Friday 30 May 2014


 
A recent soggy stroll into town was re-paid with the usual pop-up tourist attractions – the great lake that springs up at the entrance to the Botolph Street car park, and which seems to get bigger and deeper each time it rains – and the  chain of smaller lagoons which appear as if by magic to adorn the Pescod shopping precinct.
Elsewhere, in Strait Bargate, the rain highlighted the gradually deepening indentations being ground into the cobbles by the remorseless daily grind of the Into Town bus rat run.
In the Market Place, the rain was nurturing the grass and moss growing between the setts, which we somehow feel ought not to be happening.
We didn’t got so far as to check the state of the newly re-surfaced Cattle Market car park, but are certain that the flooding reported to us last week was there in all its saturated splendour.
These dismal sights reminded us of all the recent debate about the future of retailing in Boston – and it is not surprising when you look more closely around you.
The nonsense spouted about the change from retail to “destinations” seems to be exactly that – but the nature of the retail choices are the ones to note.
Boston town centre is an elephants’ graveyard of mobile phone shops, and charity shops.
Just look at our photographs above and you’ll see what we mean.
The view across the Market Place from the abandoned eyesore that once was Millets shows a row of shops bracketed by two that will shortly disappear – the Edinburgh Woollen Mill Shop and Greenwoods.
Between them stand two food shops and a charity shop.
In Strait Bargate, three phone shops side by side dominate the main retail presence, along with food shops and charity shops.
We’ve lost count of the number of beauty and nail parlours, and the recent arrival of yet another tattoo parlour – this time in Pump Square – brings the count to four, as far as we can tell.
The food shops are clearly vital, as a walk through the town is never without an encounter with some of the many Bostonians who have managed to turn synchronised walking, talking and eating into something of a local art from. If ever it became accepted as an Olympic category, the PRSA could house the training camp for this peripatetic pigging.
But we would question how many people in Boston really want to have a tattoo applied whilst simultaneously watching a shoal of toothless garra rufa fish nibbling the dead skin off their feet.
In his most recent epistle to the Bostonians, borough council leader Pete Bedford spoke glowingly of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Planning Committee.
But as we pointed out last week, the problem with organisations such as these is that by and large they are nothing more than talking shops.
What is the point in literally spending years and years in meeting after meeting when at the end of the day events overtake decisions and the hands of planners are so heavily tied?
It ought to be possible for a truly local plan to spell out what a town centre should accommodate – the correct blend of shops and services that would make it uniquely attractive to both residents and visitors alike.
But in reality, this is not the case.
Plans for a change of use cannot be turned down simply because local councillors say that “enough is enough.”
Otherwise, we should surely not have row upon row of mobile phone shops, leavened with fast food outlets, charity shops and of course, bookies’ shops.
And certainly, we do not think that the five years between 2008 and 2013 would have seen the number of shops, supermarkets and newsagents with an off-licence facility across Boston increased by two thirds – from 35 to 59 if it had been possible to refuse many of the applications.
The sad reality is that a look at the centre of Boston shows that when shops become empty, there is no shortage of candidates for the vacancies.
Phone shops predominate because they are high profit companies with low overheads locked in unending cutthroat competition with their rivals which need to be nearby so that the one that shouts the loudest with the most attractive offers is the one that gets the trade.
Others – the charity shops and the like – often rely on empty properties becoming available on short term agreements made with landlords who think that a token rent is better than no rent at all.
The only two that appear to buck that trend are on Wide Bargate – the so-called community rooms which have manage to out-shab some of the shabbiest empty and neglected buildings in the area in the long term, and which are a disgrace to behold.
In the meantime, the great and the good of Boston stick with the promise of jam tomorrow – which as we all know, never comes.
As Benjamin Franklin wrote in Poor Richard's Almanack  He that lives upon hope will die fasting.”

***

One reason that jam features on tomorrow’s menu so regularly is that too many people who are old enough (and consider themselves important enough) grasp at straws when they think that at last, some big idea is coming to the rescue of Boston’s flagging fortunes.
A few years ago, it was the Merchants Quay project, which was going to transform Boston into a regional magnet for shoppers, but which fell flat on its face when the big name store that used to take pole position in such schemes decided to pull out.
More recently, there were banner headlines with the announcement of a £3 million marina to be built on Fenside Road.
That was back in September 2012 – since when there doesn’t seem to have been another word.
Now though, Boston is teetering on the brink of  “a major regeneration project” with the application for the first phase of “The Quadrant” development at leafy Wyberton.
If you are the developer, then this plan is the best thing since sliced bread – and the headlines for it have been hugely favourable, to the point where it seems impossible to conceive that a single soul could possibly have a bad word to say for it.
Not only that, but Boston borough councillors have lauded the plans as "bold", "visionary" and "ambitious" – so they’re not asking any questions either.
Interestingly, so far only the new football stadium is a full application to allow for work on that part of the scheme to begin without delay if approval is given.
This is because the lease on Boston United’s existing York Street ground expires in January 2018, so a new home is something of a priority.
The football club is also owned by the developer behind the Quadrant scheme, and to us, the elephant in the room is not so much what is built at Wyberton, but what happens to the current club site.
It’s not rocket science to speculate that it will become yet another housing development – despite the fact that it is badly situated when you take into account the huge increase in traffic using John Adams Way and other local roads that would result.
However, any application would become almost irresistible once a new stadium was up and running – something which no-one yet seems to have mentioned.
It would be wrong to imagine that everything is rosy as far at the Quadrant plan is concerned, though.
Brian Rush – a former Boston borough councillor until his retirement on health grounds – is now happily well enough to take on board the concerns of some local people which might otherwise have been swept away in the current wave of euphoria.
He told Boston Eye:  “I am very concerned at the lack of investigative response that has been shown by local residents. One wonders though, whether the ‘publicity’ so far is designed in such a way so as to reduce the level of resistance!
“I am, I’m afraid, becoming more than a little suspicious of how ‘aspirational proposals’ seem to get plastered across front pages of the local press, so far in advance of being ‘officially presented to officials and elected members including, members of the local Planning Committee.’ That cannot be right.
“However, it is even more worrying that the aspirations of ‘developers’ are sometimes given generous exposure to members, under the guise of the developer’s charitable desire into gaining a better understanding of Boston’s possible future requirements.”
He goes on: “I am becoming increasingly suspicious of how one begins to see the project being portrayed in the local press, and indeed through electronic media.
“It seems to me that by using this ‘aspiration’ in a particular way, the ‘developer’ is able to present a ‘fabulous (though of course, only aspirational) project in a particular area.’
“At this point a ‘fantasy’ is created ... completely unhindered by such things as planning laws, impact on residents and amenities! After all, it is nothing more than ‘an idea.’
“Of course neither does one need to take account of implications or ‘impact assessment’  burdens upon infrastructure, increase in traffic,  lack of or provision of parking amenities etc. etc.
“But – and  it is a very important BUT –  the  man in the street who only sees the ‘fabulous headline’ worded in a very specific way might then simply believe that, he must have missed the ‘notice’ when Planning Permission Had Been Given!
“It does not take very many residents to think this, in order to seriously lessen any resistance to the project.
“We are not all guilty of being so easily misled, but for everyone that ‘thinks they have missed the deadline’ it reduces that resistance, and the developer can once again rub his grubby little hands!
“The residents have to endure forever the outcomes.
“The Wyberton Quadrant Action Group has been set up to oppose this development, and ask the people of Wyberton to join us in a protest meeting.”
The first phase of the Quadrant scheme will be discussed at a special meeting of Boston’s planning committee in late August or early September.
And guess what, the phase after that will include … a marina.

