the way the Market Place once looked - and could do again



Building grants need some sort of management

Gradually a sea of grey is emerging from the building site otherwise known as Boston Market Place, which makes it possible to see just what vast a space will emerge when the project is completed in March next year. We just hope that in due course it will not be defaced by double yellow line here, there and everywhere.
As from today an important complement to the renovation begins - a £650,000 scheme to help with the cost of restoration and repair to buildings in the area.
Most of the eligible buildings are either listed or “sensitive,” and Boston Borough Council says the availability of grants to renovate them and restore missing features, will be a huge benefit to the revitalisation of the area.
Owners of eligible properties need to be quick because the cash will be allocated on a first come-first served basis - and two levels of grant are available … a straight 50% of eligible costs for repairs and 90% for reinstatements.
Details of the scheme and advice on how to apply are available at the Guildhall from 4pm to 6pm today – and owners and tenants of eligible properties have also been invited to the official launch of the scheme at 6.30pm.
Investment will be made by English Heritage over five years, with matched funding from Boston Borough Council – and English Heritage has confirmed £120,000 for the first year of the scheme, which will initially target properties in the Market Place and Wormgate (at last!!) So with the matched funding, almost a quarter of a million is up for grabs.
We hope that a number of things will be taken into account with this scheme – the most important of which is to introduce some sort of broad management of applications.
It’s not enough to say “the money’s here – come and get it.”
Boston’s Market Place – pictured at the top of the page in its prime - is Georgian-ish which means that apart from the style of its architecture, certain colours would have predominated.
To maximise the benefit from the restoration scheme, and create an outstanding image, we think that colour should be considered an important part of any restoration of the buildings,  and people applying for grant aid should be asked to take this point on board.
The other thing is signage – note that the Market Place in its heyday had no signs hanging from buildings – all the information was presented flush to the shop frontage.
We need to see if shops can be persuaded to change their signage to something more sympathetic to the visual environment.
And despite the fact that the money is available on the “first come, first served” basis we hope that, again, some sort of management can ensure that big name chain stores with millions in the bank don’t cash in on improvements that they should be doing anyway at the expense of smaller, local, hard-pressed businesses.
As with the restoration of the Market Place, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity – and it is essential to get it right.
Just to announce a free for all when so much money is available for such important purposes imperils a unique opportunity.
Usually, people have a vision of the future that they wish to follow – but in this case a vision of the past is just as important.

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

Coffin up for the borough budget: Crem costs could soar, parking will go through the car roof - and blue badge holders may not escape ... 

Yesterday it was the turn of Chancellor George Osborne to address the financial problems facing the nation.
Today it’s  a local affair, when Boston Borough Council’s Cabinet of Curiosities hears from the borough’s  Osborne equivalent - Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire, who is presenting a draft budget setting report.
Like the head honcho in Westminster, our local chancellor faces some big problems.
Financial aid from government has been cut from £6,107,626 to £5,320,953 – and that of course means higher charges.
As with national governments, who treat drinkers, drivers and smokers as cash cows to raise the lion’s share of their income, Boston Borough Council is launching an attack along the same lines.
We’ve already seen the first skirmishes with a plan to raise allotment fees by 465% over four years. The idea is to try to force plot holders to form their own associations - and save the borough money – but it has met considerable opposition, and is now being reviewed by another of those Task and Finish groups that seem to say much and achieve little.
Then – as we disclosed last week - Boston's 18 parishes are being asked either to accept responsibility for “footway” lighting or pay £68 a light to meet the cost  - which will force parish precepts up from ... at the lowest 13.6% in Wyberton to 105.2% in Frampton ...  and save the borough tens of thousands of pounds.
Given the narrow operational scope of borough councils, there seems little room for manoeuvre when it comes to increasing prices.
So, as with central government and its penalties on drinkers, drivers and smokers, the borough has to look at how to claw in more from the few services it provides.
Step forward the quick and the dead – users of cars and crems.
A pick and mix programme of parking  increases are being proposed that could yield £126,000 in 2012/13 and £166,000 in following years.
Perhaps the most controversial  would be charging disabled Blue Badge holders, but just what is planned is unclear.
On one hand the report says: “The council would not be able to charge disabled badge holders for parking in the on street car parks such as the Market Place and Wide Bargate, but could reduce their “free” parking period from three to two hours.”
But then it goes on to add: “The estimated income from charging disabled drivers would be between £60,000 and £100,000 (assumed £80,000) dependant upon what other measures are also introduced.”
Other possibilities include a general increase of 10p across all tariffs to bring in £72,000, and increasing coach parking from £2 to £3 a day to make a further £4,000.
Then there’s the suggestion of upping tariffs in town centre short stay car parks only. They are the most used  - and so less likely to lose custom if charges go up.
An extra 10p would bring in £31,000.
Raising prices in the cheapest all day car parks from £2.10 to £2.50 would generate another £11,000,  and removing the "60p for 30 minutes" tariff in town centre car parks – except for the Market Place – would pull in a further £25,000.
The final idea is to re-introduce evening parking charges, which could gross £22,500 – although that would fall to £15,000 because of the cost of enforcement.
Whilst the report discusses charges for cremation and burial fees averaging five per-cent, this is probably because the proposal is to leave many charges unchanged.
However, the suggested rise for an adult cremation fee is £100 – from £440 to £540 – which again puts prices well ahead of Alford's  crematorium, which has steadily eroded Boston’s income since it opened a few years ago.
Obviously, these are not all the proposals – but they are likely to be among the most heavily challenged.
Once finalised, the plan is to publish the budget on the council website for consultation by all stakeholders.
It seems that we are no longer ratepayers – which is probably why someone thinks that we can be charged so much.

