling
down/getting knocked down which are taking priority.”
If the warm weather and neglect by Base Camp Lincoln, we
fear that this is how things might look before too long.
***
Someone who read the e-mail commented: “It’s not quite what
we expected. I’m not sure I want to ask what is falling down or getting knocked
down, but I have not been made aware of or seen anything falling down in Boston
– so it must be in Lincoln. “The only thing I can think of is the County’s standards
… which have definitely fallen down.”
***
It does seem to be the case that Lincoln’s attempts to
‘improve’ Boston invariably go pear-shaped.
The Market Place ‘regeneration’ is a classic example where
the result of a £2 million revamp has left us with a mishmash that is neither
use nor ornament and which already looks disappointing and tired.
***
The problem with the footbridge was evident from the word go.
After a so-called public consultation in which a total of 143 people voted, the most popular
choice was declared to be “bowstring” design with 57 people preferring it.
Conveniently, we understand that this was also the cheapest
and easiest to install options on offer.
***
Runner-up was a ‘traditional’ design which with hindsight
people appear to consider far more appropriate and in harmony with the historic
surroundings which we are always making such a fuss about. Not only that, but maintenance would have been
simple – even to the point of being within the
scope of enthusiastic volunteers. That received a stonking 51 votes.
Lagging in third place with 50 votes was a scaled down
version of the big bowstring – which whilst smaller would still have been
difficult to clean.
The bridge opened in February 2014 – and the first
complaints came in February last year.
A letter to a local ‘newspaper’ lamented: “I got in touch
with the county council, whose responsibility it is and was told they were
aware of the problem but budgeting meant it was a low priority so would probably
be another year before they would even think about getting round to it … what a
pity nobody in their extremely well paid jobs thought to cost in the occasional
scrub.”
***
As far as the second item that caught our eye is concerned …
we hate to say we told you so BUT …
We told you so!
A recent report – Who Governs Britain – authored by our
local MP Matt Warman and published by the prestigious think-tank the Centre for
Policy Studies commissioned a wide-ranging survey on confidence in the various
democratic institutions in Britain.
Rather, we should say a lack of confidence – with 40% of
those polled saying that they had “no faith at all” in their MP to do the right
thing if they had reason to contact them with an issue.
If you want to read the report in full, you will find a copy
here
***
Further down the political food chain – and apparently ‘as
expected,’ – support for government was greater the closer it was to the
individuals concerned.
“Some 54% of people would trust their parish council and 56%
their district/county/borough council to do right by them, vs. 18% and 25% who
would not trust them at all,” reported Mr Warman.
“But when it comes to Westminster, the balance is 42% to 40%
trust to distrust.”
But don’t run away with the idea that everything in the
garden closest to home is rosy.
“What these findings say is that across every level of
government, a maximum of 9% of Britons have an adequate level of trust that
they will be treated fairly in their dealings with it.”
***
In his report, Mr Warman suggests a series of new laws to
improve accountability, including the right to know which elected official is
ultimately responsible for a decision in any public-sector body.
He concludes: “Our polling shows us the public do not feel
elected officials truly represent them, and worse still if they do there’s no
confidence that politicians would act in the best interest of their
communities.”
***
Somehow, we don’t think that many politicians at whatever
level will lose sleep over this.
But locally is where things really tend to matter –
especially now that most of the effort at Westminster appears not to be the
organisation of a smooth and no-nonsense departure from Europe, but a jostling
for position to see who can become the next leader, and a wilful disregard for
the decision of the Brexit referendum
***
As we said in the last Boston
Eye, Boston Borough Council appears to revel in being secretive and deliberately out of touch with the
voters who give them power.
As a for instance, we highlighted the fact that it had taken
three and a half years to find a ‘news’ story about a councillor doing what
people expect of them.
***
We were prepared to be taken to task over this – and we
were.
One councillor described a ward workload which – combined
with committee duties – was time-consuming indeed.
***
But we stand by the comments we made – that Worst Street has
a responsibility to the people who pay for its very existence – to tell
them what the council … i.e. the elected members and officers … are doing.
***
A good example emerged after our last blog – where we showed
that Worst Street failed to highlight questions to a full council meeting.
Because of the leisurely, laid back life adopted by members
and senior officers alike, it will take 77
days before taxpayers learn the answers.
***
Why does this matter?
It matters because involvement in local democracy is tightly
entailed with communication.
I.e. – tell people
what you do that is useful to them and they will respond with their involvement.
We felt that our argument had been vindicated when – after
our remarks about the volley of questions asked at the last council meeting we
were given sight of responses relating to the town centre.
They included news of seven new stainless steel benches
recently installed in Boston Market Place, a multi-use games area in Central
Park, the replacement of 90 litter bins over the next 12 months which are
expected to deal effectively with cigarette related litter.
There was also news of more street vacuuming, chewing gum
and graffiti removal, new signage and more work to enhance the ‘green’ look of
the town.
***
Most councils would be proud of this and want to shout it
from the rooftops – but not Worst Street which apparently tries equally to bury the good
news along with the bad.
***
Recently we have even seen councillors trying to enhance the bad
news that inhabits the Worst Street civic body like fleas on a dog’s coat.
A sensible idea from the Preposterous Boston Task and Finish
Group when it sought ideas for the future of the town’s market was to ask
pupils from local schools.