***

Last week’s European parliamentary elections had unusual repercussions here in Boston – with some unwanted and unwelcome support for the United Kingdom Independence Party, when a sign was nailed to a preserved tree on Pilgrim’s Patch near John Adams Way, which commemorated 200 years of American Independence.
The sign was one of several which sprang up around the town, and the one on Pilgrim’s Patch sent Boston Borough Council’s Portfolio holder for bridges, planters and flags, “berserk” according to local “newspaper” reports. – which is something that we are sorry not to have witnessed.
Sue Ransome, UKIP’s county councillor for Boston East, told us: “About four weeks ago we noticed a tall thin sign saying ‘UKI’ situated in the roundabout at Liquorpond Street – you  couldn't see the  ‘P’ because of the undergrowth.  This was then cut and the whole of the sign was visible.
“I rang Andy Wharff at Lincolnshire Highways and reported it to him.
“1 – It wasn’t an official UKIP sign.
“2 – We had no idea who would have put it there,
“3 – We didn't have permission from the owner of the sign to remove it, and finally, we didn’t feel that it was safe for one of us to try to remove it in the middle of all the traffic, therefore we asked the council to remove it.
“I then made several other calls over the next few days reporting all the others we had seen. These were mainly sited in the centre of roundabouts. 
“After about a week all went quiet and we saw no more.”
Subsequently, the Electoral Office at Boston Borough Council rang Mrs Ransome’s husband Don, a UKIP organiser, and asked him to remove a sign which had appeared at Burgess Pit. 
“Don and our son went down and found a similar sign there, which they removed.
“This was followed by several more calls from the Electoral Office reporting more of these signs, including one at Pilgrims Patch, one near the Memorial Garden in Wide Bargate and finally one which was in somebody's home …  they had displayed the  centrefold of the UKIP leaflet in their own window.
“We then drove around looking for and removing others that we found on the main roadways in the town.
“UKIP use ‘corex’ boards which are produced with no individual names on and are the only boards/signs which we have ever used. 
“These are attached by tie wraps/cable ties to lamp posts and street signs, once we have applied for and received permission.
“Further, we always remove them again once the election is over and before the time limit for removal, thereby being environmentally friendly and being able to use then again and again.
“Also, as the Poppy Appeal organiser for Boston and District having managed to raise more than £125,000 over the last five years, does anyone really think that we have a complete disregard for the very important links we have with the past whether it be one of the many war conflicts or the anniversary of our town’s link with the past and the Pilgrim Fathers?
“Both Don and I have a great respect for tradition and heritage, and we would never damage any type of property, particularly a very important tree.”

***

 Still with last week’s elections, the upsurge in UKIP seats on local councils across the land is being hailed as one in the eye for the old established parties – but we are not so sure in the longer term. Recent events in Lincolnshire and more locally in Boston itself all go to show that a few swallows do not a summer make.
UKIP’s Lincolnshire storm which last year saw the party gain 16 seats at the expense of the Conservative overall majority rapidly fragmented through political dissent, and now just eleven of them fly the party flag.
And at borough council level we have seen two councillors elected under the UKIP banner reject the party entirely.
They now stand as “Lincolnshire Independents” which we suppose sounds better than U-seless Kippers!

***

Despite all this, local support for UKIP was considerable in the Boston counting area – in fact it was claimed to be the biggest level of support in the entire country
With 14,697 of an electorate of 44,081 – that’s just 33.34% - voting, UKIP polled 7,570 votes. The Tories were next with 3,661, Labour with 1,613 and the Liberal Democrats with 631. The rest of the field was: An Independence from Europe 364;  British National Party 214; English Democrats 157; Green Party 445 and the Harmony Party 21.
Might we see and more name changes in the not-too-distant future to reflect the results, we wonder?

***

As might be expected, UKIP leader Nigel Farage remains bullish, and according to some reports is considering Boston as a possible seat to fight at next year’s general election.
Writing in the Spectator, George Eaton says: “My guess is that Farage will look to Lincolnshire, where UKIP is now the official opposition after winning 16 county council seats and depriving the Tories of overall control. The party performed notably well in Boston, where it won ten of the 11 divisions after capitalising on local concern over immigration (the town has been nicknamed "Little Poland" due to its high eastern European population, the largest outside of London.)
“As a result, one of the seats Farage is likely to be eyeing for 2015 is Boston and Skegness, where the party finished fourth in 2010 with 9.5 per cent of the vote  – its second best result after Buckingham.”
This may be a little out of date given the ructions here in Kippershire, but Boston is certainly on a number of lists as a target seats – although most commentators think that Farage will seek a Westminster berth closer to home.