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

Which bright spark thought that spending £35,000 on this

was value for money?

It’s fair to say that the Market Place was never going to look good this year no matter how hard anyone tried to dress it up for Christmas.
But are we alone in thinking that with £35,000 being thrown at this year’s Christmas lights we might have expected something a little better?
Even Councillor Derek Richmond, the borough’s town centre Czar, appeared to damn them with faint praise on BBC Radio Lincolnshire ahead of Thursday’s switch-on ceremony.
“I think they’re the best value we could get,” he said. “Even with the £10,000 extra from Boston BID (bringing the total spend to £35,000) we only had two companies that could come in within our budget.”
It’s not easy to fathom out just how the cost of the lights breaks down.
We understand that the council’s £25,000 covers all costs associated with the Christmas lights.
Presumably this includes the electricity – which last year cost  £2,060.
On top of that, Boston Business Improvement District is paying an extra £10,000 this year and next.
During negotiations, big discounts were offered to the council to extend the  planned three year contract to five years - and the council is never one to miss a good deal when they see one!
The borough (that's us, the ratepayers) will pay £25,000 for the five years of the contract.  Boston BID will contribute £20,000 in total - £10,000 this year and next - bringing the total to £145,000.
At the time of the new contract, we were told that some of the lights in use last year were as much as 40 years old – which suggested that they were owned by the council rather than hired … but if that was the case .... why was the annual cost so high?
Given that the new lights are available on a five year deal, does this mean that they are “rented” – in which case they work out very expensive.
The company which was awarded the contract – Festive Lighting – displays a selection of lights for different budgets on its website – which you can see below …

click on photo to see enlargement

The “large” budget examples are priced at £20,000-plus, and given that the borough is spending almost twice that amount, we would have expected to see quite a lot more for our money.
So would our readers.

My expectations may have been goaded to an unreasonable level by an ever enthusing Councillor Richmond over the airwaves of Radio Lincolnshire, but I'm afraid to say the new lighting scheme represents an expensive lack of imagination. An expensive lack of imagination which perfectly reflects that of our august council in just about every other area. A very effective visual aid, I have to say.

Very disappointing, but a perfect compliment to the already very drab and equally disappointing Market Place revamp. 

Amongst other things, I fail to see the point in decorating what is essentially a construction site (Market place) and a place most people go out of their way now to avoid, with Christmas lighting.

One of our readers sent in the following photos which perfectly illustrate the comments above.

click on photo to see enlargement

We accept that the predictable reaction of many of our readers will be to say that Boston Eye is simply criticising for its own sake -  but we wonder how many of our councillors could put their hands on their hearts and say that they are really pleased with this much-hyped display, and feel that it is good value for money?