But when the students’ reports reached a council committee,
two members – ironically both with backgrounds in education – were unsparing in
their criticism of a suggestion of a welcome arch to signpost the market.
Councillor Jonathan Noble said: "I think it's an absolutely
bonkers idea.
"The market place is the centre of the town, the centre
of town's not very big, everybody knows where the market place is."
Later, he said he was very impressed by most of the ideas
put forward, but didn’t agree with this particular one
He called it "an insult to people's intelligence"
and said it was not an "effective use of taxpayers' money".
Councillor Stephen Woodliffe, added that he thought the idea was "rather tacky".
Councillor Stephen Woodliffe, added that he thought the idea was "rather tacky".
Subsequently, a head teacher of one of the schools involved
hit back.
Andrew Fulbrook of Boston High School said the comments were
‘ill-advised and shameful.’
“I understand people have different opinions and that people
share their opinions, but we are talking about a group of students who have
worked collectively across four schools – all trying to put Boston on the map.”
He said it was also unfair to focus on the negative comments
when the vast majority of people involved had been very supportive and the
children had engaged positively with local government.
***
Another member of the committee also weighed into his
council colleagues – calling their remarks ‘outrageous and unacceptable.’
“Clearly they do not understand the business of market
trading,” said Councillor Barrie Pierpoint. “Nor do they have any
entrepreneurial acumen or marketing expertise to offer. The four schools'
presentation far outweighed any positive input that those two particular councillors
have ever given.”
He continued: These two councillors should publicly
apologise to the schools for their misplaced comments, which are themselves
‘tacky’' and ‘a waste-of-time.’
“Praise where praise is due – those schoolchildren from the
four schools gave outstanding presentations and really made me look at the
markets in a different light too, even though I am a businessman.
“We should be encouraging our young entrepreneurs to take
more interest in our community, and not make negative comments about their
findings and solutions.
“Well done to all the schools - a great effort.”
***
Even Boston Borough Council found it prudent to put its oar
in – with an item on WorstWeb
criticising the critical councillors.
It said: “Two members of the committee spoke against the
idea. The remaining committee approved the recommendation and to take this
along with six more recommendations before Cabinet on Wednesday, September 5th
2018.
“The committee recognised and agree the importance of the
contribution of the four schools within the consultation process and the
quality of their reporting.
“Chair of scrutiny, Councillor Judith Skinner said: “Myself
and other members of the Task and Finish group highly valued the input from the
schools and I am extremely disappointed at the other members of the group that
made negative comment.”
***
Meanwhile, WorstWeb
has had an uneasy relationship with real life in its efforts to make the
council look good.
A report headed ‘Hold
the front page’ told us … “Boston Borough Council made the front and inside
pages of last week's Boston Standard...
for a good reason.
“Three members of staff, a former staff member and a
councillor were featured for their involvement in a gruelling charity challenge – swimming the River Witham from Lincoln to Boston. A photograph of the five
swimmers in the shadow of the Stump dominated the front page with more pictures
and an uplifting article on pages 8 and 9.”
We’re grateful to the powers that b’aint for that little
morsel.
Without it, we wouldn’t have known – because there was no
mention whatever about Boston Borough Council or its staff.
***
Then there was the invitation to ‘Get down to the Central
Park beach.’
Worst Street told us: “It's the hottest, sunniest summer for
years, so get down to the beach.
“But you don't have to face the journey to Skeg. The beach
is here, now, in Boston at Central Park …”
We think that we can guess the reaction in Boston if a
market in Skegness was promoted using the suggestion that there was no need to
take the trouble to drive to Boston.
***
Then there was the attempt to be helpful using someone else’s
jargon.
A warning of a possible heat wave was presented thus on WorstWeb …
“There is a 90% risk of high confidence that threshold
temperatures will be reached. Temperatures will be hot and humid through the
daytime. Thresholds are increasingly likely to be exceeded through the period,
and staying above overnight thresholds.”
A translation would have been helpful, wethinks – as would
have been a mention of the possible temperatures!
***
A regular reader has raised an interesting query about how
Boston presents itself.
An e-mail says: “Passing the Parkgate at 5.15 pm the other Saturday
I saw a well soaked, large mobile visitbostonuk.com advert – which brought the following question to mind: How
effective is that site? Once you can see the advert there, surely you are
already visiting Boston.
“Is this a good use of our council tax or any other monies
invested in the unit?
“Most people will be able to suggest at least one other more
appropriate and effective site for such advertising. (Perhaps the car park at Councillor
Rylott's favourite golf club.)
After sleeping on it, our reader added: “Maybe the sign in the
park was not advertising 'Visit Boston' but merely begging people to visit the
internet site visitbostonuk.com.
“Whatever; it looked very washed out after a shower. Hardly
encouraging anyone to get excited about Boston in any form.”
***
Finally, we are told of a landmark calendar date for one of our
councillors who enjoys a role at Lincolnshire County Council as well.
“Two years since I left work,” declares a piece on Twitter. “(I)
have done so much it feels like much longer.”
It's good to hear of all that hard work going on in the chambers of Boston
and Lincoln.
Our holiday/silly season fortnightly publication schedule
continues – and our next blog will be on Monday 20th August.
You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com
E– mails will be treated in
confidence and published anonymously if requested.
Our former blog is archived at:
http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com
We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston
No comments:
Post a Comment