***

So where does that leave our local MP Mark Simmonds – 50 earlier this year, and celebrating and clocking up 13 years of “service” as our MP next month
According to Chairman Pete, he should be “worried” about the threat of UKIP at the 2015 general election.
He told Radio Lincolnshire that whilst he “wouldn’t say he wasn’t happy” with our MP – this is known as damning with faint praise – he needed to come to Boston more often.
“I think Mark should be worried, and we have been telling him so now for around two years. So Mark is going to have to be working very, very hard during this next year.”
Mr Bedford said that Mr Simmonds should be more like his fellow Tory MP  in Lincoln, and be in Boston more than just Fridays and weekends.
Whilst it was reported that “a source close to Mark stressed that he needed to be in Westminster in the week to represent Boston in parliament,” there was no clue as to quite what this involved.
And the fact is that the period of “around two years” quoted by Mr Bedford is roughly the same as the MP has been a Foreign Office minister – which sees him out of the country for a lot of the time.
With the political nous for which he is legendary, Mr Bedford said that UKIP’s success in the Europe “didn’t come as a surprise”
“I think the general public really need to get to the bottom though, of what UKIP actually stand for because they don’t publish any policies whatsoever, so nobody really knows what they’re voting for other than, if you like, rejection of Europe.”
And asked what he thought people were voting for, his response was to declare: “That’s the million dollar question, if we knew that we could probably correct it” – which translated means says do whatever we can to cling on to power.
Clearly, he’s a man with his finger on the pulse, and not – as some of you might have thought – the man most likely to have achieved what many thought impossible … which is to make the Boston Bypass Independent party seem not so bad after all.
He said he had a meeting with other regional MPs, and council leaders at Westminster on June 9th and that if he saw David Cameron he would tell him to bring the referendum forward from 2017.
That’ll do it, then.
Mr Simmonds, meanwhile, has offered a tepid defence in a video interview on the Boston Standard website – largely a party political broadcast coupled with the claim that we should all be grateful and proud that he is the first local MP to achieve ministerial status.

***

In her acceptance speech after taking office we’re told that Boston's new Mayor Alison Austin made an “impassioned” speech calling for enriched community spirit and greater pride in Boston to be at the heart of all the borough council does in the year ahead.
Since no one appears to have asked, shouldn’t this be the case all the time, and without the need for any prompting by stating the obvious?

***

We commented last week on the latest attempt to make the borough council’s feeble fund raising campaign for Boston War Memorial seem as though it was storming along like a mountain stream after the winter snows have melted with a donation by local and county councillor Bob McCauley from his Big Society Fund – which is of course, funded by we taxpayers.
Worryingly, we noted that when doing his party piece for the Boston Daily Mouthpiece, Councillor McAuley commented: “It’s right that there is a public commemoration of the centenary of the start of the First World War, as it will be right that, in four years’ time, we celebrate the centenary of the end of that dreadful conflict.”
What?
Do it all again?
Won’t we have enough obelisks to go on with by then?

***

According to a report last week, two thirds of councillors are male, revealing the extent of sexism faced by women in local government. The research – by the equality organisation, the Fawcett Society, also showed that nine out of ten council leaders are men.
The Society’s Head of policy, Daisy Sands, said: "We have found numerous examples, across the country and from a range of parties, of male councillors making sexist, offensive and derogatory remarks about both women generally and their female colleagues.”
She added: "Local government accounts for almost a quarter of all public spending in the UK but how and where this money is spent is being decided in town halls where an average seven in ten councillors are male."
Here in Boston, where our council can never be accused of trend-setting or being imaginative, we note that the male domination is replicated, with 23 of the 32 members being male – although this balance could be questionable given the number of silly old women claiming to be male councillors
Sadly, we are aware that the accusations that sexist, offensive and derogatory remarks are made from male councillors to their female counterparts are also true in Boston – although fortunately, not rife.
But bearing in mind some of those whom we understand have made such comments, we are not surprised.
 
***

It looks as though someone had a good time at Boston’s Witham Country Park recently – although we’re sure that the borough’s hard working environmental staff would rather that the celebrants took their litter home as the slogan requests.

 
Perhaps the ban on drinking in public places isn’t such a bad idea after all if it prevents eyesores such as this.

***

And speaking of litter … we note that Boston College’s annual art exhibition is being staged at the town’s White Hart.
We don’t know much about art, as the saying goes, but among the exhibits generously described by Boston Borough Council as “works of art” is one of a bicycle leant against a wall – perhaps seen by the artist as symbolic of the town.
Unfortunately, some bright spark intent on publicising the exhibition has stuck up a couple of posters on the former Boston Body Shop window in Mitre Lane.
Given the appalling state of some empty shops in the town centre, the owner of this one redecorated after it became empty so it at least looked presentable.
Which is why a theoretically responsible organisation such as Boston College, should not be setting a bad example which others may possibly follow.
We call it littering – but perhaps in art-speak it might be described as an “installation.”

 

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

 




Friday 23 May 2014



Somehow, we weren’t surprised to read that a ban on drinking in the town centre has been recommended after “consultation” with the public by Boston Borough Council.
It showed that 97% of the people who filled in a questionnaire on the borough’s website said the council should ban drinking alcohol in defined public places, and that 94% believed that people should not be allowed to drink in the street and parks.
The vote was so  was so decisive that we were reminded of last month’s voting in North Korea where the leader Kim Jong-un was unanimously re-elected to the country’s parliament after every single eligible person turned out to vote – with only his name on the ballot paper.
We don’t know how many people responded to the Boston survey – which didn’t exactly bend over backwards to obtain as wide a spread of opinion as possible – but as we have previously pointed out, bringing in a legal sledgehammer to crack a nut is unlikely to make much by way of a difference without proper enforcement – something which has been sadly lacking to date.
The council argument appears to be that once a law exists to ban drinking, then the problem will disappear as if by magic.
But it won’t unless the police, the PCSOs and the council’s own anti-social behaviour squad ensure that the pressure on people drinking in areas where they’re not wanted is maintained until the problem eventually goes away.
***

It seems that the Worst Street answer to pretty well everything would be to make it illegal if at all possible.
We’ve commented in the past about the council’s approach to the public when it comes to conforming with the rules, with web page headlines such as: “There will be no hiding place for any who spoil the streets of Boston …”  “Litter louts – we’re watching you… “Waste cowboys could land you with a fine and a criminal record …”  “Don't get caught without a TV licence …” and so it goes on …
The latest be added to the council’s list of ne’er-do-wells are … footballers.
Never mind the fact that the World Cup is just around the corner, it seems that “teenagers” have been playing football on the bowling green in Boston’s Central Park.
Obviously, this is the wrong place for the more strenuous sport of soccer, and as the council points out there are “acres” of more appropriate space.
But is it not a tad premature to brand the activities of a bunch of lads kicking a ball around as “anti-social” behaviour, and demand that the public call the police if they spot the culprits at play.
As always, Boston’s head parkie, Councillor Yvonne Gunter, has some sound bites for the occasion:
“Boston Borough Council does not have grounds staff  in Central Park at the weekends …  they cannot be on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week …there are occasions when the grounds staff are not in the park on a weekday …. their duties are not solely restricted to Central Park … they are not the police and …are not expected to deal with potentially violent individuals   at such times we rely on the public to alert the police to anti-social behaviour occurring in the park    make a call on 101.”
But the police have their excuses as well, and say:” We have competing demands on our resources which influences the amount of time officers are visibly on patrol in the park so we continue to urge members of the public to report incidents of anti-social behaviour as soon as they witness it in order that we can respond as effectively as possible."
Having been on the receiving end of this “effective” response recently, we would advise people to save the time of a phone call – but perhaps we were just unfortunate.
Surely, there is a better way to deal with a relatively minor problem at an early stage than to criminalise kids for having fun – even though at present, it is in the wrong place.
Come on Boston Borough Council, these are your future voters and taxpayers – why don’t you treat them with a little more consideration.