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

Don't let BID and borough council stall until time runs out

Last week we looked back at the minutes of September’s full council meeting  - and the persistent but fruitless attempts by Independent Councillor Richard Leggott to make some headway regarding the town’s useless Business Improvement District.
His questions then were rebuffed by the portfolio holder responsible for the BID, Councillor Derek Richmond – and the same has now happened at the most recent council meeting  a week ago today.
Councillor Leggott was one of the five members of the Task and Finish Group which met more than a year ago  - and concluded that the BID was guilty of lack of communication and management.
The other members of the group were fellow independent Councillor Brian Rush, and three Conservative councillors – although the Tories were not in power at the time – joint deputy leaders Michael Brookes and Raymond Singleton-McGuire and cabinet member Mike Gilbert.
Councillor Leggott says that one of the worrying aspects of the BID issue is “the present silence of some of the other members of that Task and Finish group who … identified the serious communication problem then existing within the BID project.
“Whether those members are, behind the scenes-within the confines of their cabinet office, making similar noises to myself I do not know. Not a peep to me from any of them on the matter.
“It would seem that Task and Finish is taken by some to mean Task and Forget.”
In response to questions, Councillor Richmond  has clung to the line that he has invited the BID manager to portfolio holder meetings on about a monthly basis.
This, he maintains, “ensures that both BID and the council are ensuring as far as possible that we are as coordinated in terms of town centre projects and related work and that we weren't being duplicating (sic) - and that this will continue to happen.
“But I didn’t, nor do I intend to have regular meetings with the BID board to discuss their business, that’s not for me to do.”
Later, he said: “I do not monitor BID, I do not believe that is within my remit, it wasn't done in the past and nowhere in the Task and Finish report does it state that I or anybody else should be doing this. As it should be, BID themselves will update the Scrutiny Committee in March.”
Councillor Leggott detects a discrepancy between the claims that Councillor Richmond - on the one hand invites the BID manager to approximately monthly meetings - whilst simultaneously claiming that he doesn’t intend to have regular meetings with the company.
Councillor Leggott has e-mailed all elected members to express concerns that there seems to be no interest in any ongoing monitoring of measures to improve the communication problems identified within Boston BID.
“Turn it out to grass and assume it is improving seems to be the attitude,” he says.
“Having sat on the task and finish group and heard the differing of opinion from the BID board and some of the participating businesses as to the level of the problem and the damage the same problem was doing to the chances of participants wholly embracing the scheme (necessary for its success)  I believe that our leaders could, justifiably, be 'in there' watching (and perhaps praying) for signs of improvement before next spring.
“But, given Councillor Richmond’s reply, that looks unlikely to happen.”
Interestingly, Boston Borough Council’s attitude toward Boston BID contrasts sharply with that of Lincoln City Council and Lincoln BIG – the Business Improvement Group.
The council repeatedly uses the word partnership in discussion documents, and entrusts the BIG with major tasks.
Compare the situation in Boston, where the council sits idly by whilst the BID undertakes projects that were once its responsibility, thus saving it money.
But worse still, it seems never to check whether the job has been done properly.
Councillor Leggott is right to press for the BID to be called to account within the twelve months allocated by the Task and Finish group.
Indeed, we would have thought that the group had reasonably assumed BID would take steps to address the major flaws identified in its operation before the review date.
He is also right to question why the Tory members of the reporting group seem happy to let sleeping BIDs lie now that they are in power.