 ***

Following our recent criticism of the way that the Boston Town Area Committee – BTAC – spends its money, some changes appear to have been made.
It now seems that instead of giving away money to anyone who asks for it, regardless of whether their cause will benefit the ten “parished” wards  which are charged a local  tax for the “benefit,” BTAC is coming up with its own ideas for spending their budget – regardless.
This latest approach emerged with the news that BTAC has declared itself the “formal organiser” of this year’s Christmas celebrations in Boston. Not only that, but BTAC has agreed to throw in £2,000 from its budget to help things along.
We can’t find any sign of an application for this grant, which has been the preferred route until now, but as a group of councillors and volunteers got this particular ball rolling, this would appear to be reason enough.
As we keep constantly reminding BTAC – and as the committee keeps constantly ignoring – it is funded by local taxpayers, and any monies spent from its budget are intended to use to benefit the town centre wards that its 16-strong membership represents.
Anything of benefit to the wider area must come from the council’s main budget, according to the council’s constitution.
Certainly, the borough’s Christmas celebrations will be for the enjoyment of a far wider audience than just those people living in the town centre wards, who pay around £115,000 a year into BTAC’s coffers.
So why is BTAC and not the main council budget paying?

***

We last asked this question in connection with the funding of a monument to augment the already impressive Boston War Memorial to mark the start of the First World War – which was launched as a council inspiredpublic subscription.”
But instead, when the money was not forthcoming, we saw BTAC race to the rescue to underwrite the cost to the tune of £4,000 so as to guarantee the ordering of the chunk of stone or iron required to mark the event.
This is in addition to a further £3,000 guaranteed over a three year period from the committee to help with the general maintenance of the memorial area.
Meanwhile, Bostonians at large remain unaware of this generosity, as the council is giving the impression that the public appeal is storming ahead after raising a pitiful £600 in its opening months – half of which came from sources connected with or funded by the council.
Those of you who pay the ward tax to BTAC comprise around half the population of Boston, and there is supposed to be a specific and local reason when it is spent.
What, we wonder, would the residents of Wyberton, or Frampton have to say if a chunk of their parish precept was hijacked for a town centre project?
Handing money to BTAC  these days is like  investing with someone that you ought to be able to trust who promises to use it wisely and for your benefit, but who then sees something that they like better and so blows your money on  that ...

***

And still the nonsense goes on.
Tuesday’s  edition of the Boston Daily Mouthpiece told its handful of readers that the memorial plan had received a £500 boost – this time in the form of a hand-out from one of the council’s political chameleons – Boston Borough and Lincolnshire County Councillor Bob McAuley –  ex-UKIP, ex-UKIP Lincolnshire, ex-Independence from Europe, and now (or at least the last time we looked) Lincolnshire Independents.
Mr McAuley has forked out a quarter of his county council financed Big Society Fund  to the appeal – so yet again, Lincolnshire taxpayers are helping to pay for a Boston Borough Council devised stunt which is purportedly a public subscription.
The remainder of the bulletin article recycles a lot of old news about the involvement of local schools in the project which – whilst it will give the kids a bit of fun, will most likely contribute a mere drop in the ocean towards the fund – leaving it still as a burden on the public purse, which is not supposedly the intention.

***

Now, we expect to be branded anti-Christmas as well as disrespectful of the 1914-1918 veterans – but this is not the case.
The point is that we have a committee which is bounded by rules, which are there to be adhered to, and not cast aside whenever it suits the predominantly Tory committee.
Interestingly, we suspect that there is some shame among the members at these entirely justified criticisms, as no-one has stepped forward to tell us that our interpretation is wrong.
Over the years, if we have misread an issue, someone has always been there to tell us, and we in turn have put the matter right.
But this time, the silence from Worst Street is deafening in its intensity.

 ***

As is so often the case, if there is a right way to go about a project such as commemorating the outbreak of the First World War, Boston Borough Council can be relied upon to come up with an alternative.
Nearby South Kesteven District Council wanted to restore Grantham’s Wyndham Park to its former glory as a First World War memorial park and one of the district's finest assets.
Working jointly with the park’s Forum, SKDC applied for and have received initial support from the Heritage Lottery Fund and have been awarded development funding of £117,000 to help them progress their plans to apply for a full grant at a later date to earn total funding of £875,900.
Another lesson for Boston has come too late – although common sense might have suggested the lottery fund as a potential source of funds.
***

And still with matters financial, we note that after the recent closed meeting of the Boston Big Local group – self-appointed with spending £1 million on our behalf –  another meeting has been arranged … again behind closed doors. “to discuss the best next step and how to move forward.”
The last meeting was the one where members considered a timeline “resisting looking into the future” and were compared to a wheel with more people at the rim, and the spokes providing tension and connecting to the hub (that’s the core group) to everyone on the rim.
Dear Lord, spare us from much more of this.
Could we suggest that the best next step should be to come out into the open and tell the people of Boston who you are and what you are proposing?
***

A letter from “a fed up tax payer” (fate forefend!) asks: “Why does a local councillor deliberately ignore the flooding of three parking bays on the refurbished Cattle Market car park site?
“It`s now light mornings so on trips to and from the paper shop it must be noticeable.
“Doesn`t anyone check to make sure a correct job has been carried out?”
The answer to this is clearly “no.”
But where a councillor equally clearly is in a position to see a problem first-hand that needs addressing then they should do something about it, shouldn’t they?

***

A couple of weeks ago we mentioned that someone in the ruling group at Worst Street had come up with the brilliant idea of taking new photographs of all 32 councillors – apparently because it was thought that the present snaps weren’t good enough for the borough council’s website.
We don’t know whether the replacement photo that has just appeared in the list of local councillors is intended to be the first of many or not – but if that is the general idea, could we suggest a change of mind? 

 
Our photo above shows on the left the former “stock” picture of Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire, relaxed, smiling benignly and looking every inch the man they call Boston’s Chancellor of the Exchequer.
But who is the ill-at-ease looking individual on the right who has taken his place?
The suit and tie appear to be the same, but this snapshot looks more like a man on his way to the scaffold than the self-assured joint deputy leader that we all know and love.
If nothing else, the picture will reinforce the argument of those critics who said that there was nothing wrong with the original pictures in the first place.
 

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
 

Friday 16 May 2014




We’ve become accustomed to the appearance of a week or month that draws attention to things that lazy public relations promoters can’t be bothered to apply any more than the minimum of effort to.
This week sees rabbit awareness week – and too many others to mention, including eat what you want day, international day of families and the great British fish and chip supper.
Yet so far, not one seems to have found time to create a Waffle Awareness Day – but if one were ever to be created, we would nominate Boston as the base for its national headquarters.
For instance ...
Last week we mentioned Council Leader Pete Bedford’s apparently limitless knowledge of things that we ordinary mortals can only guess at,  with his pronunciations on flooding and the Boston Barrier.
He has also been showing off his knowledge of the retail industry as well, as part of a special feature in the Boston Standard.
As you might expect, it was littered with buzzwords such as sustainability, resilience and flexibility, with the bottom line that “the internet and fast-changing shopping habits have transformed how we shop.
“So there is no way the traditional town centre or high street can expect to be able to stay exactly as it always has been,” he declared.
Whilst that argument holds some water (as will the Boston Barrier, Mr Bedford repeatedly reassures us) it is not as applicable to Boston in the same way as it is to other shopping centres.
Mr Bedford rattles on about footfall – which does not strike us as especially impressive, as the council’s own figures claim an average daily figure of less than 2,500 – and a decline of traditional shops “as more people look to town centres for their leisure, community and evening economy, eating and drinking needs.”
If they do, they may well be disappointed, as the council seems likely to introduce rigorous curbs on drinking in public places.
It seems that the Puritans never left Boston after all.
All of this leads to the pronouncement: “We also need destinations, not necessarily shops.”
Fine, but what did your scriptwriter have in mind, Mr Bedford?
One of our greatest assets, the new, improved, Market Place, has never been exploited to a fraction of its potential.
Two years ago it was said that avenues being “explored,” included  establishing an expanded open air street café, working with specialist craft market sellers to “potentially” introduce a “small” fortnightly craft market into the Market Place on Thursdays and Fridays, whilst further ideas, including farmers’ markets and other types of continental markets were also being “explored.”
The council was also “seeking” to establish a series of summer events in the Market Place that could involve local groups such as performing arts, musicians, choral groups and the like.
Discussions and feasibility “remained in their early stages” (and stayed there, it seems) but the declared aim was to encourage good quality and attractive street entertainment, “subject to the management resources being available.”
Here’s a reminder of what’s happened so far … 

 

Mr Bedford goes on to talk about the South East Lincolnshire Joint Planning Committee's retail study forecasts up to 2031, which also refers to a reduction in retail space in Boston down the years.
We’ve looked at this report.
It mentions Boston six times – only by way of a name-check – and nothing by way of any imaginative ideas.
And we mentioned waffle earlier on.
Oh dear...
Just reading the timetable tells you all you need to know …
The phrase “all mouth and no trousers” springs to mind.
January - April 2012 – Sustainability Appraisal scoping report. 
May 2012 - April 2013 – Preparation of Preferred Options and Sustainability Appraisal report.
May - June 2013 – Public participation on Preferred Options and Sustainability Appraisal report.
June - December 2013 – Consideration of representations and discussions with stakeholders.
January - September 2014 – Further work in response to the consideration of representations, the findings of additional evidence gathering and identification of options for site allocations.
October - November 2014 – Consultation period on options arising from further work and options for site allocations.
December 2014 - March 2015 – Consideration of representations and discussions with stakeholders.
April 2015 - September 2015 – Preparation of ‘Draft Local Plan.’
October - November 2015 – Consultation period on Draft Local Plan.
December 2015 – Submission of Draft Local Plan to the Planning Inspectorate.
March 2016 – Public Examination.
June 2016 –   Receipt of Inspector’s report.
July 2016 – Consideration of Inspector’s report by Joint Committee.
August 2016 – Adoption of Local Plan.
Looks great on paper, doesn’t it.
But will it come to anything?
That’s doubtful.
Even Boston Borough Council has admitted that planning so far into the future is impossible these days because of ever-changing economic and other factors.
And a couple of other points made by Mr Bedford …
He says that Boston Borough Council facilitates business by providing a wide range of car parks in a lot of locations.
Yes, but income from these is falling because the council is greedy and sees motorists as nothing more than cash cows.
Therefore, fewer people park in the town centre … so business declines … so shops close … and nothing by way of an alternative is provided.
He also talks about an £80,000 investment in the shop front and building repair grant scheme in partnership with English Heritage.
When this was announced two years ago, it was said that £650,000 could be made available over five years.
Since then, the scheme has been poorly publicised and promoted and the take up abysmal – and soon the money will no longer be available.
None of this points to any reasons to be cheerful – so why Mr Bedford is so sanguine is anyone’s guess.
There’s little point in trumpeting jam tomorrow plans some 17 years hence when we are doing nothing for the here and now.
But sadly, this is what seems to be a regular occurrence in Boston.

 ***
 
Continuing our waffle theme, we noted at the first meeting of Boston Big Local since the various internal tribulations beset it was held behind closed doors with what limited reporting there was done under  the Chatham House Rules, which keeps the names of speakers anonymous.
Apparently the “pathway” was discussed, and a timeline “resisting looking into the future” with  the Big Local compared to a wheel with more people at the rim, and the spokes – people supporting decisions – providing tension and connecting to the hub (that’s the core group) to everyone on the rim.
It all sounds very high falutin’ and highly pretentious, but what we think the group needs is a bicycle pump before anything else.

***
 
After we wrote about next year’s local elections, we were reminded of an e-mail we received soon after we resumed blogging earlier this year, and which summed up the situation vis-à-vis our “leadership” very nicely.
The writer declared: “It would seem that throughout the political landscape nowadays there is a prime desire for maintaining a grip on power without a full acknowledgement that the power sought comes from the electorate.
“Until we can shake off the party system and its accent on working for party power sooner than working for the common good, we shall continue to have to listen to such drivel from people could, with an unfettered mind, really do better for Boston.”