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  

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

Boston Borough Council may have ambitious plans to generate its own electricity to save thousands of pounds, but the parish councils that it bills for what it calls “footway” lighting – to distinguish it from street lights, which are the responsibility of the county council, are in for an electric shock of their own. A “briefing document” to the parishes asks them either to accept responsibility for the lighting or else pay £68 a light to meet the cost. This will have the effect of raising parish precepts from – at the lowest 13.6% in Wyberton to 105.2% in Frampton. One parish councillor told us: “Whilst I can understand Boston Borough Council trying to sort out the financial hole it is in, I wonder what the response will be to parish councils who refuse ... or dim or turn off their lights during certain hours?
It’s exactly a month to Christmas Day – and our congratulations go to local businessman Darron Abbott for persuading a number of our borough councillors to form a choir to entertain visitors to the Christmas Market weekend on Sunday December 11th. Councillors volunteering so far are Carol Taylor, Derek Richmond, Paul Kenny, Paul Gleeson, Mike Gilbert and Judith Skinner – and we understand that joint deputy leader Michael Brookes has also agreed to take part. According to the publicity, Councillor Taylor may attend dressed as a Christmas pudding! We felt that not only did this lend an entirely different meaning to the phrase “Carol singing” – but it sent us to the drawing board for an artist’s impression  - see our picture on the left! As Mr Abbott  has invited all councillors to take part, we hope that more volunteers will be forthcoming – otherwise we’ll all know who the gloomy ones are!   He said: “It will give the councillors a chance to show the public they are up for a bit of fun and are prepared to muck in.  In these times of doom and gloom it will be nice to show Boston has community spirit.” How true – and may we add that we hope that seeing Tory, Labour, Independent and BDI councillors all singing from the same song sheet may be the shape of things to come.
Talking of singing from the same song sheet, we see that the group leaders on Boston Borough Council have written to local MP Mark Simmonds urging that he again asks Communities Secretary Eric Pickles for more money because of the pressure on services from the “rapid and significant” population change since 2004 caused by the influx of migrant workers. Does this mean that the council is losing faith in the likelihood of a result from the meetings that have taken place to date? And surely, Mr Simmonds shouldn’t need prompting to do his job … should he?
On the issue of Boston and immigration, we mentioned on Tuesday how the BBC locally had a field day this time last week with more than 15 minutes’ airtime across two radio shows and one TV programme to say absolutely nothing new about the matter. This didn’t stop them wheeling out two MEPs on Wednesday to react at length to the news that a Latvian living in Boston who killed another migrant whilst drink driving was a convicted murderer in his home country. The reason why he was able to come here could adequately be summarised in a single sentence. But it seems that the BBC likes any chance to drag Boston through the mire. And incidentally, was the introductory script  on BBC Radio Lincolnshire entirely accurate, when it said that the MEPs’ concern came  “… after a convicted killer from Latvia was allowed into Lincolnshire to kill again …”  How do you do that, then? Do you fill in an application form, or something similar?
They say that there’s nothing new under the sun, and we were entertained to note the strong resemblance between Boston BID’s long awaited 3D map and those produced 350 years ago by the celebrated artist Wenceslaus Hollar (see below)

click to enlarge

Given the obvious difficulties of the day, Hollar created his maps with no need for dozens of aerial photographs – and given that time was money in those days, we suspect he probably produced them much  quicker than the year or more it has taken Boston BID. Unfortunately the BID map uses the same information published on the recently refurbished  so-called tourist information boards – and that means that a number of items are wrong – including South Square being pictured as the Market Place. Again, because of the time factor, the police non-emergency number is now out of date, and we wonder how the town’s businesses feel about their hard earned money being spent to announce that the Springfields shopping outlet is just “a short drive away.” So it’s about par for the course for the BID, really. One final chapter in the saga … we hear that the £17,000 paid for this exercise apparently did not actually include a stock of maps - which have to be bought for an extra 50p each.
It can only be good news that another 6,000 properties in the Boston floodplain have been signed up to receive free flood warnings by telephone. The news came just in time to remind us to attend the last of the Environment Agency’s drop-in sessions on the planned Boston flood barrier. We came away not entirely convinced that the preferred location was the right one.  As is so often the case with projects such as this at all levels, it focussed on the town centre first and foremost, and means that considerable extra construction to raise river banks to protect areas presently not  considered at risk of flooding will be needed. We also asked why the Environment Agency flood risk maps are drawn up as if no protection of any kind existed.  We were told that it was a government idea – to emphasise the potential danger. Now we know who to blame next time our premiums go up with a jolt – or worse still if we are refused insurance entirely, as happens quite often in Boston.
It’s good to see that something is at last being done to address long-standing problems in Wormgate caused by traffic using the road as a rat run. We have always said that Wormgate is badly neglected and could have a  huge tourist impact  with a little cosmetic surgery. It does seem, though, that at least one problem need not exist at all. We hear that “when rain gathers in large puddles, where the road surface has dipped, the vehicles throw waves of water against the properties.” Then,  why is no-one levelling the road surface so that these puddles do not form? Presumably this is the job of Lincolnshire County Council, which is to investigate placing bollards in the road  - but at the same time warning that it could take six to nine months before they are in place. We wouldn’t mind betting that any such problem in Lincoln would be far more rapidly resolved. But we also think that an interim suggestion that extra police should be employed to “dissuade” people from using the road as a shortcut may well cause more trouble than it prevents. If no order to the contrary exists,  surely motorists can use the road as they wish.
On the one hand, Boston’s Giles Academy describes itself as “leading edge” – whilst in the same breath placing the advert below in our local papers.