***

Interestingly, we recently had occasion to enlist the aid of one of our ward councillors for help to with an irritating problem – and were soon reminded of the inaccuracy of the expression “you don’t keep a dog and bark yourself.”
We have sought help from this councillor before – in fact, we hoped it might be a case of third time lucky – but this was not to be.
After a silence of some weeks, we sent a follow-up e-mail, only to be told that we had received no reply because the original had not arrived.
This seemed unlikely, as we had used the “official” Boston Borough Council address, and had entered it correctly, and nor had we had the message rejected as undeliverable.
And oddly enough, this self-same councillor had used this self-same explanation before.
Finally, after several weeks, we were told that the councillor in question could not help, as the matter fell within the remit of Lincolnshire County Council, and thus beyond the  sphere of operation of our local member.
We were given a ’phone number, and that was the end of the story.
Well, not quite.
A check which took less than five minutes came up with a local office of the county department – and one which was based in Worst Street as well.
One e-mail to them and the problem was resolved within days.
It seems not unreasonable to imagine that after three years in office our well-paid local representative might have acquired this information – or perhaps not.
We wonder how many others have been told that their e-mail had not arrived – and failed to take matters any further.

***

 Meanwhile, we note that the former UKIP-pers on Boston Borough Council remain as committed as ever when it comes to getting to grips with local politics.
Readers may remember that when Bob McAuley and Patrisha Ann Keywood-Wainwright were elected to the council under the UKIP banner, it was not too long before they defected to a sub group in support of Councillor Chris Pain, who was removed as county leader by the national party.
Complaining of  “the complete lack of respect, and the unprofessionalism" with which the party officers dealt with their concerns, they decided to rename themselves “UKIP Lincolnshire.”
But under council rules, the group name could no longer include the name UKIP.
Arise, the  Independence from Europe  group …
But after Monday’s Mayor-making ceremony, where guests included County Councillor Marianne Overton – the incongruously styled “leader” of the Lincolnshire Independents – Boston’s dynamic duo came up with yet another name for their merry band.
Henceforth, they will be known as Lincolnshire Independents, and have switched allegiance to LI at the Lincoln head office as well, where they join Boston’s newly appointed Mayor, Councillor Alison Austin.
Mrs Austin is also no stranger to political name changes. After four years in office as a member of the  Boston Bypass Independents, the  slaughter of the party at  the 2011 local elections prompted a change of name to the  Boston District Independents in 2012  – presumably to fool some of the people some of the time who thought they were re-electing a BBI candidate.
But then for some unspecified reason, the BBI survivors changed their title yet again, and are now known as the Independent Group 2.
Many people will argue that what you call yourself doesn’t matter as much as what you do.
But in the case of our two most recent arrivals at Worst Street we struggle to think of anything that they’ve done – except to stand as candidates for a national party and then abandon the people who elected them.
Worse still, the chance of any decent crack at organised opposition in the council chamber has gone down the drain because of all this childishness among parties.
***

 Still with elections, we suppose that it was inevitable, but Boston is coming in for the usual treatment from our friends in Fleet Street as the European poll looms large on the horizon.
In Saturday’s Times, beneath the headline: “They’re not so worked up over Poles in the heart of Ukipshire” there appeared a story that can be summed up by these two paragraphs …
“Boston doesn’t get worked up by the outside world. It was once a semi-comatose retirement haven. Then it became the town where no one went, its skills — wool, weaving, goose feathers — largely irrelevant.
“Then in the space of a decade, dating from the accession of east European countries to the EU, it became a place where everybody east of the Oder wanted to go. Boston’s population has grown by 15 per cent to 65,000, perhaps ten thousand more if non-registered immigrants are brought into the sum, and it has become more noisy, more Slav, and in certain areas, more prosperous.”
If you want to read the piece, you can find it here … http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4086045.ece
Yes, and remind us to check the atlas, it you would, so that we can find out which Boston the hacks visit when they make their rare safaris outside the M25 corridor.

***

We read the reports last week about the faster than light response from Boston firm Magnadata to an appeal for a donation to Boston Borough Council’s First World War Centenary Memorial Appeal.
A handout from the council told us: “Within hours … a donation of £100 was in the appeal's bank account.”
Wonderful.
But why – especially as the appeal was launched more than three months ago – has it taken so long to approach on of the town’s biggest companies?
Presumably this is part of an exercise to paper over the cracks and build on the pitiful few hundred pounds generated so far for this “public appeal” – which is now, of course being underwritten by our council tax and therefore cannot fail.
Interestingly, we have seen no reports of this in our local “newspapers” or on the borough council website.
We wonder why.

***

Meanwhile,  another local issue involving money, which many might think was far more significant,  seems low on the council’s agenda.
We’re referring to the £4 million pound government flood defence fund, which so far has gone largely unclaimed.
Of the 700 properties known to have been affected, only 23 have made formal applications.
Boston Borough Council’s “lead flood officer,” Phil Drury, is quoted as saying: "We have tried to get round the homes and businesses we know were hit and make the process as easy as possible.
“It is on the website, we have written to those properties we know were affected but the next stage is perhaps knocking on doors – but people are not always at home.”
It seems to us that really is a case of getting priorities in the correct order, and hope that the council relies less on its website – which is not among the most widely read in the world.
The personal touch may be less high tech but in this case, where many people are still struggling to cope, is certainly more human and more appreciated than expecting people to do your job for you by scouring the World Wide Web for information.
 
***

We mentioned early in April that the long-deceased Councillor Paul Mould was still listed as alive and well and attending regular Staniland South ward surgeries with Councillor Yvonne Gunter on the first Saturday of each month. Despite that, the entry on Boston Borough Council’s website remains unchanged.
 

 
Doubtless this will be put right … eventually.
In the meantime, we know of at least one person who would be grateful for news of  the late councillor.
As an author, he had a book published shortly before Mr Mould died, and whilst it is still on sale he has heard nothing more.
We were able to put him in touch with the funeral directors, who have dealt with a request for a contact with either kin or legal advisors by ignoring it.
But if you would like to help, please let us know, and we will pass the information on.

***

 Finally, we salute the intrepid drivers of Brylaine buses for their skills and patience in negotiating the roads rather than the pavements for a change during the May Fair week.
An announcement on the company’s website showed just how easy it was.
“Boston Mayfair (sic):  Effecting (sic) all service pick-ups. The Market Place and Wide Bargate will be closed to us from 1st  to 11th May 2014 inclusively.  All town service and 61 service will operate from the Boots bus stop and the two bus stops on West Street will be closed and out of use for the duration.”
Now that they’ve shown once again that it can be done, could we suggest that they do us all a favour and stay out of Strait Bargate for the rest of the year as well?
Neither was the Royal Mail slow to let Postman Pat put his feet up during the week of the fair.
For the first time ever, the letterboxes at the old post office on Wide Bargate were sealed up.
Presumably, because it would have required some minor effort to collect the post from it, Royal Snail opted not to bother.
If we were the betting kind, we would put money on the move being a testing of the waters for a permanent closure.