click to enlarge

“Wanna be …?” Presumably, the academy thinks that such an advert makes the place look “cool.” The word that springs to our mind is “naff.”
Finally, we mentioned that the last time the Business Target appeared in our local paper, out of 40 news stories, none featured Boston- and the nearest to the town  concerned in-house awards to Marshalls of Butterwick. Nothing much has changed with the current issue. Of roughly the same number of stories, again, none is from Boston – and co-incidentally the only nearby story again involves Butterwick … this time featuring a firm that has invented the “world’s first alcoholic foam.” It’s scarcely Nobel prize-winning stuff, and critics of Boston might detect a certain irony. But it begs a few questions. Firstly -   is the supplement based on enquiries by reporters?  If so, are they neglecting to make many calls to Boston? If not, then we must ask what Boston businesses are doing to promote themselves by providing information to local supplements such as this? Meanwhile, the Target  produces  a generously  paged publication  - when the reality is that trees are being felled in vain just to make it look good.

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

Homelessness report has a much bigger story to tell

Christmas must be coming – because interest in homelessness is gathering momentum.
It's even on the agenda in Boston – at tonight’s meeting of the borough’s Corporate and Community Committee.
The committee asked for the discussion, and several speakers will ‘give evidence’  so members can discuss the issues and examine areas for future consideration - including Centrepoint Outreach, the Crime Reduction Initiative and Axiom Housing. A summary about homelessness from Boston Mayflower will also be presented.
The debate follows a row earlier this year between the council and Centrepoint, who accused the borough of refusing to recognise the "hidden" homeless.
The charity said they helped about 40 homeless people each month, but the council's official figures were no more than 12  - based on the government's definition of homelessness, which says “rough sleeping” is people sleeping out in the open.
Centrepoint said that many homeless people remained hidden at night for safety, and therefore eluded the count.
Certainly, there are plenty of figures to go at on tonight’s agenda – including many that are completely unrelated to homelessness – but which paint a worrying picture of Boston in the future.
These include projections that the number of married couples will decline by 800 between 2001 and 2033 – from 12,000 to 11,200 – whilst the number of couples living together will rise from 2,150 to 3,800, and the number of lone parent families will increase from 1,850 to 3,000.
Although this does not bear directly on homelessness, it shows the apparently irresistible decline in family life –  an issue which many people feel needs addressing independently.
There are a larger number of houses in multiple occupation than we would have thought – a total of 460 - and also a large number of vacant dwellings that might be used to ease homelessness … including 137 owned by social landlords and 48 belonging to other public sector organisations.
And again, a large number of the borough’s 28,237 houses are deemed to be not decent – 8,100 - or are thought to be hazardous - 5,650.
A total of 4,210 households are in fuel poverty - which exists if more than 10% of the occupants’ net household income needs to be spent to provide adequate warmth and hot water.
It’s calculated that over the next 20 years or so the borough will need between 220 and 255 new dwellings a year - of which at least half will need to be affordable.
When the report eventually gets to the issue of rough sleeping it says that the Crime Reduction Initiative had “reconnected” 80 migrant rough sleepers as at November 14th - and a multi agency meeting on November 8th agreed on a current figure of 18.
Between April 2010 and March 2011 the borough’s Housing Department helped  in 177 homelessness cases.
Oddly enough, for a report designed to help councillors address the issue of homelessness, the details have more to say about wider social problems facing Boston in the years ahead.
Whilst we are not denying that homelessness is an important issue that must be addressed, the decline of the borough’s social infrastructure, problems with existing housing, and the need for a high level of house building which also include a high level of affordability, almost demands a separate debate in itself.
If you want to read the report in full, you will find it by clicking here and then following the link to tonight’s Corporate and Community Committee agenda. Item 5.

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

Rulers'  September

 song was:

"You are wrong"

Once again, we find that some of the most enlightening information appears in the minutes of meetings – in particular the sections beyond the control of the Tory rulers – when questions can be put to portfolio holders by ordinary members.
So it was on the night of Monday’s council meeting that we perused the minutes of its last “proper” session in September.
It highlights an interesting attitude from the “leadership” towards anyone who dares to challenge their version of events.
It is a simple philosophy - “You are wrong.”
Independent Councillor Ossy Snell asked what the point was of spending £140,000 “renovating” the Hussey Tower, if - when it was finished – it would still not have a roof.
Council leader Peter Bedford said that even though water would still get in, it would not cause further deterioration.
“In simple terms - a roof is not essential.”
Councillor Snell persisted.
“Even if we do finally put a roof on and floors in the Hussey Tower there will be no history in there. It will only be four walls, all the rest will be modern materials.”
But the leader was unmoved.
Showing a knowledge of more recent, as well as medieval history, he replied: “We all know that some 10 years ago it was nicknamed ‘Ossy Tower’ as you wanted to demolish it.”
And after a few more words, he concluded: “If you want to be a (sic) ‘historic vandal’ that is up to you, but I am for preserving our history and buildings.”
No flexible response was forthcoming either from Councillor Derek Richmond, portfolio holder with responsibility for Boston Business Improvement District among other things.
He more or less shrugged off a question from Independent Councillor Richard Leggott about what the BID was doing to improve communication with members, and when asked what monitoring took place on the effectiveness of measures to improve it, replied: “The only monitoring that takes place is if I ask and they tell me.”
Clearly a man who takes responsibility seriously.
Back to the leader, and another dismissive reply to a question from Boston District Independents’ Leader Councillor Helen Staples, about how knowledgeable his cabinet members were about their budgets.
Asked why the portfolio holder was unable to answer questions on the total amount allocated to the sport and leisure budgets, he said that budgets were detailed and complex - and the expectation that individual officers and members would be able to recite budget value without prior warning “is perhaps misplaced.”
We can understand that no-one can have every little number at their fingertips - but the question was apparently about the total budget figure, which we thought would be something a portfolio holder ought to know.
And as we have noted earlier, Councillor Bedford simply can’t resist a gratuitous and barbed snipe whenever the opportunity arises, ending this particular session with the totally irrelevant: “I should also mention that under the previous administration the Portfolio Holder for Revenues and Benefits visited that service area on only two occasions in a year, so don’t tell us we don’t understand”
At least he had the good grace to apologise after Councillor Alison Austin questioned why members of the council were not told of the first meeting of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee, though he distanced himself as far as possible from responsibility.
“Perhaps partly because this is a new venture and because meetings are administered by South Holland, there was an oversight on our part regarding the very first meeting.”
Another question - from Independent Councillor Brian Rush - about the Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens’s now famous feature, “Boston Lincolngrad” asked where, if Mr Hitchens accepted the leader’s invitation to revisit Boston, would he take him, to show what he had called ‘the Real Boston?’”
Out came the sniper’s rifle again.
“As you are aware there were many inaccuracies in the report written by Mr. Hitchin (sic) which I have raised with him and asked that he address in the interests of fairness, accuracy and balance.”
To write at such length about Boston without a word of recognition for the hard work done by committed staff and partner agencies was an insult that, as leader, he had to respond to.
“My invitation to Mr. Hitchin (sic) to revisit Boston is to demonstrate the work that is being undertaken with the migrant population by the council and other organisations … rather than a tour of buildings or areas within the town.
“However, such a tour could include a visit to Wrangle where between 240 and 250 migrant workers are accommodated by Staples Vegetables. They represent as much as ten per cent of the population of the village and are a good example of harmonious living and working arrangements in the borough by people from overseas.”
What is interesting about minutes like these is that they are accepted to be the “official record” of events.
In the case of the answers regarding Peter Hitchens, the allegation of inaccuracy now becomes a fact – as does the following line …
“Mr. Hitchin (sic) admitted he lifted some information in his article from another publication, which turned out to be incorrect.”
To set the record straight, Mr Hitchens acknowledged at the time that he lifted one item, not “some” items of information: “The explosion in the illegal distillery couldn’t be heard five miles away. Bang to rights! It’s a fair cop! I got it out of the ‘Independent’. The whole article collapses as a result. I have ‘invited’ him (Councillor Bedford) to read my article properly, as he doesn’t seem to have done it properly the first time.”
Another item of concern is the regular rejection of propositions at council meetings to suspend Procedure Rule 17.5 so that members can speak more than once during a debate.
Such applications are invariably followed by the sentence “On being put to the vote the proposition was lost.”
That, of course, is because the Conservative majority on the council apparently wishes to encourage brevity rather than debate.
This particular meeting began at 6-30pm and ended at 7-45pm, and from beginning to end covered 18 different items - not including supplementary questions from members - an average of just over four minutes an item.
It that really enough, or does it merely pay lip service to the idea of democratic local government?

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