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

 

Friday 9 May 2014




Time and again, we have criticised the Boston Town Area Committee – the committee that thinks it’s a bank – for its disregard of the rules under which it is supposed to operate.
So it is both an irony and a pity that a romantic and poignant idea should instead come to reflect the contemptuous attitude of the powers that be in Worst Street towards the wishes of the people that they claim to represent.
It was on 3rd February that Boston Borough Council announced that “an appeal has been launched for a lasting memorial to be erected in Boston, “funded by public subscription” to commemorate the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War.
We were told that this would take the form of two metal benches in the Memorial Gardens in Boston with an official unveiling and dedication event on the very day of the centenary, Monday, August 4, 2014.
However, this being Boston Borough Council, nothing ever goes as planned, as regular readers will by now be very aware.
Firstly, the public response to the project has been dismal, to say the least.
A report to a meeting of BTAC earlier this week admitted that only £600 has been raised so far – when as much as £5,000 might eventually be needed.
Worse still, of the money so far donated, £200 came from two borough councillors, and a further £100 from one of the borough council funded Placecheck groups – the phrase robbing Peter to pay Paul springs to mind.
Whilst the borough council announced from the outset that a couple of expensive benches would do the job, it then turned out that the ex-service organisations would prefer a stone obelisk.
They have shopped around and found one for £5,000 – but it’s possible that it won’t be ready in time.
At the start of this report, we mentioned that the money was to come from public subscription – but this now seems unlikely given the lack of support for the idea.
So the report to BTAC was not to report progress – but ask the committee to underwrite any shortfall to a maximum of £4,000.
The reports say that the committee – being putty in anyone’s hands when it comes to giving away our council tax – agreed.
As if in anticipation, on 11th April, the council was already telling us “The centenary of the start of the First World War will be marked in Boston with the unveiling and dedication of a pair of specially-designed memorial benches …” – so there!
BTAC has already been more than generous as far as Boston’s war memorial is concerned. On 5th March, the committee delegated authority to establish a memorial flame to commemorate the outbreak of the First World War.
The cost: unspecified.
And at its meeting in November 2012 it made a community grant of £1,000 to the Boston Veterans Memorial Plaque Committee as a contribution to their efforts in the memorial gardens for 2012/13 and further contributions of £1,000 a year for  2013/14 and 2014/15.
So that’s at least £3,000 from BTAC to date, and now the promise to stump up as much as a further £4,000  if needed – which would seem likely to be the case.
However, BTAC should not be making this offer to pay.
Under the council’s constitution, the only items which can legally be charged to BTAC are items provided exclusively or mainly for residents of the town wards that its members represent.
This is clearly not the case with funding memorial benches.
Not only that, but the report rattling the begging bowl under BTAC’s nose was written on behalf of the portfolio holder for bridges, flags, planters and leisure – Councillor Yvonne Gunter – who has a perfectly suitable budget of her own.
But the main point is this …
The council launched a public appeal – although why it did this eludes us, as it is not a local council’s job, and it is also taking up the valuable time of an officer as appeal organiser.
Now that the public has shown that it has no interest in supporting the appeal, instead of accepting defeat with good grace, the council has simply decided to ignore us all and spend our money anyway.
Some people in Boston are currently relying on food banks to supplement their diet.
Others are facing housing problems because of the notorious bedroom tax.
We have some of the most deprived wards anywhere in the country.
Perhaps someone senior at Worst lost a relative in the Great War which might explain this obsession with a memorial.
The council is now proposing to spend some of our council tax contributions on something that we have clearly said we do not want to contribute our money to.
And it is not a small amount.
But never mind eh?
And just one final word, when the event does take place, no doubt a plaque or two will be involved.
Could we please ensure at this early stage that there will be no repeat of the fiasco involving the leisure portfolio holder, whose name somehow became included along with that of the then mayor at the switching on of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee fountain?

***

As we await the e-mails accusing us of disrespecting the war dead from those who can’t appreciate the point we are trying to make, let us just add that
 a: These benches have nothing to do with The Fallen – who are already superbly commemorated  by the Boston War Memorial.
What we are talking about here is something to mark a date – a date which saw the start of a terrible wholesale slaughter the like of which has never been repeated.
If anything, the memorial should be marking the end of the conflict, and
b: Among other appeals for money that came before BTAC this week totalling almost £2,000 were some that were borderline to say the least.
But BTAC is such a soft touch that none of this seems to concern them.

***

A year from today, Boston will have a new council – yes, it’s just 52 weeks until the local elections.
And of one thing we can be certain – two of the current councillors will not be returning, as a review by the Electoral Commission has decided to cut the number of members from 32 to 30, and the number of wards from 18 to 16.
Effectively, we are now in a counting-down period, as it will be impossible to avoid one at local level given that the date coincides with the general election as well.
It’s a good time to review the past three years since the Conservatives unexpectedly gained a majority on Boston Borough Council – without having given any thought to what they would do if they won, as they had never considered the possibility.
What the Tories probably hoped was that they would find themselves – as David Cameron did – in some sort of coalition … most probably with the Bypass Independent Party which had been the Tory bête noir since its landslide victory in 2007.
In that case, they could have thrown their weight around and then blamed someone else when everything went pear-shaped as it certainly has since May 2011.
But landslide followed landslide and the newly elected Tories found themselves up a gum tree without a paddle, if you’ll excuse the mixing of metaphors.
Their time in office to date has been impressively pathetic.
The loyalty of the staff on the Worst Street payroll has been tested time and time again with annual kicks in the teeth such as pay freezes and an unrelenting change for the worse in working conditions …
… and the electorate have seen their wishes ignored and the services for which they pay so dearly decline year on year
And yet, with an aplomb that Horatio Nelson would have admired, our “leaders” turn a blind eye to all this and repeatedly tell us how well they are performing.
Next year’s election will be an interesting test of their belief in what they see as our gullibility.
Boston Eye was highly critical of the BBI for the entirety of its reign, and when the Tories trounced them, we recall the gleeful e-mails we received from certain senior members who believed that we had played a role in the BBI’s downfall, and that after joining their celebrations, we would back them to the hilt in the years ahead.
When that turned out not to be the case, some of them turned nasty, but the fact is that our criticism was entirely objective, and based on their performance and nothing else.
As of this week, the Electoral Calculus analysis of the seven most recent opinion polls put the gap between the two major parties as broadly unchanged, with the Conservatives on 32% (down 1%), Lab 36% (unchanged),  the Lib Dems on 9% (-1) and  UKIP  with 14%  (+2).
The new national prediction is that Labour will have a majority of 40 seats,
Winning a total of 345 seats.
Much of what happens nationally is mirrored locally as the 2011 results showed, so the Tories in Boston need to heed the wake-up call if they don’t want to end up on the scrap heap.
But if they do, no doubt they will cite the ward changes as one of the reasons in the event of a trouncing, and they seem to regard anything that militates against the Tories as being something that is pro-Labour.
They seem incapable of believing that people can be Christian and not go to church if they don’t like the vicar – and, as members of the cabinet also prove regularly, it is possible to be a clown without wearing a comedy wig, a silly red nose, whirling bow tie, water squirting buttonhole and outsize shoes...

 ***

But we are getting ahead of ourselves, because in less than a fortnight there will be the European elections.
So far, the only campaign leaflets to have dropped on to our doormat are from UKIP, and BNP, and Lincolnshire County Councillor Chris Pain – the man who split UKIP at County Hall and now seems to want to do the same in the East Midlands constituency. Doubtless some more will follow, but as with the general election, locally, the big parties seem almost disinterested in telling the voters what they stand for…
At the moment the Electoral Calculus analysis of polls for Europe gives the projected result as Conservatives 22%, Labour 30%, Lib Dems 9%, and UKIP 29%.

***

One thing that we can be sure of is that all our councillors will look their best in any election brochure, as someone in the ruling group has come up with the brilliant idea of taking new photographs of all 32 councillors – apparently because it’s thought that the present snaps aren’t good enough for the borough council’s website.
Ok, the cost of this may not be great – after all it’s only the time of a member of staff arranging to catch up with 32 councillors when they’re next in Worst Street (and in some cases, we suspect that this is something of a rarity) then spending a quarter of an hour or so to make sure that they’ve got the right photo, then the time it takes to replace the appropriate pages on the website.
But for a council that’s strapped for cash it still seems a waste – especially when the job will have to be done all over again a year from now.

***

We thought for a moment that the editors of the free magazine Simply Boston had agreed with us that the monthly outpourings from Council Chairman Pete Bedford were so dreary as to no longer be worth printing when they failed to appear in the last but one issue.
But in the May issue there he was again – like a rash that won’t go away.
As we read “Peter’s Notes” – described as “an insight” as to what is happening in and around Boston – we felt a distinct feeling of déjà vu, which at first we put down to the repetitious nature of his offerings,  wherever they are published.
But then we realised that our sense of déjà vu was because we had déjà viewed the bulk of his words of wisdom on a previous occasion.
Although we were looking at the May issue of the magazine, the bulk of the leader’s column was a reprint of his comments in the Boston Standard on 26th March.
And this is not the first time he has submitted something that he made earlier to the magazine.
We’ve commented before on Councillor Bedford’s attitude towards the tax payers, and examples such as this simply serve to underline everything that we have said.
If he can’t be bothered to get his scriptwriter to come up with something new, then he should not bother, rather than treat us with contempt.

***

It’s not that long ago that Chairman Pete was using his impressive knowledge to tell us that the proposed Boston Barrier was right for the job and in the right place – going so far as to sound a warning to those who might inadvertently de-rail the project and cause delays.
But his confidence is not shared by some who – dare we suggest it – possibly knows more about the subject than he does.
David Matthews, a retired consultant in the field of docks and harbours, flood protection and barriers has e-mailed Boston Eye after recent concerns about the retail future of Boston to ask: “Why are all the shops closing?”
And he helpfully provides the answer.
“Surely this is obvious. Who wants to keep a shop in Boston after the floods?  The insurance will be prohibitive.
“Since around 2000 the Environment Agency (EA) has been working on a barrier, a dual purpose barrier even. 
“It is a pity that it will not serve either purpose well. 
“First it is supposed to increase business by keeping that brown muddy stream we see covered up during the summer season. 
“The EA have admitted to me that they only expect this to work 70% of the time, two tides out of three.  Only on one day in three will it be possible to go all day without seeing the dirty brown stuff.  Will this bring in the business that is claimed? 
“To add to the problems it is my opinion, as a retired lock designer, that they will not be able to keep the lock gates at the Grand Sluice open for the narrow canal boats which are longer than the lock.  This means that they will not be able to use the water link. 
“If I am correct this rather makes a farce of this part of the project, made even worse by the fact that cruise boats will no longer be able to ply from the marina to the wash because a lock is not included in the barrier. 
“The EA inform me that this is acceptable to their client. 
“As the EA is a quango responsible to HMG (Her Majesty’s Government) how can this be?
“But at least the barrier will protect the town from a repeat of 5/12/13. 
“The EA announced this within days, so it must be true. 
“Well actually, no. 
“I stayed well away from the event because I understood the risk but reports tell us that water came pouring through the dock.  How can this be corrected? 
“The dock is downstream of the new barrier site. 
“The dock can be modified either with new gates or a storm barrier and the walls being raised. 
“I understand after my comments that this is now to be done, but we shall see. 
“Walls will also have to be raised from the barrier site downstream; failure to do this will mean that as “fluid dynamics” predict, the water would be higher in front of the new barrier than it was without the barrier on 05/12. Water will overtop.
The obvious place to put a barrier is at the end of the Haven. 
“In January 2010 I went to a public exhibition to decide where the barrier should go.  I told the EA representative – “none of these.”  He therefore introduced me to their then consultant.  No doubt the consultant was expected to convince me of my error.  In fact the opposite was the case and I was asked by him to provide a design document for my ideas. 
“This was multi-purpose.  Keep surges at least four miles from Boston. 
“Keep the tide out during times of high precipitation (such as 2007) allowing the Haven to drain the river and IDB (Internal Drainage Board) drains.  Protect the SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) from storm and also keep a low level in the Haven for small boats (a practice at a number of sites in the UK).
“Sometime after that the consultant parted company with the EA.  It is costly to obtain a consultancy for a project with the EA in competition with others.  They now have a new consultant.
“As I do not live in Boston this is all purely a professional interest other than if they spend charge payers money to correct it, which I do contribute to.”

 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